Posts Tagged ‘ Hillary Clinton ’

What Should We Do About Sexism and Bachmann?

January 5, 2012
By

Michele Bachmann

Let’s not waste time debating whether sexism was a factor in Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann’s failed bid for president. It was. Let’s instead focus on what we will do about it. Because something needs to be done.

Not that we wanted to see Bachmann in the White House. God no. But nor do we want to see Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Rick Perry or any other anti-woman candidate get elected. But why is Bachmann going home and not the other non-Romneys? For several reasons.

First, there is a double standard at work. Susan Mulligan at U.S. News points out, “Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party-approving Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, has said some crazy things… All of that provides a solid basis for questioning her as a candidate and wondering whether she’s suited for the Oval Office. But has Bachmann said or done anything more bizarre than some of her opponents, including several who are above her in polling in Iowa?” Not really.

Second, women don’t “look presidential.” Remember when Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote, “I can think of no reason why anyone who, for some unaccountable reason, supports Michele Bachmann will not move over to Perry… Perry, who actually looks like a president …” Women don’t look presidential because we’ve never seen a woman president. And people from Iowa (as well as Mississippi) have never elected a woman to their congressional delegation or as governor.  My state of Massachusetts has never elected a woman senator or governor. And the list goes on leaving the Unites States ranking 40th in the world for women’s political empowerment.

Third, the media skews the news. We knew this when Hillary Clinton ran for president. Now we have data to prove it. Paul Bedard, also at U.S. News recently wrote, “Two new scholarly studies that blow the whistle on the industry’s lopsided reliance on male reporters find that the media first belittled (Hillary Clinton’s) effort against Barack Obama, then jumped the gun to push her out of the race earlier than any other recent strong primary challenger.” Remember Bachman’s Newsweek cover photo? Case in point.

One could argue, as a conservative, Bachmann faced a greater challenge than a liberal candidate. As Amanda Marcotte wrote for Reuters, “As a conservative female politician with an evangelical base, Bachmann was forced to hang her ambitions on voters who believe in traditional gender roles. …The problems arise when anti-feminist women start to seek real power for themselves. …That base is unable to grant serious power to a woman, no matter how much she promised to use it to disempower other women.”

Patricia Murphy quotes two such women in The Washington Post. “Jeanne Jennings of Johnston, Iowa, for instance, said Tuesday night that she likes Bachmann very much indeed, but chose to caucus for Rick Santorum instead. ‘I was for Michele Bachmann for a long time. I read her book. Wonderful book, wonderful family, wonderful person,” Jennings said. “But then I just started thinking about being presidential and I don’t know that we’re ready for a woman for president. I think what we really need to do is get Rick Santorum for president and Michele Bachmann for vice president.’” And, “Georgiana Cleveland from Boone, Iowa, said the same: ‘I guess maybe we here are not quite ready for a women president.’”

Penny Nance, CEO and President of Concerned Women for America, wrote about why she backed Santorum at FOXNews.com “Michele Bachmann was a serious candidate, a fierce competitor, and an excellent communicator. She made everyone in the race better, because she made them define their conservative credentials. This wasn’t her year, but mark my words, her day will come.” When?

After Martha Coakley lost the Massachusetts Senate seat to Scott Brown last winter Politico reported on the unions’ response to her candidacy, “Massachusetts labor leaders expressed frustration at the anti-woman bias in their ranks. ‘I’m not voting for the broad’ is the message Teamster leader Robert Cullinane told POLITICO he’s hearing.” With men like that, we need women to rally.

Whether you are conservative, moderate or liberal, electing women needs to be a priority because:

  • Women are 51 percent of the population but only 17 percent of Congress and that’s not representative government.
  • Last year, 1,100 pieces of legislation about women’s reproductive health were introduced — by a majority male legislative body.
  • And our daughters, who we promise can grow up and be anything they want, need to see what they want to be. Where are their role models?

