Is it sexist to refer to Andrea Mitchell as Mrs. Alan Greenspan?

[JohnSJ]

Last edited Tue Sep 28, 2021, 09:46 PM - Edit history (1)

51 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	29 (57%)
	No
	22 (43%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Walleye]

1. I can think of other names to call her and yell at the TV

[Volaris]

77. Agreed. And those ARE sexist lol. Cant STAND her.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

2. It is who she is married to afterall.

[elleng]

3. No, but the abuse thrown at her is thoroughly obnoxious.

[sarcasmo]

63. Every time Andrea was on TV, Hillary's emails came out of her mouth. Truth is obnoxious?

[qazplm135]

4. do you ordinarily refer to women by their husband's name

if you were a woman would you want that?

Why not just use her name and then whatever criticism you have of her?

[leftstreet]

10. I think it's to remind people who she is

questioning her "objectivity" as a journalist when she's boinking a fed reserve guy

I never see DUers do that to other prominent and/or professional married women

[Klaralven]

25. Not only a Fed Reserve guy but an acolyte of Ayn Rand

[qazplm135]

26. we do this stuff all the time

to people we don't like.

But if AOC got married and someone called her Mrs. Husband's name, boy this place would be on fire.

Sexism is not based on whether you like the woman or not.

[tonedevil]

57. All criticism of AOC...

is fully sanctioned on DU. I don't know what you see.

[mountain grammy]

71. That's the sad truth....

[ZonkerHarris]

35. She's been who she is, a GOP mouthpiece reporter, longer than she's been married to him.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

5. I say it depends on the intent (nt)

[JohnSJ]

13. MSNBC refers to her as Andrea Mitchel, not "Mrs. Greenspan".

[Bucky]

20. When is the intent of saying Mrs Greenspan *ever* not to diminish her value based on her marriage?

At least in this forum, unless there's a clear need to clarify their relationship (or some other special context to warrant saying Mrs Greenspan) calling her by her married name and honorific can be default assumed to be leveraging her marital status to slight her journalistic integrity.

[leftstreet]

6. Probably, but I doubt anyone cares n/t

[marybourg]

7. Yes. It's not the name she has chosen to use.

[JohnSJ]

11. I think so to. I am no fan of Mitchell, but she professionally refers to herself as Andrea Mitchel

Last edited Tue Sep 28, 2021, 09:49 PM - Edit history (1)

and that is how MSNBC refers to her as

[treestar]

86. Nobody is actually calling her that

Presumably, if we met her, we would not call her Mrs. Greenspan. We're just referring to her that way on a message board. I doubt she is hurt. In fact, right wingers pretend to be really tough unless they think a victim status helps them.

[Srkdqltr]

8. It's done to "put her in her place". By folks who want to be mean.

It has no other reason.

[demmiblue]

9. Yes. n/t

[drray23]

12. yes. it's demeaning to reduce a woman as nothing more

than somebody's wife. Whether or not one likes Andrea Mitchel she deserves to be treated as an accomplished individual, not just somebody's wife.

[JohnSJ]

16. Well said, and I am one who does not like Mitchel at all. The fact that MSNBC refers to her as

Andrea Mitchel, pretty much indicates how she would like to be referred to

[tonedevil]

58. She is a lot More of a piece of shit...

than just being a fuck head's wife.

[femmedem]

14. Yes, we should honor the names women choose to go by.

It is also used on DU as a disparaging way of linking her to her husband's ideology rather than seeing her as a human being with her own opinions.

[JohnSJ]

18. +++

[treestar]

15. No. That is not the reason for it.

It is an association with his politics. They aren’t doing it to mean she is powerless. She isn’t. She has a platform. It is akin to calling someone Trump’s flunky.

[qazplm135]

27. AOC isn't powerless

what if she married someone, and someone wanted to highlight that relationship for whatever reason by calling her Mrs. Husband's name?

You cool with that?

Should we call Kamala Harris, Mrs. Douglas Emhoff?

Come on. Stop changing the rules because you don't like someone.

[treestar]

54. But my point was that is not the reason for it

The 2nd Gentleman is not known for a particular issue.

No one is calling her Mrs. Greenspan to say she is just his wife and nothing else. They are just making the association with his politics.

