• WomenForCoakley team member Dr. Nancy Hopkins on unconscious gender biases in voting.
• An e-mailer’s perspective on Joan Vennochi’s Globe column about the Massachusetts Old Boy’s Network and David Bernstein’s  Boston Phoenix‘ response about women benefiting from that network and yet still getting less than 15% of new elected slots.
• Howie Carr ’s Boston Herald column on henpecked husbands.
• Yours truly on the “babe” and “get a room” comments by Jim Braude and Margery Eagan on NECN

For details, keep reading.

1)   Our team member Dr. Nancy Hopkins is having her say on women voting for women at Huffington Post.  She points out that:

Psychologists have long understood the strange fact of unconscious gender bias from studies that show that both men and women slightly undervalue otherwise identical work if they think it was done by a woman. In the last two years they have extended this research to analyze why women, like men, penalize successful women and have difficulty accepting them as leaders. Regardless of the reasons, the reality of the phenomenon persists today.

She says that the United States ranks about 79th in the world in terms of  representation of women in government, and hopes that women (and men) will overcome their unconscious biases to elect Martha Coakley to be our 18th senator.

2)  Joan Vennochi wrote in the Boston Globe about the powerful boys club in Massachusetts politics:

What’s happening [with endorsements] in 2009 is a reminder that in Massachusetts, the definition of progressive politics allows the Democratic political establishment to maintain the highest levels of elective office as a mostly-men’s club.

David S. Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix agreed with Vennochi in part, pointing out that

…of the 40 current Senators who have taken office since the start of 2003, just 5 are women. If they’re getting less than 15% of the new slots, it’s hard to see how the overall gender balance will go up much over time. And it’s hard to argue that a hiring gender ratio of 7-to-1 happens without institutional biases. 

On the other hand, he says, the Old Boys’ Network

worked to the advantage, not the detriment, of Niki Tsongas in 2007 and Hillary Clinton in 2008. Both were on the inside of that network, due to their husbands as well as their own efforts.

In response to that observation, an e-mailer replies that Coakley faces a tougher landscape:

Martha is the first woman around here who has stood on her own ground — her husband is not a politico at all.

3)  Howie Carr’s Boston Herald column testifies to the level of sexism still considered acceptable in politics (amply illustrated earlier by the Ice Queen article.)  Carr said: 

If you want to know which men in your neighborhood are henpecked, check out the houses with the Coakley yard signs out front.

4)  Finally, I’ve got add my two cents about NECN’s post-debate analysis.  Ive tried to let it roll off my back, because Jim Braude and Margery Eagan have done solid, insightful, and fair interviews throughout this campaign, and I don’t believe them to have any sexist intent.  So I hope that if they read this, they will consider it an additional perspective, not a criticism.  Jim Braude said that Coakley and Capuano were so friendly that a person watching the debate with him commented

They should get a room.

There then ensued a long discussion with Alex Beam about his Globe column originally entitled “The Babe Factor,” about which Mum4Martha wrote here.  Eagen concluded that if the general election turned out to be Coakley v. Brown, it  would be a

battle of the babes

Many people will view these comments as being not at all objectionable because they equally rate the sexual desirability and imply the sexual availability of both genders.  However, I would ask journalists to consider that our society still today views sexual availability of men as an enhancing their reputation, whereas for women it demeans their reputation.   So women suffer more from this type of joking.  Moreover, Scott Brown has encouraged a sexually-available reputation by posing nude in Cosmo.  Martha Coakley has never done anything to imply that she is fair game in that arena.  Joking about the sexual desirability or availability of candidates trivializes serious issues and has no place in journalism.

One would think that after last night’s debate there would be plenty of fodder for today’s newspapers. Issues like Afghanistan, Health Care, Human Rights, and the Economy are the first that come to mind. With topics as important as these to be discussed and debated it would make sense for Boston’s leading newspaper to address each candidate’s position wouldn’t it? Well, it’s too bad that they were more preoccupied with Coakley’ shoes to find anything more substantive to write about.