In The Hello Ladies Guide to Sexism in Politics, we talk about why sexism in matters:

Sexism hurts. A 2010 poll by Lake Research Partners revealed that “even mild sexist language has an impact on voters’ likelihood to vote for a female candidate and on how favorable they feel toward a woman seeking office.” The Inter-Parliamentary Union, an organization whose mission is to establish representative democracy across the globe, sees gender parity as the path to democracy stating, “The concept of democracy will only assume true and dynamic significance when political policies and national legislation are decided upon jointly by men and women with equitable regard for the interests and aptitudes of both halves of the population.”

So what do we do?

  • We need to call out sexism when we see it. Organizations like Name It Change It allow people to report sexist coverage and then call on the media outlets to change behavior.
  • We need to contribute to and volunteer on women’s campaigns. It takes a lot of money and people to get someone elected.
  • We need to lose the phrase, I want to support a woman candidate but….,” and vote for women if they are qualified AND support women’s rights.
  • We need to run for office.  Organizations like She Should Run, The White House ProjectThe 2012 Project and Ready to Run offer support and coaching for women seeking office. If not you, then who?

 

 

The Hello Ladies Guide to Sexism in Politics

August 18, 2011
By
Political attack ad against Janice Hahn

The latest presidential election cycle has only just begun and already we are engaged in some lively discussions about the sexist treatment of candidate Michele Bachmann. Was the Newsweek cover photo of the Congresswoman and the accompanying headline sexist? Was the “submissive wife” question out of line?  Sexism may seem more out in front during a presidential campaign but it exists in politics all the time – and at the state and local level too. Some of the sexism is over the top, and some not so obvious. To help you easily identify and respond to unfair treatment of female politicians, here is “The Hello Ladies Guide to Sexism in Politics.”

Overt sexism: In this category we have the outrageous remarks that make you scream, “How does this person (insert name of person who spoke or wrote the sexist comment) keep their job?!” Examples: Conan O’Brien sidekick Andy Richter’s recent tweet that read, “There’s nothing wrong with Michele Bachmann that two solid weeks of orgasms won’t cure.” Statements like that one attempt to reduce a female candidate to a shrew, a sexual object, anything but a viable contender for the job. An Alex Beam column in The Boston Globe during the Massachusetts Senate race last year qualified because it shifted the focus, even if only briefly, from Attorney General Martha Coakley’s front-runner status to her looks. And, of course, the web ad depicting Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn as a pole dancer was one of the most offensive displays of sexism in politics we’ve seen.

Subtle sexism: This is the kind of sexism that doesn’t necessarily jump off the page but still reveals and perpetuates entrenched attitudes that women don’t belong in Washington. Examples: Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen writing, “I can think of no reason why anyone who, for some unaccountable reason, supports Michele Bachmann will not move over to Perry… Perry, who actually looks like a president … will raise far more money and breeze by her.” Because presidents, ladies, don’t look like us. They look like white guys. And to be clear,  political leaders don’t care about frivolous things like makeup and jewelry either. That was the message in an attack ad against North Carolina Senate candidate Margaret Dickson. Because after all, women who wear lipstick might gasp or cough when a terrorist is killed. Yes, the analysis of Secretary of State Clinton in the situation room during the Osama Bin Laden raid was sexist. And the other things legislators are not: mothers, or, women with no children. Sarah Palin had too many kids and  Tampa mayoral candidate Rosa Ferlita didn’t have enough. An attack ad against her implied she was unfit for office unlike her opponent, “a family man.”

Blink-and-you-might-miss-it sexism: From a very young age, we’ve been conditioned by the media to view women a certain way. Think Barbie with her physically impossible figure, models airbrushed into Everyman’s fantasy, Wilma Flinstone – tough but obedient, and Daphne and Velma – pretty or smart but never both. So we don’t always immediately see sexism for what it is because the images served up of female politicians follow the same formula we’ve always seen when it comes to the portrayal of women in the media. Examples: Fox News correspondent Greta Van Susteren asking then Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin if she had breast implants – not relevant to U.S. policy but a topic we’re used to having about women in the news. Another example was Rep. Allen West telling Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz she’s “not a lady.” Because a well-behaved lady doesn’t challenge a man (but we do, don’t we ladies?). And then there’s the use of our least-favorite phrase “Man Up.”  Because it’s men who win wars, fix economies and create jobs. Clearly.

