Sexist pigs?

[elfs]

Why is Keith Olbermann's URL "olbermann.msnbc.com", but Rachel Maddow's URL is "rachel.msnbc.com"?

Comments

[heofmanynames.livejournal.com]

write her & ask: rachel-@-msnbc

[purly.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's their network logins. lol

[bldrnrpdx.livejournal.com]

maybe they were asked what they wanted, and those were the responses? Maybe they typically go with first names, but "Keith" was already taken? At my work, we typically go with "firstinitiallastname@...". But it's surprising how many people have the same last name ("Smith" anyone?), or have different longer last names but the truncated versions are the same. It's not *necessarily* about sexist pigs assigning more/less respectful email addresses. It *might* be that, but it might be something else instead.

[rhonan.livejournal.com]

Maybe they chose them?

[technoshaman.livejournal.com]

I gotta dumb question.

Why the *assumption* of sexism?

One thing I like about (ahem) Ms. Maddow is she takes "talk me down" questions like this and goes and finds the answers instead of assuming the worst. It not only gets ratings, it gets my respect. Not too many people who get paid to do journalism do that these days....

[mouser.livejournal.com]

They were probably asked which they preferred it, and that's what they chose "Elf"

[mouser.livejournal.com]

Oh, and you didn't try "Maddow.msnbc.com" No, "Keith.msnbc.com" doesn't work.

[(Anonymous)]

There seems to be more cultural tendency among guys to call them by their last name. I can't think of many famous examples, but I can think of Futurama where "Phillip J Fry" keeps just being called Fry. This even happened when I was at school. Not all guys, just some oddly. I could never work out what made the difference either, but somehow they never did this with the girls...

[amberite2112.livejournal.com]

i went to a school where the girls WERE called by their last names. i, personally, found it offensive to call schoolchildren by their last names, especially in the tones that were used by the teachers.

[(Anonymous)]

I can understand your coming to that (possible - you did add a question mark) conclusion. That sort of thing first hit me when I was standing around in a circle of friends who had (all) just completed a skill-required outdoor activity. A new person came over and the introductions went around the circle: This is John Lorck, Bob Holt, Maggie, Bill Chandler, Kim, Stephen Borman, Lynn, etc. etc.

I started noticing it then (25 years ago) and I think it does somehow connect to a lack of "importance" of women and their names. Maybe because women were traditionally "attached" to men, and those men were the ones that shook on deals sealed with their good name? Maybe because women's last names were only temporary anyway (see above)? Who knows for sure. But since then I've always made a point to keep them parallel, and I tend to suspect the same thing you did, even if it may be unconsciously done by the person at the time, and/or I might be completely off base.