Women and Politics

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.

Front and center, Herald tries to slander Coakley by associating her with Palin

By WCF Fellow: Trish

Usable against any woman, forever in any political war chest, there is a four-syllable bomb. Sarah Palin. After attracting sexist attention of her own while running for Vice President, her name is now used like a dirty word.

Some have compared an answer Coakley gave in an interview on WCVB’s “On the Record” to an infamous answer that Palin gave during her campaign for Vice President. Hillary Chabot of the Boston Herald writes:

“Rivals blasted the strange foreign policy credentials offered by Attorney General Martha Coakley yesterday after the U.S. Senate candidate - in an answer reminiscent of former vice presidential contender Sarah Palin - counted her sister’s overseas home as part of her own international know-how.”

Watch Coakley’s interview for yourself. The interviewer asked Coakley, “What is your experience traveling, have you ever been abroad?” Coakley responded appropriately, and she responded well. She pointed out that as the Attorney General, she is not required to travel abroad, but that she’s a student of history, has a strong appreciation for other countries, and has traveled extensively on her own; her sister lives overseas.

Are some people so sexist that they can’t differentiate one woman from another? Terms like Ice Queen and Mean Girl are bad enough—but now Sarah Palin has been made a stereotype by the virtue of the fact that she is one of only two women to run for Vice President.

So when we can’t think of a derogatory, stereotypical name to call a woman, we’ll just compare her to another female candidate?

It’s a terrible irony that women writers like Cabot and Falcone are pushing a woman like Coakley, a trail-blazing, mold-breaker woman, into a cast that Coakley is trying to break on the behalf of all women. All Coakley has in common with Palin is that she, too, is running in a highly publicized race, and that she, too, has two x-chromosomes.

During the presidential campaign Chabot lauded Sarah Palin writing in one article, “Palin charged up the GOP with a heavily watched, prime-time speech.” So what is Chabot doing trying to take down Coakley by the negative Palin association she had a hand in creating after Palin’s failed election?

Sarah Palin should not be used in comparison with other female candidates without justified parallels beyond the fact of sex and running for office.

To do so is purely sexist.

Give your support to Martha Coakley; let her know you recognize her as a distinct leader.

I was saddened to hear about the recent sexist attacks against Martha Coakley, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins.

As a former Congressional candidate, I know exactly how it feels to be attacked simply for being a woman. I never realized just how sexist politics is until I decided to run for office.

My local paper ran an unacceptable quote about me on the front page during my race. Now, I’ve decided to tell my story on camera to bring these kinds of misogynistic attacks to light.

Click here to hear my story and help us put a stop to sexist attacks.

Help us fight sexism in politics today: we’ve provided the emails of all four recent offending members of the media so you can contact them and speak out against their offensive sexist rhetoric.

Michael Savage: “Jezebel is Olympia Snowe.”

Jim Quinn: “‘Stupid Girl’ by Garbage ‘probably fits pretty well.’”

Rush Limbaugh: “Dare I say, Women, damn it.”

‘Tis the season for misogyny, it seems. These are recent comments made by sexist radio show hosts about Maine Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

What did they do to illicit such sexist rhetoric? They had an opinion about health care reform. And, apparently, having a different opinion than these radio hosts means you get attacked—not for your views—but for your gender.

Instead of discussing the reasons why he disagreed with Olympia Snowe’s Senate Finance Committee vote on health care reform, Michael Savage decided it would be better to liken her to a female devil:

“If ever the devil was born without a pair of horns, it was you. Jezebel, it was you.”

Savage played this line of the song “Jezebel” by Frankie Laine, and then added, “Jezebel is Olympia Snowe.”

Let me be clear: I’m not saying that no one dare ever disagree with or even attack a woman elected official for her policy or votes. But if you’re going to, at least do it in an intelligent and somewhat respectful way. Basically, don’t simply insult her for being a woman.

I know respectful isn’t the mantra for these particular radio hosts, but that doesn’t mean they should get away with it. The more people hear misogynistic language used, the more we perpetuate the acceptance of this kind of harmful sexism.

Click here to email these sexist radio hosts and tell them their language is unacceptable.

