Today is the Massachusetts Special Election. If you live in Massachusetts, don’t forget to vote.
We are volunteering today. So until we return, here is an interesting op-ed on the election from Joan Vennochi at boston.com.
Much of the media coverage of the Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s senate seat has focused on the leading candidates’ personalities, or perceived lack of personality in the case of Attorney General Martha Coakley. Reporters are quick to point out voters know more about Coakley professionally than personally. She has been referred to as an ice queen and a mean girl, monotone, robotic, with no fire in her belly, and the “personality of a frumpy substitute teacher.”
The Boston Globe says,
“She hides her personality behind a businesslike veneer.”
Inherent in many of these articles I believe there is an unconscious gender bias. Many career women, especially women from Coakley’s generation, have been conditioned to separate their personal and professional personas. We are taught that in order to be taken seriously, we must be serious. We are told that to get to the top, we must emulate those at the top. And the reality is, most of the people at the top are still men. As a result women are trained that sports talk is okay. Girl talk is not.
When I was pregnant, I tried to change the topic and redirect any conversations about my pregnancy while at work. This despite the fact my protruding belly took up half the conference room. When I returned from maternity leave, I did not bring any pictures of my children to work and never discussed motherhood for fear I would be seen as a flight risk by my bosses.
But so much political coverage these days focuses on a candidate’s personality and so-called likeability. Is the candidate warm? Do we know them personally? And the all-important question, would we want to have a beer with them?
The above-quoted Globe article goes on to reveal some personal details about Coakley.
“Behind the scenes, Coakley reveals a quick wit and an almost easygoing personality that is striking in its contrast to her campaign identity. She expounds on her preference for pale ales (and Sam Adams or Harpoon over Guinness). She quotes lyrics from Broadway musicals (favorite: “Man of La Mancha’’). She describes hearing former governor Mitt Romney sing show tunes (yes, he can sing). She explains her unusual accent (it reflects her youth in North Adams, her career as a lawyer, and her parents’ Rhode Island origins).”
The reality is, most voters will never sit down for a beer or belt out show tunes with our elected officials. And really, why would we want to? What matters in an election is the candidates’ track records, voting history and stance on the key issues of the day. Results are what matter. At least, that’s what they taught all of us working women at the office. So to judge a woman candidate’s lack of so-called personality is to dismiss the realities of professional women. Furthermore, we are still a long way, baby, from a woman centerfold being taken seriously as a senate candidate.
Perhaps, the most ridiculous coverage I saw of Coakley, was an interview with Andy Hiller of local news station WHDH. His bio claims he is “regarded as the most provocative political reporter in New England.”
Here is some of the exchange between Hiller and Coakley:
Hiller: “With respect to your sense of humor- what’s your favorite joke?”
Coakley “Oh, I’m a horrible joke teller. I’ll be the first to tell that…” I have a horrible memory for jokes. I know them when I hear them. But I can’t give you one now.”
Hiller: “How can you replace Sen. Ted Kennedy if you can’t tell a joke? He was the best at it.”
Provocative? Hardly.
Adrian Walker at Boston.com wrote of Coakley,
“She is solid, sane, and responsible, and in a short race, that will have to see her through.”
Fine with me.
Ladies, it’s time to pay attention to the special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, no matter where you live. When voters go to the polls next week, January 19, women everywhere stand to either gain or lose a lot.
Democratic nominee and Attorney General Martha Coakley is running against Republican nominee and State Senator Scott Brown. There is a third candidate in the race, Independent Joe Kennedy (no relation to the late Senator), but he is not considered a contender.
Until recently no one really thought Brown was a contender either. How could the Commonwealth let “The Kennedy Seat” go to a Republican? Plus, Massachusetts has not elected a Republican senator since 1972.* As a result, the race has been rather dull and garnered very little attention outside the Commonwealth.
And then the Senate passed its version of the healthcare bill and suddenly, things got interesting. Conservative interest groups, fueled by a desire to elect Brown as the 41st vote against the bill, started pouring money and volunteers into the race. The American Future Fund, a group whose members are believed to be behind the Swift Boat ad and the Willie Horton ad that hurt John Kerry and Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaigns, launched a $400,000 attack ad against Coakley. Twitter users started flooding the social media site with pro-Brown tweets, many that reference the Tea Party. Brown even raised $1 million dollars in just 24 hours. And now, polls show the race is very close.