Why it Matters: Sexism hurts. A 2010 poll by Lake Research Partners revealed that “even mild sexist language has an impact on voters’ likelihood to vote for a female candidate and on how favorable they feel toward a woman seeking office.” The Inter-Parliamentary Union, an organization whose mission is to establish representative democracy across the globe, sees gender parity as the path to democracy stating, “The concept of democracy will only assume true and dynamic significance when political policies and national legislation are decided upon jointly by men and women with equitable regard for the interests and aptitudes of both halves of the population.” But here in the U.S. women hold barely 17 percent of the seats in Congress, despite making up half the population.

What We Can Do About It: We can start by calling out sexism when we see it. Organizations like Name It Change It allow people to report sexist coverage and then call on the media outlets to change behavior. We can tell advertisers and sponsors we don’t like it, that we notice where they spend advertising dollars and that we too must think about how we spend our money.

And we can work to shift the political landscape. We can contribute to and volunteer on women’s campaigns. It takes a lot of money and people to get someone elected. We can vote for women. I often quote Gloria Feldt who says, “… when there are two candidates–one male and one female–who are both well-qualified and represent my positions on major issues I care about, I will support the woman until such time as women have our fair 50 percent share of the elected official slots. Then and only then will gender not matter.” And we can run for office.  Organizations like She Should Run, The White House ProjectThe 2012 Project and Ready to Run offer support and coaching for women seeking office.

And eventually, we too will look like a president.

Like what you’ve read? Then sign up here to receive future posts by email or RSS.

Why We Can’t Agree: Is the Bachmann Newsweek Cover Sexist?

August 10, 2011
By

Michele Bachmann's Newsweek coverTerry O’Neill from the National Organization for Women (NOW) says yes, it is. Salon’s Joan Walsh says no, it’s not. And feminist icon Gloria Steinem says it’s borderline.

Pundits are split on whether or not Newsweek’s decision to run the unflattering (we can all agree on that, right?) picture of presidential candidate Michele Bachmann was sexist.

Why is it so hard to figure out? I think  it stems from the way the media has conditioned us to think about and view women. When so many young, female characters on television are sexualized, when even the most beautiful women in the world are airbrushed, when we see too few images of strong, athletic women and when so much of our news comes from the male point of view, we struggle with what is reality, what is media manipulation, how we view other women and what we’ve come to expect of how the media views us.

And then add politics to the mix and things get even more distorted. With such small numbers of women participating in politics, the media turns the few women who do into Everywoman. Remember, for example, how a vote for Hillary Clinton was portrayed as a vagina vote, not a vote for a candidate? President Obama caught on camera calling someone a jackass was an on-air gaffe. But Carly Fiorina caught mocking her opponent’s hair was mean girl behavior. More than one man running for president from a political party is called a candidate pool. But more than one woman is a cat fight. So is it any wonder that determining whether Newsweek chose a crazy-eyed image to match a crazy candidate or whether the magazine chose to create an unstable portrait of a woman running for president, gives us pause?

What do you think? Is the Bachmann Newsweek cover sexist?

Like what you’ve read? Then sign up here to receive future posts by email or RSS.

Thank You Geraldine Ferraro

March 27, 2011
By

Geraldine Ferraro died yesterday at the age of 75 from complications related to blood cancer. It’s Women’s History Month and Ferraro was definitely a woman who made history. In 1984 she inspired generations when she was chosen by Walter Mondale as the first female vice presidential candidate of the United States. In her concession speech, Ferraro said, “My candidacy has said the days of discrimination are numbered.”

Ferraro’s run was marred by sexism, including a comment from Barbara Bush who said of her husband’s opponent, “I can’t say it but it rhymes with ‘rich.” However, many credit her candidacy with changing the political landscape. More women were elected to Congress and appointed cabinet positions post-1984. Ferraro had been a Congresswoman prior to the 1984 election, representing Queens, New York.

Following the election, Ferraro remained a strong advocate for women and was not afraid to speak out against sexism. She was a fierce supporter of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, getting herself in hot water for some comments she made about Barack Obama.