[qazplm135]

60. I don't care what

The reason for sexist conduct is.

You can highlight the connection without changing her name.

[Caliman73]

65. Does Andrea Mitchell not have her own politics and economic ideas?

Why does she need to be tied to anyone else to be criticized for them?

I have never seen Andrea Mitchell talking about herself in relation to Alan Greenspan, when espousing her equally horrific political and economic views.

Why would we need to tie her to Greenspan to point out that her independent ideas are horrible.

[BradAllison]

68. A lot of Alan Greenspan's ideas come from Ayn Rand

Which is far more disturbing.

[Caliman73]

78. Yes they do.

I answered another post with that information, I believe I said, "Alan Greenspan is a Ayn Rand loving idiot".

Ayn Rand was an idiot herself. I understand that she had a hard time under Soviet totalitarianism, but she went way overboard on her stupid "objectivism" philosophy. She could not find any kind of real evidence to support her ideas so she had to make up a fantasy world in which her system worked, and even then is was a crap world.

[treestar]

80. Few couples are all that different

It's in the way she covers things that she is a right winger.

[Treefrog]

61. Thank you.

[BradAllison]

67. I don't know who Douglas Emhoff is

Sorry, I really don't. He's Kamala Harris's husband.

He's a lawyer, I think?

Yeah he's Mr Kamala Harris on the internet.

[qazplm135]

69. you get the point

why you are fighting the point is another matter altogether.

[BradAllison]

72. If that's how you feel

Andrea Mitchell sucks and deserves zero respect for her supposed journalism, you can naval gaze the sexism and that being "problematic". She flat out stinks and has no business on tv nor should take up this much space.

[qazplm135]

74. there's no sexism in any of that

see, you CAN do it.

[Funtatlaguy]

17. I think people use it just to point our her connection to that ideology.

[StarfishSaver]

31. A woman being married to a man does not prove "her connection to his ideology"

[Funtatlaguy]

37. How about exposure then.

[StarfishSaver]

39. What does being married to Alan Greenspan "expose" about her?

If you think she's a bad reporter, call her on it. But calling her "Mrs. Greenspan" or "Mrs. Alan Greenspan" is sexist and, frankly, just plain obnoxious.

[Bucky]

19. There's a very strong reason why it's not sexist to diminish her this way

See, her husband is rich and powerful and most of us strongly dislike his political views.

So it's perfectly okay to run her down using her gender and marriage to demean her. We don't like her, or at least we don't like people who she's associated with. See it's not like when Republicans ridicule and mock Michelle Obama because they don't like her husband's politics. After all, when they do it, it's them and not us. But when we do that to Andrea Mitchell, it's okay because we're us and not them.

[StarfishSaver]

40. +1000

[obamanut2012]

89. Thank you

You get it.

[tenderfoot]

21. How about Ms. Greenspan?

eom

[viva la]

24. actually, she's a lot better known than he is.

Call him Mr. Andrea Mitchell.

[lapucelle]

22. Professionally her name is Andrea Mitchell. However, reminding viewers

that she is married to Greenspan provides important context when evaluating her perspective.

[qazplm135]

28. and that can't be done

any other way than calling her Mrs. Alan Greenspan?

I realize electrons are expensive, but would seem one could punch a few more out to type, Andrea Mitchell, wife of Alan Greenspan.

[lapucelle]

34. You just showed that it can be done. You named her using her professional name

and then added a detail ("wife of...&quot to give context.

It's like saying "Elaine Cho, wife of Mitch McConnell" or "Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords".

[treestar]

84. you are going to a lot of trouble to passionately

defend someone from sexism - someone who likely does not even care about it. Right wingers usually don't. If they are successful like she is, they think they are exceptions. They think they are tough. They would scoff at you for defending them from this type of thing.

We don't have to be idealistic purists all the time.

[qazplm135]

87. passionately defending against sexism

is something I thought Dems did?

Apparently, you only are against it when it's women you like.

[treestar]

94. So as to my point

She would laugh at you.

[StarfishSaver]

95. Yes. Sometimes it's inconvenient to not be sexist

Especially when we don't pick and choose when and when not to be sexist based on whether we think a particular woman deserves to be the target of it.

[qazplm135]

96. And?

You're point is ridiculous.