I guess a historic candidacy deserves a historic level of sexism. As potentially the first woman Senator from Massachusetts, Martha Coakley is undoubtedly in for a world of good old fashioned sexism in politics.

And thanks to a Boston Herald columnist, Martha Coakley has already been served her first large helping of it.

Recently, Martha declined to answer a campaign finance question during a press conference. Unfortunately, Boston Herald columnist Lauren Beckam Falcone saw this as an opportunity to hit Martha with sexist rhetoric, calling her an “ice queen” and “mean girl.” And, maybe my favorite, “Mean Martha.”

Does anyone call President Obama names when he declines a reporter’s question? Or even any male politician for that matter?

Aside from the pure absurdity of the use of middle school insults (and Glee phrases?) to describe a Senatorial candidate, perhaps the most disheartening aspect of this attack is that the name-calling is coming from a woman. A woman who tries to use the same sexism she’s employing to draw pity upon the fact that a female reporter was treated “as if she’s invisible.”

I get that a columnist has to be “edgy” and “creative” in their writing…but, Ice Queen, really? Isn’t there a line somewhere between a catchy post and tearing down your own gender?

As Women for Coakley points out, these kinds of incidents don’t just hurt Martha Coakley—they are detrimental to all women. In response to the column, Women for Coakley decided to focus “on the women whom this incident actually hurts: women who have no newspaper column, no press conferences, no voice.” They go on to write that:

This hurts the single mother with no healthcare who needs her viewpoints represented in healthcare debates. This hurts the female office worker who hears men in the next cubicle laughing about the headline and wonders how she can possibly ask to be paid as much as her male colleagues in such an environment. This hurts the female engineer who wonders how she can ask her co-workers to tone down the sexual innuendo of office conversations and the unwelcome comments about her figure without being labeled an “ice queen.” This hurts the idealistic teen girl who is inspired to study government and to someday run for office, but doesn’t know whether our society really accepts powerful women.

Through this column, the Boston Herald and Lauren Beckam Falcone have effectively told women and girls that there is no place for them in elected office because if they run, they’ll be ridiculed. Ridiculed not even for their policy or ideas, but merely for being a woman.

How long will we as a society allow these kinds of archaic sexist insults to continue? Ladies, haven’t we come further than this?

Well, we almost made it through the second day of Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings before sexism reared its ugly head. But thanks to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), it has made an unwanted, noisy, and obnoxious arrival - like the drunken guest stumbling uninvited into your party.

I thought it couldn’t get worse than the constant barrage of questions about the “wise Latina” quote. But I had forgotten about the Pièce de résistance argument: that she’s a mean girl bully who beats up on lawyers. Sen. Graham whipped that dazzling argument out during his impressive (and by impressive, I mean horrifying) line of questioning, saying she has been described as:

Temperamental, overly excitable, not having a good temperament. Lacks judicial temperament. Behaves in an out of control manner, makes inappropriate comments, attacks lawyers. A bit of a bully.

Would a male judge ever be criticized for asking lawyers hard questions? Would he ever be called a bully? Judge Guido Calabresi, a former dean of Yale Law School who sits with Sotomayor on the Second Circuit, says no. Calabresi even kept track of her questions and compared them to those of the other court members - he says her behavior was “identical.”

“Some lawyers just don’t like to be questioned by a woman,” Judge Calabresi added. “It was sexist, plain and simple.”

So clearly if the big, bad lawyers don’t like having to answer to a woman, that must mean she’s a temperamental bully. In response to Graham’s question, Sotomayor explained:

“In the Second Circuit, some lawyers do find that our court is described as a ‘hot bench’ because they’re peppered with questions. Lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process find that the bench is difficult and challenging.”

To which, Sen. Graham replied:

“But if I may interject, it’s that they find you difficult and challenging. Do you think you have a temperament problem?”

I’m not sure if she answered with a simple, “no,” because I was too busy being shocked and horrified. But the point is that this kind of sexist questioning is unacceptable and has no place in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing. What’s next, Sen. Graham? Will you accuse Sotomayor of being catty? Take issue with her hair or clothes? Give her makeup suggestions?

I hope at least my children will live to see a day when women will be judged in the same light as men, and without any ridiculous female stereotypes.

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.