I find this article by Alex Beam of the Boston Globe to be absolutely infuriating both as a woman and as a professional. Beam goes into alarming detail about Coakley’s chin positioning, the brown of her suit, and the youthfulness of her Mary Janes. It seems as though he is suggesting that if she wins she will be winning because, as he said, she is a “babe” and solely for that reason. Never mind the fact that she is an accomplished strong woman and public servant who will win the nomination because she is the most deserving. It seems that some men will never be able to see past a pretty face, and that truly is what saddens me the most about this deplorable article.

On December 8th let’s stand up to these men. It’s time to put substance over hemlines and show men like Beam that a woman truly is the best person to do a man’s job.

Go ahead, call me low brow.  There were many moments during the debate when Martha clearly outshone her opponents.  And yet, the debate moment that I will remember most came during a question about a second stimulus package, when Capuano said:

If you made me emperor, I would raise taxes on the wealthiest people in America…

Wait — what?  Emperor?  I might have written it off as just an odd turn of phrase, but blogging team member BackwardsInHeels had told me that this morning, at the Chamber of Commerce forum, in response to a question on health care, Capuano said:

We are not running for emperor, — although of course, if that job opens up I might seek it.

Reminds me of the children’s tale of the emperor who had no clothes.  Luckily, since it also reminds me of emperor penguins, I could focus my imagery on 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.

 There is absolutely nothing wrong with a public official declining to take a question. After all, President Obama has declined to engage with an entire cable TV network. But there is indeed something wrong with vindictively using a women’s vulnerability as a female in order to silence representation of the voices of other women whose struggles she represents.

While there’s much to cheer about these days on the equality front, we still have a long way to go. Women still don’t make as much as men do for the same jobs. The U.S. still is the only industrialized nation without a child-care policy. Women are still being punished by a tax code designed when men were the sole breadwinners and women the sole caregivers. Sexual violence against women still is a huge issue. Women still are disproportionately affected by a lack of health-care services. And lesbian couples and older women are among the poorest segments of our society.

What would be the most effective way to ensure that the United States addresses those issues?  Proportional representation in Congress.

I understand that Mr. Stephen Smith, nephew of Senator Ted Kennedy, is not supporting Attorney General Martha Coakley for Senate. Coakley is running for a historic seat – the seat of Senator in the great liberal state of Massachusetts that has never been held by a woman. Smith is supporting one of her challengers, Michael Capuano and said

I’m supporting him because I think he’s the person in the race who’s most  like my Uncle Ted.

It is hard for me to understand supporting a candidate because they remind me of a family member – I don’t use that reasoning when I vote. But , if I think hard enough I can see what Mr. Smith is feeling and I don’t begrudge him his emotion. You see, I can see qualities in Martha Coakley that remind me of the women in my family; strength, compassion, ambition and fighting for the safety of children, to name a few.

This race is important to me because of the women and girls of our nation. I can feel the feelings of every girl and woman I know who spent her life looking at men in leadership positions. I know what it feels like to be underrepresented in our government and pay the same amount of taxes as the man living next door to me. Most importantly I know what it feels like to have the word “ambition“ used negatively towards me and positively towards a man.  Ambition is what every candidate needs to win a political race.

Stephen Smith wants Rep. Michael Capuano to be elected to his uncle’s seat.  Moreover, former congressman Joseph P. Kennedy II wants his son to be elected to Michael Capuano’s congressional seat. I understand these feelings. I want my cousin to be my congressman and my aunt to be my senator and my sister to be a Supreme Court Justice. However, my personal wishes don’t create reality for an elected office.

As a woman taxpayer and voter who is represented in my senate at a paltry 17% I am voting for the candidate who is most like the women in my life.

Interestingly, I remember feeling pride when I heard Senator Ted Kennedy give respect to our legacy as women at the 1980 Democratic convention.  He said that we are recognizing

… at long last that our nation was made up of founding mothers as well as founding fathers.

The founding mothers of the United States of America are my legacy and I will honor them. I am fighting for Martha Coakley to be the first woman senator of Massachusetts.

I began working for General Coakley directly out of law school. I was referred to Martha through a mutual acquaintance and I was so honored that she was willing to take a chance on me. I must preface this by saying it was truly my dream to work for Martha. I had interned at the US Attorney’s office and would often hear stories about what kind of a person she was. I was amazed at how highly all of the attorneys that I worked for would speak of her. I can assure you that this was not always the case for other offices in the area. I had decided throughout the interview process that if I could not work for Martha, than I’m not sure if I even wanted to practice law. Luckily, I didn’t have to make that decision and I was hired as part of 2004’s incoming class.