[StarfishSaver]

66. Just like we refer to Clarence Thomas and Jim Carville as "Mr. Ginny Thomas" and "Mr. Matalin"

to remind people they're married to horrible right wing activists because that's the only way to provide important context about their perspective, right?

[BradAllison]

70. Except we know Jim Carville doesn't agree with Mary Matalin

As for Clarence Thomas, he will be always be known as "Which way are you voting, Anthony?"

[StarfishSaver]

75. We don't know that Andrea Mitchell agrees with Alan Greenspan

If we actually knew her personal views, there would be no need to call her "Mrs Greenspan," since her own opinions would speak for themselves without identifying who her husband is.

The whole point of calling her "Mrs. Greenspan" is to suggest that she shares Alan Greenspan's views solely by virtue of the fact that she's married to him, which is the problem.

If you already know her views and don't like them, just say that. But implying that her opinions have anything to do with whom she's married to and calling her by her spouse's name in order to emphasize that notion, when that assumption and mischaracterization are not made of any man I can think of, is blatantly sexist.

[Caliman73]

90. We do know her biases, by her reporting. I do agree with the rest of your sentiment though.

Mitchell is her own person, part of the reasoning that I am sure went into her deciding to keep her last name. She does not want to be known as Alan Greenspan's wife, she is Andrea Mitchell.

Based on how she covers the news, unless there is some kind of bizarre ulterior motive, she aligns politically with conservatism. Just like Rachel Maddow tries to be accurate in her commentary but is definitely left leaning.

The concern is the implication of calling someone, Mrs. "So and so", in order to disparage them, especially when that person has made the explicit decision to be known by a different identity, independent of the husband. A lot of people are saying it is not explicitly sexist, and there is an argument that can be made within context, but the reality is that people need to think about all of the implications. What are you trying to communicate? Why does she need to be linked to her husband? Can her views not be criticized on their own? While Greenspan held a powerful position as Fed Chairman, you can argue that Mitchell is more well known than he is so there is no argument to be made really, that we are just trying to get an understanding of where she stands. Her opinions come out pretty clearly in her reporting.

[StarfishSaver]

91. Her biases are HER biases. She's not an appendage of her husband

[viva la]

23. I am a married woman. I always find it demeaning to be referred to as Mrs. Him Last Name

It's fine to say her name and "wife of Alan Greenspan"-- that's just fact.

But the Mrs. Him Him was always a way to present women as not even a person, just this man's possession-- she doesn't even get her own name!

Shades of Handmaid's Tale.

I don't have to like an individual to object to sexist references.

[CanonRay]

29. I think of Nancy Reagan every time I see her face

[StarfishSaver]

30. Yes. But not only sexist

It also has an anti-Semitic whiff to it.

[Maru Kitteh]

50. AGREED! nt

[MineralMan]

32. Yes, it's rude.

Many professional women do not take their spouse's surname, and are always referred to by their given name. It is rude to call them by a nane they don't use.

If you want to know how any woman, or man for that matter, ask them or pay attention to how they are addressed by others.

[JohnSJ]

33. Yup, and MSNBC refers to her as Andrea Mitchell, because that is what she wants to be referred to

[MLAA]

36. She is referred to as Andrea Mitchell in her professional life.

I have never heard her referred to as anything else by her colleagues and network. I’ve never seen or heard her correct anyone calling her Andrea Mitchell.

It is absolutely sexist and silly to call her anything else. I never changed my name and after 34 years nobody at work or in my social life has ever called me anything else.

I’m no fan of Andrea Mitchell, but we’d never refer to Alan Greenspan as Mr Andrea Mitchell.

[lindysalsagal]

38. Really?

Abuse?



(stomach turning over)

[GulfCoast66]

41. In the context used on DU I don't think so.

She is comfortably married to a power broker in the Republican Party. I’ve always read post referring to her as such in that context.

In almost any other situations I would object.

I guess you could say ‘Andrea Mitchell, married for over 20 years to a very powerful Republican insider’. But what’s the difference? Both communicate the same message.

Subtle language is always risky, but we should not abandon it all together.

[malaise]

42. May be worse not to spell it Mitchell

[madinmaryland]

43. Thread Win goes to malaise today! Thanks.

[JohnSJ]

45. Cute. DU is becoming less enjoyable for me. I just corrected it

[malaise]

46. Come on man we can laugh at ourselves

once in a while.
I don't think it is sexist to call her by her married name.