We owe a lot to Geraldine Ferraro. Thank you.

Happy President’s Day

February 21, 2011
By

In honor of President’s Day, here’s a brief slideshow of  some of our country’s leaders.

Six Things We Need to Do to Send a Woman to the White House

July 9, 2010
By


Last week I posted a question at SkinnyScoop: Do you think a woman will be elected president in your lifetime? Most of the respondents (81 percent) said yes. No one answered definitely not. I sure hope the respondents are right, but getting there won’t be easy.

One respondent at SkinnyScoop wrote, “We are ready and there are more of us than them, we just need to get out and vote ladies.” It seems simple. But it’s not. The sad truth is we haven’t moved past the misogyny and sexism we witnessed during Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Senate hopeful Martha Coakley didn’t do herself any favors when she made some bad campaign decisions last winter but the press didn’t do her many favors either. And the Republicans don’t seem to treat their women much better, as Newsweek recently pointed out.

I remember during Clinton’s presidential run people groaning about the word misogyny. “I’m so sick of feminists talking about misogyny,” friends and coworkers would tell me when I was discussing things Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, Glen Beck and Keith Olbermann had said on television the night before. I challenge those same people to come up with a better explanation for Playboy’s recent article (which has been removed from its site) “The Top 10 Conservative Women We Love to Hate” complete with hatef**k ratings for each woman.

The fact is the media can be a brutal place for women in politics and we are far from achieving any kind of critical mass. Women make up only 17 percent of Congress today and only six states have women serving as governor. So, if we are going to put a woman in the White House ladies, we have work to do. Here are six things you can do to make it happen.

1. Contribute. It takes a lot of money to get elected. Just recently, two promising women candidates ended races citing lack of support from their party, the Democrats. Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner lost the primary to Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher and Connie Saltonstall quit the race to replace Michigan’s Congressman Bart Stupak. Saltonstall said she didn’t think she could raise the necessary funds to run without her party’s support.

2. Volunteer. It also takes a lot of people power to run a campaign. Get involved. Too often I hear mother’s in my community tell me they just don’t have the time to get involved because their children need them at home. I tell them my children need me out fighting for the things I believe will secure their future. Your kids will be fine if you spend a few hours at the phone bank. Trust me.

3. Support qualified women candidates. Period. As Gloria Feldt says, “… when there are two candidates–one male and one female–who are both well-qualified and represent my positions major issues I care about, I will support the woman until such time as women have our fair 50% share of the elected official slots. Then and only then will gender not matter.”

4. Start local. Get involved in your local politics and help groom future women leaders.

5. Run. Better yet, why don’t you run for office? Check out She Should Run or attend a Whitehouse Project event for more information and access to support.

6. Vote.

 

And in other news, congratulations to Mary Jo McMenamin who won a Yogi Max from Yogibo for answering our question at The SkinnyScoop.

Happy Independence Day

July 2, 2010
By

Greetings from Boston!

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

This weekend we celebrate the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.  Thank you to all who support and protect us.

Today seems like a fitting day to remember the women of the world who are yet to celebrate independence.

Learn about CEDAW – The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women – an international treaty that supports fundamental human rights and equality for women around the world. CEDAW was adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly and entered into force in 1981. To date, 186 of 193 countries have ratified the treaty. The United States has not.

 

Varying Degrees of Progress

June 30, 2010
By

Iceland’s prime minister, Johanna Sigurdardottir, just got married – to another woman; the country’s marriage equality laws went into effect this past week. And for the record, Iceland elected its first female president, Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, thirty years ago. Now that’s progress.

Meanwhile, Australia has a new prime minister – its first woman to hold the position, (progress) and she is unmarried, which is causing significant discussion. Julia Gillard, elected June 24, does have a boyfriend and the Sydney Morning Herald is concerned with their living arrangements. In article titled, “Shacking up is hard to do: why Gillard may be leery of the Lodge,” writer Bettina Arndt worries that, “as a popular role model for women, her lifestyle choice may influence other women into making big mistakes about their lives.” That mistake is “wasting precious breeding time in such uncertain relationships.” Wow. That doesn’t feel like progress. The newspaper even ran a poll asking “Do you agree that Julia Gillard’s de facto lifestyle is a bad influence for women?” So far 78 percent of respondents have said no. That’s progress.