From day one I knew that I was in the right place, working for the right person. Martha’s incredible reputation was more than accurate. She taught us that we were to hold ourselves to the highest of legal ethics. She constantly reminded us to never forget the victim, and that we can do what most cannot. We can have a voice for those who have been physically, financially and mentally harmed. In truth we had the ability to give them back their voice.

Martha knew the name of every employee in her office and would go out of her way to take the time to speak to you when you would encounter her. She was never too busy to ask how you were doing or give you advice. Being a prosecutor was a difficult job and she was the first to recognize that. The hours were long and the pay was barely enough to live on, but working for Martha made none of that matter.

She recognized the difficulties that we all faced, because she herself had once been there. She would do things to boost morale. Small things like having a meeting to remind us why we did what we did, and why it was so important. She was our biggest cheerleader and her enthusiasm was contagious. Working for her was the greatest experience in my life and I learned more in those two and a half years than I did in all my years of schooling.

I left the office when I gave birth to my son, who is now two. When he was about one year old I ran into Martha outside of the office. At the time I was debating returning to work and I was unsure of my decision to stay home full time. I was so nervous in telling her this and I will never forget what she said. She told me that what I was doing at home was just as important as what I was doing in the courtroom. She said that it is your reputation that people remember, not how long you are away and she assured me that if I was looking to start up again that there was always the possibility of applying for a position at the AG’s office. These words of encouragement meant more to me than she can ever know.

That is what is so amazing about Martha. It’s her loyalty to he employees and in turn her employees are completely loyal back. I am amazed at how many of my former coworkers are at every campaign event. These are people who work long hours, most with families, and they are more than willing to dedicate their evenings and weekends to support a woman who truly is deserving of their time.

Why vote for Martha Coakley? I honestly can’t think of one reason not to.

Why is it that when someone suggests gender diversity as an asset of a job candidate, the reply is often “Oh no, I’m only interested in merit”. Yet name some other quality needed for the position, and the idea of merit is assumed, not questioned.

Take for example the selection of Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Some people said, “we need a judge from the Midwest in order to have a more balanced and diverse bench.” I never heard anyone recoil in horror and reply “Oh no, I’m only interested in merit. ” One assumes, of course, that it would be a meritorious candidate from the Midwest!

Obama wanted a candidate with “empathy”. Did anyone believe he wanted a person with empathy but no merit? They might have disagreed with the need for empathy, but they never suspected that empathy precluded merit.

So why do people jump to the conclusion that if a woman is running, we have to worry about her merit. Linking these two things plays right into the stereotype that is what gender (and race) bias is – namely that women (blacks) really are inferior. Otherwise, why would the subject even come up? Linking merit to gender perpetuates an unconscious bias that has no basis in fact. Stereotypes applied to groups spill over to taint our judgment of individuals who belong to that group.

In 2007, when marriage was far from a done deal, she gave a speech to the Massachusetts Lesbian & Gay Bar Association strongly supporting equality. In her remarks, she said, “I think we can easily anticipate that if the proposed amendment was successful, there would be protracted, hard-fought litigation about the constitutionality of such a provision…If that battle is necessary, you have my support.”

She has gone above and beyond that promise, and this past July filed the first-of-its-kind lawsuit challenging the federal “Defense of Marriage Act” on behalf of the state of Massachusetts, and our right to define marriage on our own terms.

… When we filed state legislation for the civil rights of our transgender community members last term for the first time, we only garnered a couple dozen legislative allies. Yet Martha Coakley was an early champion of the bill…. Martha Coakley showed political courage, did what was right, and continues to be a key ally for this critical civil rights bill.

…Coakley organized trainings for police and prosecutors on how to handle GLBT hate crimes, she supported the passage of the MassHealth Equality bill ensuring health care access for same-sex couples and families, and she has been working to address the issue of same-sex domestic violence…

Once again, we have a woman vs. the old boys club in the run for the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. So let me share a spot of good news with all of you. According to the Boston Globe:

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley has a higher favorability rating than any other candidate in the rapidly-coalescing field for the US Senate seat left vacant by the death of the late Edward M. Kennedy, a new poll released tonight shows.

