Lest you think we were making any progress with regards to gender issues, allow me to burst your bubble. The primary election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts is less than a week away (Tuesday, Dec. 8 — don’t forget to vote if you live in the Commonwealth) and the media seems to be running out of things to write about in this race. So they are reverting to some old school tricks.
Most political watchers consider this a dull election. It is highly unlikely that a Republican would ever take the Kennedy Seat, so the only real race is among four hopefuls from the Democratic party. But many see these four candidates Attorney General Martha Coakley, Rep. Michael Capuano, businessman Stephen Pagliuca and City Year co-founder Alan Khazei as so similar that it doesn’t make for good politics or much voter choice.
Choice, however, has been the one key differentiator among the candidates. Martha Coakley quickly took a stance on the anti-abortion Stupak-Pitts amendment added to the House healthcare bill and said she would not vote for a bill that included it. Stupak-Pitts was a so-called concession in the House vote last month. The compromise: women’s rights in exchange for healthcare reform. Coakley says she is confident we can pass healthcare reform without sacrificing women. Capuano has waffled on the topic. Pagliuca and Khazei vow not to let a little something like women’s access to reproductive rights get in the way of progress.
But apparently, the two main newspapers in Massachusetts don’t feel this issue is exciting enough and doesn’t make for good newspaper copy. So they are relying on a tried and true approach to sell papers: sexism!
Those of us in Massachusetts were not surprised by Howie Carr’s column yesterday in The Boston Herald. (Insulted and annoyed? Yes. But surprised? Not at all.) Carr wrote:
“If you want to know which men in your neighborhood are henpecked, check out the houses with the Coakley yard signs out front.”
and
“I wouldn’t go so far as to say if her name were Martin Coakley, her candidacy would be a joke.”
and
“She is woman, hear her roar, or is it purr?”
But Alex Beam’s column in The Boston Globe today, “The Babe Factor,” was a surprise. After telling us women told him not to write this and his editors will pretend they didn’t know about it, Beam shares this gem:
“…someone has to say it: Martha Coakley is a very good-looking woman…Call it the babe factor.”
He goes on to say, “I know what you are thinking, and you are right. She does not photograph particularly well.”
Nope, that’s not what I was thinking. I was thinking Alex Beam is a jerk.
He then enlightens us that Coakey is better looking in person and that women over 50 can indeed be attractive before he launches into a discussion about her wardrobe. Coakley, he says, “…looks great in pants suits; Hillary Clinton without the baggage, you might say.”
It seems to me Coakley carries the exact same baggage as Clinton. A powerful woman, a true contender, is once again reduced to her looks and wardrobe by the mainstream media. What are you so afraid of Mr. Beam?
Thank God for men like my henpecked husband (we have a Coakley sign out front) who said of the column, “Beam and his editor should be fired for that.”
I didn’t support Coakley, but it had nothing to do with her looks and I’m annoyed that people feel like they need to go there.
Let’s write a spoof on the other candidates’ looks and wardrobes. Or has that already been done?