Brown’s million dollars came from across the country because right-wing conservatives want to help support and protect their interests. Women, concerned with protecting their rights, should get involved now too.
Here’s what at stake:
Healthcare: The healthcare bill, while certainly imperfect, removes gender-biased practices and stops insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions like rape and domestic violence. In Massachusetts, Brown filed legislation designed to ease regulations on insurance companies. Under his bill, companies may not be required to cover certain medical services including mammograms and cancer screenings.
Reproductive Rights: Coakley has a long history of supporting a woman’s right to choose and control her own body. She has the support of NARAL and Emily’s List. Pro-choice advocates are disappointed that Coakley supports the Senate healthcare bill which includes restriction on abortion. But her opponent’s record on reproductive rights is more disconcerting. He is backed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. He co-sponsored the Women’s Right to Know Act, which would require a woman to wait 24 hours before having an abortion and view an ultrasound of their fetus. While Brown does say he supports Roe v. Wade, his campaign website reads, “I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area…”
Support for rape victims: Brown sponsored legislation that would allow healthcare workers to turn away rape victims from emergency rooms if they objected to providing those victims with emergency contraception.
Equal representation: Women represent 51 percent of the population but only 17 percent of the legislation. Until a group reaches critical mass, at least 30 percent representation in leadership, they are viewed and evaluated as “special interest” rather than representative. Every competent, qualified women we elect, brings us one step closer to critical mass. And, as we’ve written before,
“Women legislators bring much needed attention to so-called women’s issues such as childcare, elder care, fair workplace policies and healthcare. They serve as role models for young girls and increase women’s overall participation in government and civic issues. And women politicians work hard. According to a study from the University of Chicago and Stanford University, women in Congress, on average, introduce more bills and secure more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.”
No candidate is ever perfect ladies. But if we are going to work together to support our interests, we must remove the phrase, “I want to vote for a woman, but…” from our vocabulary and take action.
Here is what you can do:
Donate: Link here to make a donation.
Volunteer: Make calls to voters and help get the message out.
Vote: If you live in Massachusetts, get out and vote on Tuesday, January 19.
Support other qualified women candidates.
*Massachusetts has never sent a woman to the Senate.
In the last week, the once sleepy Massachusetts Senate Race has heated up. Republican Scott Brown’s campaign has been bolstered by tighter than expected polls and support from out-of-state conservative groups. The election is viewed as a barometer for what’s to come later this year and just how much support President Obama does or does not have for healthcare reform and other policies.
For an overview of what’s happening on the ground, read this update on Care2.com. Tomorrow, we will discuss what’s at stake for women in this race.
Santa brought us a few early Christmas presents yesterday. Martha Coakley won the Democratic Primary in the Massachusetts Senate race, bringing the state one step closer to electing its first ever woman senator. And the Senate killed the Stupak-like Nelson Amendment.
Coakley would be a strong advocate for women in the Senate. Senator Al Franken is another. Spare Candy posted a transcript of his comments on the Nelson Amendment. It’s a good read.
It was another busy week and we are glad it is winding down. We’ve compiled some follow up reading for you on the topics we covered this week. But first, some news.
Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley announced today the endorsement of Gloria Steinem, founding editor and publisher of Ms. magazine, co-founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus and long-time women’s rights activist.
What is exciting and significant about this endorsement is it is yet another example that Coakley is not afraid of gender. Other women candidates often feel pressure to downplay women’s rights for fear of being seen as “just” a woman’s candidate. On the flip side, if they talk tough or wear pantsuits instead of skirts, they are criticized for being a “woman acting like a man.” Coakley is simply running on her track record and the important issues, one of which is women’s rights. Her opponents aren’t trying to hide the fact they are men and she’s not hiding the fact she is a woman.
Speaking of the Massachusetts Senate race…
Sexism Alive and Well: Joan Vennochi at The Boston Globe had a great op-ed this week on the old boy’s network. It talks about how the network protects the men’s club. Read it here.
National Day of Action: For a round up of actions and articles on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment and the fight to protect women’s rights visit The Women’s Media Center. And yes, Senator Nelson is still working on his Stupak-like Amendment.