Attorney General Coakley’s credentials are impeccable. Moreover, she had the good sense to be a fierce Hillary supporter last year, refusing to give up her vote at the Convention even after Hillary released her delegates.

Martha Coakley has sued for equal marriage rights, filing a constitutional challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act, protesting the fact that 16,000 married same-sex couples are being unfairly denied benefits. She defended children against clergy sexual abuse, has won settlements that protect consumers and fought those who are unfair to workers, indicting contractors in connection with prevailing wage law violations. Sounds like just the kind of voice we need in the Senate right now.

Given Massachusetts progressive bent, it is surprising how difficult it is for qualified women to rise to positions of power in that state. The Hill’s article, Coakley’s Tough Battle in Massachusetts Special Election, states

Martha Coakley has the statewide profile, the political know-how, and the early edge needed to win a special election for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. But is she the right gender?

By most accounts, the Massachusetts attorney general should be and is the frontrunner in the special election, at least for now, and as the lone female candidate in a field of male congressmen, she should have a built-in advantage with half the electorate.

But this is Massachusetts, and the bluest state in the union has a not-so-Democratic reputation for turning away female candidates.

Women have been elected to just four statewide offices, none of which have been governor or Senate. Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.) in 2007 became just the fourth woman elected to Congress in state history, and the first in a quarter-century.

It’s time to break that trend. January’s upcoming special election would be a good place to start.

Of note, Politico’s recent article Women Lawmakers Outperform Men:

Are women more effective lawmakers than men?

That’s the preliminary conclusion of a study conducted by researchers at Stanford University and the University of Chicago, who say that on average, women in Congress introduce more bills, attract more co-sponsors and bring home more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.

Could that be because we are better at multitasking and are smarter shoppers?Hee hee. And the following information is just shocking – not:

The researchers also found that women introduced more legislation than men who served in their same districts, often hitting the ground running in their first terms.

“We find that, on average, women sponsor about three bills more per Congress per term than their male counterparts,” said Anzia. “They co-sponsor more bills than other members, and they also obtain more co-sponsors for their own bills.”

Since 1789, women have constituted just 2 percent of the total congressional population. The ratio of female to male representatives has increased in recent years, but the pace is still fairly glacial: Nearly 17 percent of House members are women today, compared with about 3 percent in 1979.

…Women who run and win are likely the most politically ambitious and talented of their pool, having potentially overcome hurdles including voter bias and self-doubt about their ability to win. … Large majorities of both men and women in candidate feeder pools, such as law offices and political organizations, believe there is a bias against women in elections, according to Lawless and Fox studies in 2005 and 2004.

Once women get to Capitol Hill, those hurdles may drive them to perform better, on average, than male counterparts who have faced a less contentious road.

We know something about that, don’t we?

While I was encouraged by the polling data in the Boston Globe, it is clear Ms. Coakley faces a tough battle and needs funding and boots on the ground to turn out the vote. As The Hill noted:

One Democratic consultant not aligned with any of the special election candidates said the glass ceiling is even tougher now because of the nature of low-turnout special elections and the timing of it, with a cold December primary and a colder January general election.

“She has to figure out not just how to get women votes but how to get senior women to vote for her and break a pattern where older women in Massachusetts don’t like women candidates,” the consultant said.

Coakley, who in 2006 was elected the state’s first female attorney general, is proudly running with the women’s mantle and has garnered the support of EMILY’s List and other women’s groups.

Emily’s List noted in an email the other day:

“In the 24 years since we founded EMILY’s List, I can’t think of a single race where the need was so urgent and the opportunity so great. We have a chance to make history once more, but we can’t afford to wait.”

Martha has everything going for her-intelligence, experience, competence and compassion-except the money- Shame of having a local campaign chest that can’t be used for a national position unlike the other candidates who are starting with well over 1 million dollars each.

Please do anything you can to help- $25-$4,800 ($2,400 for primary; $2,400 for general) Your money-no matter how small will matter-let’s level the playing!

Click the link in the sidebar to contribute directly to the campaign online, or make your check out to Martha Coakley for Senate Committee and send it to Martha Coakley Committee
Box 220
State House Station
Boston MA 02133

I am proud to support Martha Coakley and hope that, once again, Massachusetts voters can look at the field and choose the best candidate.