Women and Politics

In the 221 years of Massachusetts’ statehood, it has never elected a female senator. Never. But now we face a historic moment where that could finally change.

Next Tuesday, December 8th, is the primary that could pave the way for Attorney General Martha Coakley to become a senator.

We had the pleasure of talking to Martha and asked if she has faced any different hurdles as a woman candidate:

“There are still different standards and scrutiny that women candidates come under and I think we can help each other with organizations like the Women’s Campaign Forum get past those.”

Martha is humbled by the opportunity to carry on the issues that Sen. Kennedy cared about, and is also grateful for his work in helping to pave the way for more women candidates:

“One of the things that Sen. Kennedy was so terrific about was fighting discrimination in any way, shape, or form. I think the work that he did against discrimination has allowed me and other women to run for office.”

But Nancy Hopkins from the Huffington Post asks, will women vote for a woman? Unfortunately, the answer isn’t always yes. But why?

“One reason is unconscious gender bias: women, like men, don’t see women as having leadership potential.” [...] No one escapes the biases of their culture. As long as women remain second-class citizens, women as well as men will hold them in lower esteem.”

If all members of our society are undervaluing women, how will we ever achieve equality in public office? Will people ever be willing to stand up and say, “I’m voting for her because she’s a woman?”

We already know Martha Coakley has the merits and experience to make a great senator. The question is, will her gender encourage or discourage support from voters?

Thanks to Jessica Wakeman at The Frisky for reporting this story! It seems Carly Fiorina, who recently announced her intention to run against Barbara Boxer for her Senate seat in California, has already begun her attacks.

Disappointingly, her first jab at Boxer involves gender and isn’t based on any real issues:

“Barbara Boxer … disrespectfully demanded a Brigadier General refer to her as “Senator” instead of “ma’am” during a recent Senate hearing. I’m sure you’ll agree that Boxer’s arrogance and disrespect for our nation’s military leaders is way out of line.”

Fiorina was referring to the way blown-out-of-proportion “incident” where Sen. Boxer asked to be referred to as Senator instead of Ma’am. I hate to see another woman attacking Boxer for making a perfectly appropriate request, which wouldn’t have been an issue if it had come from a man.

While I should be psyched to see a Senatorial race between two women, it almost makes me want to jump into a hole and pull the hole in after me. I envision the dialogue becoming sexist and, of course, being spun as some kind of “political cat fight” by the media.

I truly hope this won’t be the case. I hope these female candidates will stick to the issues and have an intellectual debate, not sinking to cheap or gender-based attacks. (Especially since Fiorina spoke out against the sexism Palin experienced last election cycle).

But this preliminary comment doesn’t bode well for that scenario. And even if the candidates leave gender alone, we all know the media will be there to make the sexist remarks for everyone. Batten down the hatches, folks—this should be an interesting race.

Though I almost hate to draw more attention to this story, I think the recent “controversy” over Sen. Barbara Boxer needs to be discussed. Boxer has been slammed for requesting to be referred to as “Senator” as opposed to “Ma’am” during a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing.

Now, Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh was just following military protocol when addressing Sen. Boxer as “Ma’am.” No biggie, Boxer simply asked that he use her official title, Senator. Had a male Senator made the same request (if he had been called “Sir,” let’s say), it wouldn’t be given a second thought - let alone become a controversy.

However, certain political figures, blogs, and news outlets have attacked Boxer’s request as “dressing down” the officer, having a big ego, being a “loose cannon,” despising the military, an embarrassment, and (putting it nicely) being uppity. The National Republican Senatorial Committee called it disrespectful and even went so far as to collect petition signatures reprimanding Boxer. Really? This is what we’re focusing our time on?

Many have come to the defense of Sen. Boxer, pointing out that her request was respectful and not out of line. And more importantly, Gen. Walsh told Sen. Boxer directly that he wasn’t offended by her request. Blogger Lindsay Beyerstein reminds us that the Senator was questioning someone testifying before her:

It’s irrelevant whether the general was wrong to call her ma’am, or whether Boxer was being polite. It’s not a Senator’s job to be polite when she questions witnesses, that is, unless politeness suits her purposes.

I think this serves as a reminder that, yes - sexism in politics is alive and well. Women face different and greater challenges while running for and serving in office simply because of their gender. They’re openly criticized for things that men never would be, and are forced to defend themselves against often undeserved assault. This can be a difficult hurdle for women to jump while entering or engaging in public life.

Whenever something like this happens, I think we need to ask: would people have the same reaction if she were a man? I think you’ll find the answer is overwhelmingly no.