World Aids Day: Another round up of blog posts this time on World Aids Day can be found here at Global Health Progress.
Turkeys: Roman Polanski made bail and moved to his ski chalet. The New York Times wrote a story about it and never used the word rape. Not once.
Chris Brown will tell the world tonight he is “really sorry” about beating up Rhianna. As my daughter would say, “Whatever.”
And Tiger Woods, well, we still think his problems are personal and none of our business. This whole incident is however, a good reminder that sports stars are superb athletes, not heroes. Imagine if we found our role models and heroes in our own lives instead of on the television? After all, small, everyday acts of kindness impact our lives much more than the fame and wealth of strangers.
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.”
Last Saturday the House traded a woman’s right to choose for healthcare reform. Even though President Obama has promised that reform will not cause any U.S. citizen to lose benefits they already have, the House passed the Stupak Pitts amendment which takes away a woman’s right to full reproductive health coverage
Over the weekend several representatives threatened to vote down the healthcare bill unless the House passed the amendment. The amendment, by prohibiting coverage of abortion in the public option, effectively bans abortion coverage across the board. That’s because it also prohibits private insurers from offering full reproductive coverage through the exchange to both subsidized and unsubsidized individuals. Remember: abortions are legal, medical procedures.
The amendment does make a provision for an abortion rider that women could purchase in the event they are planning an unplanned pregnancy. But Planned Parenthood says these riders don’t really exist. Many claim that the amendment is in place to make sure no federal money is used to pay for abortions. But that protection was already in place. The Stupak Amendment, which was backed by the Catholic Bishops, is far more restrictive.
I spent too many years in the Catholic Church to take abortion lightly, but women must have the right to control their own bodies. According to Planned Parenthood, 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.
I have also been pregnant three times. Sadly, my first baby didn’t make it. Somewhere between eight and ten weeks, his or her heart stopped beating and I underwent a surgical procedure, known as a D&C, to remove the dead fetus from inside me. The procedure ensured I would not get an infection from the tissue and, more importantly to me at the time, it gave me closure while I mourned a baby I never knew but absolutely loved. Under the Stupak Pitts amendment, hospitals might not distinguish the reason for a D&C, which is often used to perform abortions, and another woman in my situation may not have access to the surgery. What will she do then?
Sixty-four Democrats and 176 Republicans voted in the Stupak amendment, and in doing so, essentially traded women’s rights for so called healthcare reform. But this reform would not live up to Obama’s promise that we will be better off after reform than we are now. And many of those same lawmakers then voted against the healthcare bill later that night. Women’s rights were used as a political bargaining chip in the House of Representatives last weekend and that’s not okay. However, there is hope that the Stupak Pitts amendment will be stripped from the Senate healthcare bill.
In Massachusetts, the issue is heating up the Senate race for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Congressman and Senate candidate Mike Capuano voted no on the Stupak amendment but yes for the healthcare bill that included the amendment. Following the vote, Attorney General Martha Coakley took a firm stance on the issue with this statement, “The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone. I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.”
Capuano then jumped on Coakley’s statement and said, “Unlike a prosecutor, a legislator must have the skills to build consensus and the courage to make difficult decisions, and the wisdom to know when to choose progress over perfection.” His statement echoed the idea that women’s rights are just collateral damage in the game of politics. Candidate Steve Pagliuca is also willing to choose healthcare over women. His statement read, “if the choice is between providing healthcare to over 30 million people without federal coverage for abortion or to leave them with no coverage at all, I could not, in good conscience make the choice to leave them out in the cold.” Yet he could in good conscience take away women’s rights?
Days later, in what appeared to be a complete reversal, Capuano told The Boston Globe he would not support a healthcare bill that included the controversial amendment. And then, just yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the women behind the machinations last Saturday, endorsed Capuano citing his “courageous vote for this historic legislation” and his “proven record of standing up for progressive values and what he believes is right.” What exactly does he believe is right?
Know your candidates, ladies. Women should never be compromised for some greater good. We need unwavering advocates in Washington. Period.
Republicans, Get In My Vagina!
We can do it.
What It's Like to be a #WorkingMom #infographic
Awesome
