Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Jean Qiao, WCF Communications Fellow

The defeat of Martha Coakley on Tuesday meant a field day for political analysts and bloggers, all trying to concoct reasons and theories on why an extremely qualified woman lost her battle to the Senate in a historically liberal state. Everything from her laziness to her personality have been scrutinized and analyzed to no end.

But what the media outlets do not realize is that by focusing all their efforts on scrutinizing both Coakley and Brown, they easily put Coakley at a disadvantage. How easy? Easy as 1, 2, 3.

1.    Give Coakley a nickname that sticks

When Martha Coakley refused to answer a campaign finance question in early October, Boston Herald columnist Lauren Beckham Falcone deemed her an Ice Queen. Imagine the way this rather catchy nickname was spun in the mainstream media and in the online blogging community. Would you want to vote for a woman who shows little to no emotion and is known as the “ice queen,” or would you rather give your vote to a young and attractive lad who has a smile that can light up an entire room, despite his stance on issues? Oh and slap in a strategically-selected photo of Coakley with her scariest facial expression right next to an airbrushed image of Brown waving to his supporters. The juxtaposition is lethal.

2.    Knowledge of sports = a good Senator

When you’re from the Northeast, baseball team affiliations can make or break a friendship. And in a special election campaign, apparently it can make or break your victory. Former Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling made quite a splash after she mistakenly called him “another Yankee fan.”

Surely someone who is running for office in the state of Massachusetts should be able distinguish all the Yankee team members from the Red Sox team members. If you can’t do that you’re obviously unfit to be a member of the United States Senate who spends a majority of their time in Washington.

3.    Post nude pictures online of the male candidate

I clearly remember when Cosmo released rather revealing pictures of Scott Brown, who said he was a former model. Most of the responses ranged from, “oh my gosh what a stud,” to a general sense of apathy. Apparently it was no surprise that a male politician running for office wearing absolutely nothing evoked such an apathetic and even a little bit of a positive response. Conservative journalist Kathleen Parker wrote:

“He’s Joe Six-Pack with a law degree and 30 years in the National Guard. A lieutenant colonel with the Army Judge Advocate General Corps, he’s also a tri-athlete and a Mr. Mom to his busy wife, Boston TV news reporter Gail Huff”.

Imagine the kind of response Coakley would receive had the media found and publicized nude pictures of her. I can just see it now: Ice queen-baseball-hating Woman reveals nude pictures of herself. Something tells me that would not have been spun in a positive light. I dare say that if she even made it past the primary, the nude photos would completely overshadow and ruin her campaign. The double standards at play both here and in all political races across the country are painfully obvious.

When will you female candidates learn? You can’t be too emotional, that makes you seem weak. But don’t be too cold, that makes you an Ice Queen. Definitely don’t focus on your gender, but don’t ignore it either.

Talk about your family and kids, but not too much, because a busy candidate can’t be a good mother. If you don’t have kids, you’d better be extra warm and fuzzy.

So how can you act, you ask? That question remains unanswered. Why? Because our society has developed so many extreme stereotypes for women that we no longer know how to respond. We don’t know what’s safe.

As a result, female candidates end up trying to traverse the icy trail of double standards, attempting to choose between one extreme over the other, floundering around in the middle, or just trying to be themselves.

Hillary Clinton has always been a strong leader who doesn’t take any crap. But it wasn’t her experience or vision that won over some voters, it was the fact that she cried on television. (”Oh good, she does have emotions, I had no idea”). Would voters ever need to see a male candidate cry to earn their support? Of course not. But apparently Clinton had acted too removed, too hard, too much like…a man for people’s taste.

But if Clinton had come out of the gate overflowing with emotion about women and her campaign, she would have been blasted for being a sappy female.

Meanwhile, Martha Coakley has repeatedly been called “icy” and is now criticized for not emphasizing the historic nature of her campaign. But should a female candidate dare express that her gender is indeed one of her many qualifications, the response I always hear is, “I won’t vote for a woman just because she’s a woman.”

It seems women just can’t win. And believe me, it’s not just women pointing this out (nor are women excluded from judging based on stereotypes). To POLITICO, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) recounted that despite her overwhelming win in Massachusetts, Hillary Clinton still faced sexism from voters there.

McGovern also brought up how a local paper concluded that Coakley’s new hair and makeup style were to blame for the race tightening:

“They wouldn’t write this about a man,” McGovern said. “I still think we have a long way to go to make this an equal playing field.”

James Carroll of The Daily Beast describes Massachusetts’ rich and long history of misogyny toward female candidates:

“The short of it is that the most liberal state in the nation … practices the politics of misogyny. When it comes to positions of real power, no women need apply. Martha Coakley was croaked by an electorate that could not get past her gender.”

Martha Coakley’s loss in the special election for the Massachusetts Senate seat leaves many of us angry that the “progressive” state of Massachusetts continues to squeeze out women. It also leaves us frightened about the future of women’s reproductive rights in the health care bill.

Without Coakley, preventing attacks on choice in health care reform looks bleak. And if Massachusetts serves as a thermometer for the way our country is viewing female candidates, we’re in big trouble.

It’s 2010, folks—when will the double standards stop?