Timid Thing Not Working
After reading a letter to the editor yesterday in South Coast Today, I’m thinking the whole “she’s timid” thing isn’t working.
The way Congressman Michael Capuano has entered the Senate race is disconcerting. Attacking his opponent for being “timid” when she was the first person to enter the Senate race — really? Capuano waited until Joe Kennedy declined before he entered the race, as many other people were also exploring whether they would run if he didn’t.
Attorney General Martha Coakley is a lawyer, a professional, and I hardly think that she would have gotten as far as she has if she were timid.
Well, it is good to know the facts are winning out this time. Maybe “gender-tinged labeling” isn’t the way to go when running for office.
To the writer of this letter, Aquila Rivers: Right there with ya’!
Go Martha!
7 comments
I hear 2 issues here. As a liberal, life-long MA woman, I’ll address both:
1) Cong Capuano had the respect to wait until Sen Kennedy passed to begin pulling a campaign together. Martha Coakley began pulling her campain together the minute Sen Kennedy was diagnosed last year. I understand that politics is a tough business and people do what they feel they need to do, but I have different feelings than you about it.
2) I very much dislike gender biased comments, and I felt no gender-based offenses when Cong Capuano mentioned that “now is not the time for timidity..” It’s not about gender; it’s about individuals regardless of their gender. I believe one has to be highly over-sensitive and “looking for” gender issues to have heard it that way – or one is simply attempting to play the gender card, and that is precisely what I believe Coakleys’ campaign is doing with that particular comment. It’s been used as a campaign tactic many times over, albeit with various minorities, i.e.: race card, gender card, etc.
Thank you for allowing me to post my feelings on these 2 issues.
In reply to LNJ: I think focused determination is an asset to running for office and winning. I think the world is all about gender and ignoring it is pushing us further into an imbalanced world. Women are needed in government for the sake of the financial and social fabric of our world. I invite you to read the UN report on gender parity- “Who Answers to Women?” it outlines wonderfully the reasons countries like Rwanda have instituted gender quota laws- to get womens voices heard. Places like Rwanda understand that gender disparity helped to lead that country into the terrible violence it suffered. Look at Norway, Finland, Liberia. Women need to take their place at the political table.
I am not advocating gender quotas, but I am advocating that when wonen run for office one of their assets is that they are women running in a sea of men for a place at the table.
In that UN report it talks about how when men in various countries were questioned on what women brought to parliament they conceeded that women brought things to the discussions that they never would have initiated.
There are many, many women running for office in 2010. This is rare. Coakley is running to be a senator of MA- the first woman senator. I am embracing the change.
LNJ- I can understand your concern-Having worked for many candidates (not one winner in my 60 years-this will be the first I hope!) there is much groundwork to be laid in political campaigns- All the guys have had a game plan- and the network of men in MA- to back them up. If Capuano hadn’t been preparing and knowing he wanted to run for Ted’s seat it would be negligent -believe me- he knew and he was preparing-he also had a ton of federal money -I believe he started with 1.3 million- Martha as a state employee- $0. It’s very nice to say Capuano was being respectful but the fact is that no one except Martha had the courage to take on Joe Kennedy and his cronies. Please, please Wikipedia Joe- get the facts- His legacy is not the Kennedy legacy we would want to carry on-
If Martha Coakley hadn’t spent 23 years doing mostly non-glamourous, often times gut wrenching public service one could say she was an opportunist- Those of us who have known her and many for decades, both friends and colleagues, understand the commitment and passion she has shown in working for those without a voice- The abused child, the senior citizen in the unregulated nursing home, the immigrant who has an employer telling them not to seek help for domestic violence or emergency medical care because they will be arrested- The fact that no woman in 221 years has ever been elected in this state is definitely troubling.
There is a reason- You cannot believe that there has never been a qualified woman? It takes an extra amount of work – extra planning- a woman has to prove that she is more then capable- This is the sad fact-especially in Massachusetts.
Many of us traveled the country with Hillary Clinton- we heard and saw the overt sexism. Even Howard Dean finally admitted- after it was too late -that the biggest untold story of the primary was the sexism (watch it on YouTube). We left that campaign knowing that we could never let it happen again-
So when comments like timid or overly aggressive- are used against a woman candidate- the complaint did not come from Martha Coakley- she’s too busy doing her day job and trying to win-it was those of us who have seen and heard it happen too many times before – Are we being too sensitive-perhaps but I would rather err on the side of protection-
There is not one single thing about Martha Coakley that is timid- Cautious is a good quality- I’d like to know my Senator is cautious with our vote.
With only 17% of the Senate female when women are 52% -we need to be vigilant- We will always have a women’s back- until we have gender parity.
Violence against women is on the raise, sexting etc. these are important issues that have not been addressed- Are they gender related- yes although they have a devastating effect on the entire community. So I understand your concern but please understand what many of us have experienced. It is so subtle sometimes and so ordinary that women don’t even notice-from now on -we will.
I’d like to thank both folks who responded to my post. If Mike Capuano weren’t running, Martha Coakley would be my choice – it’s just that Capuano represents what I want in a Senator a little bit more. I’m not afraid of men being in office – Nancy Pelosi handles them quite well! I feel this is a no-brainer: the best man or woman should win based on how he or she will represent us on issues.
Fairness is about choosing the best person for the job not based on his or her gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. If we want that equality and justice in our society, then gender should be no more an asset than a handicap.
We can’t have it both ways.
The best person for the job is clearly Martha Coakley. She has also “the only contender in the race who has proven she can win statewide” (link below). Most Martha and Capuano are liberals. Rather than nitpicking on issues to justify voting for a man over a woman, I’d suggest that liberals vote for the one who can win – Martha. Otherwise they risk getting a conservative Republican in there instead.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harris-wofford/alan-khazei-a-great-ameri_b_304497.html
“Fairness is about choosing the best person for the job”. I am really tired of this phrase – and other similar ones. If men and women were equally represented in Congress, then we could afford to look at candidates without regard to gender. But until that happens, we must always give the benefit of the doubt to women. I’m not suggesting voting for incompetent women over competent men. I’m saying whenever possible, vote for the woman.
Of course, in this case it’s easy, since Martha Coakley is easily the most competent candidate.
For HHH…Thank you for your thoughts.
To me, “issues” are the only thing that matters, and voting based on them is certainly not “nitpicking”. In the words of Senator Kennedy, issues are what we take seriously (never ourselves.) What else is there other than issues?
As for “voting for the one who can win” – jumping on the bandwagon of the favored candidate, is not only weak, but disloyal to the candidate in my heart – and to myself and my own beliefs.
Also, in this race, as we all know, the Democratic Primary winner will be the next Senator.
How can anyone ever tire of the phrase, “Fairness is about choosing the best person for the job.”? That is, unless that phrase no longer serves your personal interests.
Shall I, as you suggest, vote for someone who is less competent in my opinion, because they’re of my gender? I’ll never do it. This is far too important a race.
Leave a Comment