[JohnSJ]

49. ............

[milestogo]

44. I can't believe I had no idea she was married to him.

He's 95.

[Demovictory9]

56. shes 74

[milestogo]

59. Why is she still working?

Just to annoy us.

[Maru Kitteh]

48. Yes, of course it is. It is sexist to take a woman's name away from her.

She did not choose to take her husband's last name. Even if she had, her name is not Alan. It's sexist bullshit to erase a woman's name - even that one.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

51. Yes. N/t

[Raine]

52. Yes nt

[Ms. Toad]

53. I can't believe this is even a discussion here -

Let alone that the misogynistic answer is winning.

Naming is critical to self-determination - it has been forever. Enslaved Blacks were given the last names of their owners - is it really so hard to see that calling a woman by her husband's name (not only last - but also first name) has a similar dehumanizing/erasing/demeaning effect?

If bias is the issue, do it without using misogynistic nonsense.

[BannonsLiver]

55. Comparing this to whst slaves endured is ludicrous in any context.

Be better, people.

[mathematic]

62. Yes. Greenspan hasn't been relevant for 15 years

Do people even know who he is any more?

Like if you said "Mrs. Alan Greenspan" to a 30 year old adult would that mean anything more to them than referring to an accomplished woman by her husband's name in order to diminish her?

This place is stuck in amber sometimes.

[rogue emissary]

64. She's an awful broadcaster, but that has nothing to do with her husband.

[Aristus]

73. Nowadays, at least, it's certainly kind of a hick thing to do.

Speaking of a woman only as an extension of her husband is so Scarsdale, 1951.

I'm no fan of Andrea Mitchell, but can we retire the ridiculously outdated, old-fashioned idiocies once considered etiquette?

[brooklynite]

76. No, it's just pointless...

Unless Andrea Mitchell is discussing Fed policy, there’s no linkage.

There’s also no obligation to watch Andrea Mitchell if you don’t like here.

[MattBaggins]

79. This is no longer a liberal board

The fact that no is winning is fucking pathetic.

Of course it's sexist. It's very intent is to demean and diminish

[iemanja]

83. It's about tribalism

Not cause or principle. Sexist behavior toward Mitchell is justified because she isn't part of the tribe.

[StarfishSaver]

93. So true

Just as, for example, violating the law and abusing processes are done for some people, as long as it's being done in service to the interests of our tribe ...

[StarfishSaver]

92. Exactly

I see lots of things that are very troubling being posted on a Democratic board.

[iemanja]

81. Her name is Mitchell

She didn't take her husband's name. It's not up to you to decide she should.

[Champp]

82. It's an important reminder that you're dealing with a Republican propagandist

'nuf said

[iemanja]

85. The problems with voting yes are many

1) It justifies sexist behavior because people don't like someone. Which is to say it promotes sexism.
2) It is premised on the notion that news personalities exist in order to validate emotions. That points to intellectual weakness and is similar to the right's creating their own infoverse.
3) If people don't like Mitchell, don't give her ratings. That's all there fucking is to it.
4) People don't deserve to be treated badly because you disagree with them. To insist they do is to acknowledge that you should be treated badly because others disagree with you. It's a disturbed way of looking at the world.

[marie999]

88. Yes. n/t

[LeftInTX]

97. Not if it is used now and then to remind us who she is married to

[StarfishSaver]

98. Why do we need to be reminded of who she's married to?

For all of the criticism we've seen of Chuck Todd and Tucker Carlson (or any other male journalist), I haven't seen anyone mention their wives or suggest that their wives' views have any influence on them - and they certainly are never called by their wives' names.

If you think she's a bad journalist, why not just talk about her poor journalism? Bringing her husband into it - as if she can't think and act for herself - and, even worse, calling er by her husband's name in a manner that was used for centuries to diminish, disempower and disappear women as individuals is unnecessary and blatantly sexist.

[Vinca]

99. It depends on what Andrea thinks about it. Today, in 2021, there are women who routinely

go by Mrs. Joe Blow. I can't see it for me, but apparently among some it's the norm. As for Andrea, all I'd like to call her is "the former MSNBC personality."