A Letter to Petula Dvorak About Her Article on Using First Names for Prominent Women
Was "Ride, Sally, ride!" any worse than "Run, Ron, run!"?
Dear Ms. Dvorak,
I respectfully ask that you take the time to read this letter about your recent article in The Washington Post, Kamala. Hillary. Nancy. But not Joe, Donald or Barack. Why? and to thoughtfully consider what I say here.
As a brief introduction, I’m a lifelong reader of the Washington Post who nevertheless has long noticed the paper’s anti-male gender bias, provable by its decades-long imbalanced coverage of domestic violence1 and made undeniable by its 2018 publication of the op-ed Why can't we hate men? Since then, I’ve been sending open letters to Post columnists who have written articles that perpetuate this feminist-inspired bias.
Your article is, unfortunately, another example of this bias.
Please don’t misunderstand. Your article doesn’t come close to the undeniable gender bigotry of the “Why can’t we hate men?” op-ed from 2018, but it’s an example of the kind of daily, run-of-the-mill, feminist-inspired gender propaganda that is so prevalent not only the Washington Post, but throughout almost all of Western media.
It and many, many thousands of similar articles that have appeared in newspapers and magazines throughout the West for the past six decades collectively can, I believe, be summarized with a small tweak to a line from Simon and Garfunkel’s song The Boxer:
Still feminists hear what they want to hear
And disregard the rest
Or, put another way, you and many of your fellow Post columnists have succumbed to a one-sided worldview resulting from 60 years of feminist political, cultural, and legal indoctrination. Your complaint of “first name sexism” assumes that it is only women — and only rarely men — who are referred to by their first names reflects the power of this indoctrination.
Following are examples that illustrate that sexism is a two-way street.
Ride, Sally, Ride
The first example dates back to 1983 when Sally Ride became the first American woman in space. (Note that in 1983 I was a firm supporter of feminism.)
At the time, the event was commemorated by a chant, “Ride, Sally, Ride”, which borrowed from the lyrics of a popular song at the time, “Mustang Sally.” I vividly recall that feminists complained how referring to the history-making astronaut by her first name, instead of “Ms. Ride” was an example of male sexism.
What firmly cemented this controversy into my mind was a campaign slogan, “Run, Ron, Run!”, from Ronald Reagan’s 1984 presidential campaign that was released around the same time as the “Ride, Sally, Ride” complaint by feminists:
Did feminists – or anyone – complain about calling a sitting US president by his first name as an example of female sexism?
OF COURSE NOT!
Women Who Deliberately Use Their First Name
Another example can be found in the use of first names by many prominent women in the entertainment industry.
Beyonce (Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter)
Cher (Cherilyn Sarkisian)
Madonna (Madonna Louise Ciccone)
Shakira (Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll)
Iman (Iman Mohamed Abdulmajid)
Björk (Björk Guðmundsdóttir)
Rihanna (Robyn Rihanna Fenty)
Should we assume that their use of first-name-only monikers are examples of “internalized misogyny”, or accept the obvious, that these savvy, prominent women know the power of using only a first name?
Like “Kamala”.
Referring to Women as “Girls”
On a related note, feminists have often complained about referring to women as “girls”.
This frequent complaint by American women reminds me of a lunch I had years ago with a female high school classmate who I would describe as an “enthusiastic” feminist – a “true believer”, but not quite a radical feminist. (Again, back then I was still a firm believer in feminism.)
Although it’s been decades since that lunch, I remember it well. During our conversation I made the mistake of collectively referring to a group of women as “girls”.
My feminist friend immediately reprimanded me, rudely telling me that it reflected my “male sexism”.
In my defense, I replied that saying “girls” was no more sexist than referring to a group of men as “guys”, that its use was easier than saying “a group of women”, and that even women used it in this way.
Unsurprisingly, she didn’t accept my argument. We continued our lunch conversation.
Just a short while later she unwittingly used the sexist “g-word” when describing a get together with some of her female friends.
I pointed out her feminist faux pas. She hemmed and hawed, weakly saying that her use was (somehow) “different”.
We continued our conversation.