And here in the United States, the closest we’ve come to electing a woman to lead the country was Hillary Clinton’s run for office and two women, Sarah Palin and Geraldine Ferraro, running as vice presidential candidates. Are we making progress? Do you think a woman will be elected president in your lifetime? Answer that question at The SkinnyScoop and you’ll be eligible to win a Yogi Max from Yogibo.

So if Robin Givhan isn’t sexist…

May 26, 2010
By

Robin Givhan

By now you’ve probably heard that Washington Post fashion columnist Robin Givhan took on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and her wardrobe in Givhan’s column this past weekend. She wrote about Kagan, “mostly she embraced dowdy as a mark of brainpower.”

Why is it the media always assumes women who don’t relish fashion are making some kind of statement? Last month Kate Betts at The Daily Beast tackled Hillary Clinton’s wardrobe and “distinctly dowdy pumps.” Betts wrote about Clinton’s Oscar de la Renta suits, “She wears them to fit in, not to stand out, and that’s what bugs me.”

How does Betts know that? And how does Givhan know Kagan dresses to send a message about her brains? They don’t. Yes fashion can make a statement – a powerful one at that – but only for the people who care about that stuff.

Remember that episode of “Sex and the City” when Berger says to Miranda about a guy who never called after the first date, “he’s just not that into you“? Well guess what Givhan and Betts, some people just aren’t that into fashion. Some people, believe it or not, wear clothes because they have to – clothes keep them warm and prevent sunburns in uncomfortable places. Just like some people eat to live, not because food is a passion or a comfort. It’s surprising these fashion writers don’t grasp that.

More surprising however, is Givhan’s critique of Kagan’s posture. Writes Givhan, “In the photographs of Kagan sitting and chatting in various Capitol Hill offices, she doesn’t appear to ever cross her legs. Her posture stands out because for so many women, when they sit, they cross.”

Givhan claims she wasn’t being sexist when she wrote that. I don’t buy it. First of all, this appeared in the Washington Post. Second, we’re talking about the same woman who once covered Hillary Clinton’s cleavage. And third, how many powerful men have poor posture, bad wardrobes, or worse, boorish behavior that the media never covers? I have been in meetings on three different occasions when three different men clipped their nails. Were those men sending a message or just being gross?

The way I see it, if Givhan won’t admit she was being sexist, then she should at least admit she doesn’t know much about fashion. So which is it?

  

Gender Equality: Is it Heartbreak Hill?

April 19, 2010
By

Today was the 114th running of the Boston Marathon and a record number of women participated as registered runners. Out of 26,790 entrants, 11,350 were women. That’s an impressive number considering women have only been allowed to run in the Boston event for 38 years.

From the start of the race in 1897 up until 1972, women were barred from participating. It doesn’t surprise me that women were excluded in the beginning. It annoys me – but doesn’t surprise me. But I didn’t realize women were barred during my lifetime.  

When I hear about this kind of blatant gender discrimination happening just one generation ahead of me, I wonder how my parents and teachers had the gall to tell me I could grow up to do or be anything I wanted to be.  What made them believe that, when they witnessed blatant discrimination first hand? I can only suppose the women who took risks and shattered stereotypes were so inspiring that people wanted to believe the doors they opened would never close behind them.*

Now that I am raising a daughter, I am more cautious than my parents were about what I tell her. I feel I should set realistic expectations. Yes, she lives in a world where there is more gender equity than in previous generations, but I don’t want to create a false sense of reality. Sure, I’ve witnessed strong women blaze trails. Hillary Clinton ran for president, but she’s not in the Oval Office. And Lilly Ledbetter fought pay discrimination, but women still earn .77 cents for every dollar a man earns.

What do you think? Are women today more or less optimistic than their mothers were about women’s equality?

*Roberta “Bobbi” Gibb was the first woman to run the Boston Marathon in 1966. She wrote about her experience here. It’s a beautiful read.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes