Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Rebecca Freedholm, WCF Communications Fellow

Kathleen Parker from the Washington Post disapproves of Obama’s approach to the BP oil spill. In fact, she thinks that Obama has been passive, appeasing, ineffective, and downright feminine! That’s right, apparently our president’s biggest fault is that he is acting like a woman.

Last week Parker deemed Obama “our first female president,” and it certainly was not meant as a compliment. She primarily criticized Obama’s communication style, claiming that the president is “suffering a rhetorical-testosterone deficit when it comes to dealing with crises.”

Although Parker insists that her description of Obama’s alleged gender-swap is not a dig at women, linking femininity with ineffectiveness and passivity can be construed as nothing but what it is: sexist and insulting.

How else could you interpret one blaming Obama’s supposed futility on his stereotypically female qualities? And as Rose Afriyie observed, Parker refuses to cite examples of how this form of “feminine communication” can be anything besides disastrous:

“…nowhere in her analysis of the BP oil spill does she speak to how this alleged feminine communication style has been an asset. In this way, her analysis is more of a slight against women in leadership than it is of the President. And it begs the question, when is being called a woman going to be an affirmation instead of an offense against one’s competence?”

Afriyie’s question is essential, and one that should have been running through the minds of all Washington Post readers. When will calling someone a woman cease to be an insult? The more we disparage men for acting “womanly” or women for displaying masculine qualities, the more we perpetuate the use of toxic gender stereotypes.

The more misogynistic language is used and sexist arguments are made, the more our society’s destructive gender hierarchy is reinforced. Mary Curtis reflects on the harm of these stereotypes in her response to Parker’s column:

“Criticizing the president for policy or demeanor or anything else is fine. But emasculating him based on worn-out stereotypes is depressing. If he isn’t the angry black man he must be a gentle white woman. We are all prisoners of what others have decided we must be. Might as well give our little boys trucks and our little girls dolls and forget about it.”

Parker is right about one thing: We have “come a long way gender-wise.” But the anti-woman ideas expressed in her column hurl us backward. Sadly, we can be sure that she isn’t the only one in America holding these sexist beliefs.

And it’s exactly this archaic line of thinking that prevents women from running for and entering public office. If we equate feminine qualities to being intrinsically negative and ineffective, why would anyone want to support a woman candidate?

These destructive ideas about gender must end now.

At WCF, we believe that conformity to traditional gender roles should not be the key to the Oval Office. Moreover, we believe that women bring valuable and vital perspectives, experiences, and qualities into the political arena.

The longer we allow such denigration of women to persist, the harder it will be for women to rise to leadership in all fields. As it’s been demonstrated that women’s increased participation in decision-making creates better outcomes, preventing gender equality isn’t just a blow to women—it’s devastating to our entire country.

This post was submitted by WCF Communications Fellow Ali Rozell

For the past two months, Nikki Haley, a South Carolina State Legislator and a Republican candidate for Governor, has faced an unacceptable onslaught of misogynist rhetoric and racial slurs.

Two men have come forward stating they had affairs with Haley.

The first man with accusations is Will Folks, a conservative blogger, who alleges that he engaged in a lengthy affair with Haley.  When Haley announced her candidacy for governor, Folks, who plead guilty to a criminal domestic violence charge in 2005, posted a video of a mock-interview with Haley, in which he threatens her with physical violence.

Folks then posted an entry on his blog alleging that he had an “inappropriate physical relationship” with Haley.  Following Folks’s post, the conservative blogosphere exploded with opinions on Haley’s supposed extramarital affairs.  Comments on these blogs quickly became sexist and derogatory, with writers calling Haley a “slut” and a “whore” multiple times.

RedState, a leading Republican blog, objectified Haley to a disgusting level when blogger Erick Ericson stated, in “defense” of Haley:

“This violates the very basic laws of nature: hot women do not have affairs with ugly guys unless those guys are rich.”

Ericson then went on to take it to a new low:

*Take home point for the moms in the audience: how likely is it that a hot woman would want to have an “inappropriate physical relationship” with this guy when, according to his timeline, she would have had very small children at the time and more likely than not wanted sleep above all other things?

If we were to rank the egregiousness of misogynistic comments, these would win first place.

Riding the wave of publicity that Folks gained after alleging an affair with Haley, Larry Merchant, a consultant for Haley’s opponent Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer, went to the press with a story that he had a one night stand with Haley in 2008.  Merchant admitted he had no proof of the affair, yet the media again exploded with speculations on Haley’s sexual life.

It is as ridiculous as it is offensive that the media spent so much time commenting on and speculating about Haley’s sexual life—over a comment coming from a rival campaign.  Haley vehemently denied these claims, stating that she has been faithful to her husband throughout her marriage.

The firestorm surrounding Haley’s alleged sexual actions became so intense that instead of focusing on her political positions or efforts in the South Carolina Legislature, Haley began receiving questions about the purported affairs, derailing the election.

Instead of focusing on the issues important to voters, the election became focused on false and sexist allegations.

And just when you thought the ignorance couldn’t get any worse,  Jim Knotts, a State Senator in South Carolina, used a racist slur in reference to Haley:

“We’ve got a raghead in Washington, we don’t need a raghead in the Statehouse.”

Disgusting. Racism has no place anywhere in our country—let alone in politics.

Haley has been a public official in South Carolina for many years and has earned a strong reputation as an effective lawmaker. It’s appalling that her campaign was reduced to sexist and racial slurs.

The conflagration of accusations against Haley only served as evidence that women in politics face harsh forces when running for office.  Haley heads into a runoff against State Representative Gresham Barrett in two weeks. We will be watching her race closely to ensure the rest of her primary season is free from misogyny and racism.

This post was submitted by Caitlin O’Brien, WCF Fellow.

Women have come a long way, it’s true. Sure, we now make up 46% of the labor force, as compared with 34% in 1950—but we still only make 77 cents to every dollar that a man makes. And despite turning out to vote in higher numbers than men in every election since 1964, women still only make up 17% of Congress. For every mile we walk, there is still a marathon to run.

Picture courtesy of MADELINE

U.S. Representative Betty Sutton (D-OH) has done more than enough in her career to have earned the respect of the political world—which means both parties. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. In a recent flier sent out by The Republican Review, the GOP urged voters to “take Betty Sutton out of the House and put her back in the kitchen!”

Yep, you heard right folks: PUT HER BACK IN THE KITCHEN.

Needless to say, this kind of comment isn’t just offensive, it’s also archaic. It implies that women not only have no place in politics, but are only suited to stay at home—as far from the workplace as possible. First of all, choosing to stay home and raise a family is a tough and admirable job no matter what your gender. But this outrageous callback to the days when women weren’t seen as anything more than housewives is wildly disrespectful and disregards all of the hard work women have had to do to come as far as we have.

I understand not liking someone’s politics, but why do the attacks against women always end up being about their gender? Because sexism is still deeply ingrained in our culture.

Misogynist comments like this not only insult the person they target, but also belittle over 50% of the population. It’s this nasty behavior that so many women internalize—making them hesitant to do things like run for office.

And what’s the most infuriating part of the whole thing? The mailer was actually paid for, in part, by Rep. Sutton’s challenger in her upcoming election, Republican Tom Ganley. So, in response to The Republican Review’s short sighted-view of who deserves to hold political office, Rep. Sutton is attempting to collect 15,000 signatures, calling on Ganley to denounce the comment immediately.

Click here to add your signature to the list and give women in politics the support they need and deserve.

Socially-engrained sexism is perhaps the biggest roadblock to women’s political leadership. We must continue to call out both blatant and “covert” anti-woman rhetoric as soon as it happens.

Rep. Sutton faces a primary election on May 4 - let’s make sure she isn’t thrown back into the kitchen - but kept in the House.

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?

I know that nothing good ever comes out of the mouths of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Ever. That said, we can no longer ignore the disgusting filth and misogyny that they are spewing over their air waves.

Exactly when did it become acceptable to call a Senator a prostitute? And not just call her a whore, but go on for almost two minutes with a “metaphor” about exactly how she’s a whore?

This vile transcript of Glenn Beck and Pay Gray talking about Senator Mary Landrieu speaks for itself (click here to listen to the audio from Media Matters):

“She may be easy, but she’s not cheap. We’re with a high-class prostitute. Right. You’re not at Motel 6…you’re not in a back alley saying “what do you say, five bucks?” No no no. This one comes to your four seasons hotel room and does it right and doesn’t dress really slutty dresses nice, you might even think she’s the wife of the CEO.”

“There’s nobody that’s going to look at her and say ‘oh my god that’s a whore,’ you’re going to look at her and say ‘oh, wow, she’s classy’ and then when somebody whispers, ’she’s a prostitute’ you think OK yeah but she’s not cheap.”

“You’ll dismiss it because it’s like well yeah she’s not getting 20 bucks an hour right? Exactly. This is high class. She’s the one when you say, ‘you’re a HOOKER! You’re like you know having sex for 100 bucks,’ she says, ‘It’s not 100 bucks, it’s 5,000 bucks,’ and then you respect her.”

“Then you’re like ohhh. It’s the type of high class prostitute that actually purchases a wedding ring so that when she’s walking through the plaza, people think that she’s actually married to the person she’s walking into. That’s how classy she is. You don’t sell your principles for $50 on a street corner. No no no. $300 mil and a 3 page definition - that’s how you sell your principles.”

Not one to shy away from any opportunity to bash a woman, Limbaugh added on his show that Landrieu “may be the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitution.”

Why were these chauvinists calling Senator Landrieu a prostitute? It doesn’t matter. This kind of blatant misogyny and disrespect are completely unacceptable. I’m shocked that these anti-woman figures are still allowed to speak in any kind of public space—let alone paid to do so.

No wonder women don’t have equality in public office, with these kind of attacks on women being launched and greeted with ambivalence and even acceptance.

Speak out against Beck and Limbaugh today:

Email Rush Limbaugh, ElRushbo@eibnet.com

Email Glenn Beck, me@glennbeck.com

Sign our petition to Limbaugh and Beck here.

This kind of misogyny against women elected officials, candidates, and public figures will not stand. If we value women in our society at all, we have a responsibility to speak out against this kind of hateful speech.

The recently-released Shriver Report has provided us with the knowledge that women are now half the paid US workforce as well as a jumping-off point to discuss the state of women’s equality in general.

What we know: women have come a long way in the past few decades. We hold a higher percentage of college degrees, diverse jobs, and public offices.

What we also know: our progress has stagnated. And, as Joanne Lipman writes in the New York Times, the measurable progress we’ve made hasn’t translated to progress in our attitudes toward women.

“Certainly, when you look at the numbers, women have made tremendous strides over the past 25 years. But in the process, we lost sight of something important. After focusing for so long on better jobs and higher pay, maybe the best thing — the enduring thing — we can do is make sure respect is part of the equation too.”

Lipman pointed out the atrocious woman-bashing that has ensued in our society at all levels: in politics, media, entertainment, and the internet. Case in point: Martha Coakley being called Ice Queen. Olympia Snowe being called Jezebel.

Why have women gained ground in our workforce but not in our minds? How do we work to address “concrete issues” like health care reform as well as our attitudes toward women; close the wage gap as well as the respect gap?

My usual answer to these kinds of questions is to elect more women to public office. But maybe it’s not that simple this time. Of course, I do think that having more women in positions of power is essential to changing sexist mindsets and implementing policy to erase inequality.

However, as we experience the growing pains of expanding women’s representation in politics, we will inevitably come up against even more misogyny and sexism (read: Rush Limbaugh and Fox News). What we decide to do in the face of these growing pains will determine our fate.

Do we ignore the sexism and keep on truckin’, hoping it goes away on its own? Or do we stand up and say enough is enough? Women are the only demographic for which it is still acceptable to viciously and openly attack in the public sphere. Why do we allow that to continue?

To truly begin to unravel the archaic stereotypes still held about women, it will take all of us speaking out. Otherwise, we will only achieve equality in numbers alone.

Do we want to arrive at the day where we’ve finally achieved gender parity in public office only to still be called Ice Queens and Mean Girls? I know I don’t.