No more than five minutes later she again used the dreaded g-word. This time I didn’t tell her — I only looked at her with a wide-eyed “Oh, come on!” exaggerated look of amazement until she recognized her mistake.
She sat for a few moments, flustered, and quietly said, “It’s still different.”
Bring the Boys Home
Being a man who believed in “true gender equality” (and still a bit miffed at her rude comment about my “male sexism”), I decided to challenge her female sexism with some good old feminist “consciousness raising” — but with the genders reversed.
“As long as we’re on the subject of the use of ‘girls’, what about the commonplace use of the word ‘boys’, often in reference to fully-grown men? Isn’t that ‘female sexism’?”
She looked at me blankly.
“Ever hear of referring to fully-grown male soldiers as ‘boys’?”
Still only blank.
“‘Soldier boy?’ ‘I won’t send your boys to war?’ ‘Bring the boys home?’ ‘Doughboys?’ Isn’t calling fully grown adult men who who can be drafted, often against their will, to die or be grievously maimed in the nation’s wars; isn’t THAT sexist?”
She refused to admit that I had a point.
Still feminists hear what they want to hear
And disregard the rest.
Amber Heard Crying Wolf?
Ms. Dvorak, there may be some truth to the claims of “first name sexism” by some of the women you quote in your article. But after six decades of feminists telling women that they’re eternally oppressed victims of “The Patriarchy”, isn’t it possible that at least some of these complaints are just women crying wolf?
After all, even Amber Heard, who, after taunting Johnny Depp “Tell the world. Tell them, Johnny Depp — I Johnny Depp, a man, I am a victim too of domestic violence, and I know it’s a fair fight, and see how many people believe or side with you.”, and being found guilty by a unanimous jury, still thinks that she was the victim,2 “believing only what she wanted to believe”.
Why No Articles About Unfair Treatment of Men?
Finally, if you and the Post publish articles that bemoan the arguable unfair treatment of women, why don’t you give some thought to writing about the unfair treatment of men? (A quick search of your articles doesn’t reveal that you’ve written any pro-male articles; apologies in advance if you have.)
You could start with an article that examines the decision by the Post in 2018 to publish the Why can’t we hate men? op-ed where the paper provided a platform for a radical feminist to broadcast to the world a Nazi-like hatred for men, or the horrible choice the same year to publish the ill-advised Amber Heard op-ed.
Or you could write about the provable feminist hatred of men. Here are just two from a long list of examples.
Women Training Men as Dogs
You could explore the culturally-accepted disrespect of men as proven by the many books written by women where men are treated as “trainable dogs”.
Kind of makes complaining about “first name sexism” pale in comparison, doesn’t it?
Boys Are Stupid
Or how about an article about a line of “Boys are stupid” merchandise sold in a girls’ clothing store in the early 2000’s? (A nationwide campaign by men’s rights activists forced the retailer to remove these hateful products from their stores.)
Do you think that there might be anything wrong with a movement that would influence people to sell and buy such obviously hateful products? Would it be fair to say that a movement that would stoop so low as to target innocent boys is a hate movement?
Ms. Dvorak, I can only hope that you’ve read this far. If so, I thank you. I pray that I’ve opened your mind to the fact that sexism is a two-way street, but where the concerns of men and boys have long been overlooked.
If I have, please give serious consideration to writing some columns that examine the unfair treatment of men.
Do it for the tens of millions of men who, despite being assailed by feminist hate for decades, continue to support, care for, and love women.
But most of all, do it for your husband and your two sons.
Sincerely,
Stephen Bond
Publisher of "Letters to The Washington Post" Substack
This observation was confirmed by a February 2023 report by The Coalition to End Domestic Violence that described a 10-Year Suppression of the Truth on Domestic Violence by the Washington Post.
"The disappointment I feel today is beyond words. I'm heartbroken that the mountain of evidence still was not enough to stand up to the disproportionate power, influence, and sway of my ex-husband.
"I'm even more disappointed with what this verdict means for other women. It is a setback. It sets back the clock to a time when a woman who spoke up and spoke out could be publicly shamed and humiliated. It sets back the idea that violence against women is to be taken seriously.”