NYT Article: Kennedy Hampered By Gender-Based Double Standard

As the coverage of Caroline Kennedy's bid for the United States Senate has turned sour, a growing number of voices are starting to question whether there is a gender-based double standard at play. The critique is similar to that levied during Hillary Clinton's primary run and Sarah Palin's foray as a vice presidential candidate. And it likely will once again spur intense conversation about the role sex plays in electoral politics.

The next salvo is set to come in the form of a New York Times Magazine article to be published this Sunday. Author Lisa Belkin, in a piece titled 'The Senator Track,' lays out the argument that Kennedy is being unfairly criticized as being privileged and apolitical when her career path was in actuality maternal. Women, Belkin writes, are more likely to "slow down in their 30s when men are charging ahead, and come back with a new energy in their 50s."

"[L]et's stop with this talk of inexperience when we mean a range of experiences, many shaped by motherhood," Belkin writes.

That, however, is not the extent of the double standard that Belkin alleges. After all, she notes, there have been many male candidates with limited or no background in politics who used their personal wealth or public fame to become elected officials without much public outcry.

"Those who aspire to serve in Congress sometimes ''pay their dues'' by playing for the N.B.A. or the N.F.L. or starring on ''The Love Boat,' which are all less relevant qualifications for the job than financing city schools," Belkin writes.

Belkin concludes with a question: would Kennedy's credentials be picked apart with such vigor if she happened to be male?

Others have asked as much. In the midst of a somewhat silly bout of media coverage over how many times Kennedy said the phrase "you know" during her interviews, MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell briefly questioned the fairness of such coverage.

"We all have verbal ticks," she said, "and even Barack Obama gets made fun of them on Saturday Night Live, with Fred Armisen doing the 'uh, uh.' Every time I hear Barack Obama I think of it ... But is it fair? Or is it sexist in some ways?"

Peter Roff, writing in U.S News and World Report, acknowledged experiencing a bit of déjà vu when it came to coverage of the Kennedy rollout.

"Having just been through this over the question of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's candidacy for vice president, we are again faced with the prospect of career partisans attacking a woman who has just entered the arena from outside it -- way, way, outside it," he wrote. "In much the same way that black politicians, at least prior to Obama's election, were damned with faint praise when cited for their "eloquence," the overarching focus on "qualifications"--especially as they apply to women seeking elective office -- is little more than an attempt to score a few quick, easy points and push them out of the way. It is unseemly, and it is wrong."

There are, of course, a number of distinctions that separate Kennedy, Palin and Clinton. Clinton may have been criticized for being a carpetbagger when she ran for Senate in New York, but it was largely believed that she had earned her political chops during her time as first lady. Palin, likewise, was making her move to the national stage from an elected post -- dulling some of the charge that she lacked the proper grooming (at least on domestic affairs).

But another telling difference is found in the reaction to the perspective candidacies of the three. Palin never engendered the sympathy of fellow women. Many, in fact, disputed the notion that treatment of her candidacy was sexist. Clinton, however, struck a cord with female voters, especially during the emotionally charged waning months of the Democratic primary. Kennedy seems to be following the path of the latter. A CNN poll released on Monday revealed that while 57 percent of women say the former first daughter is qualified for office, only 47 percent of men held the same opinion.

Comments

[meko]

There really is a double standard.

How many male politicians can get elected because of their wife's fame and money?

How many males can get taken seriously for a senate appointment based on the fame of their mothers and aunts?

How many males can expect to start at the top of organizations because their status as stay-at-home dad qualifies them for anything?

Poor guys.

[swiss-ski]

Caroline will make a as good a Senator as Hillary! She will get NOTHING done just like Hillary got nothing done except of course to feed her and Bills own agenda.

[meko]

The choice isn't between Caroline Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. The choice is between her and the hundreds of more qualified people who have served the state of New York. Andrew Cuomo, Byron Brown, Carolyn Maloney, Thomas Suozzi, Nydia Velazquez, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Steve Israel. They've gotten things done. They've enacted legislation. They've served New Yorkers. So why should they be overlooked.

If you are bothered by Hillary, why are you excited about someone who's primary qualifications are her male relatives?

[swiss-ski]

You are not very bright are you? Re-read my post over and over and if you still don't
understand it perhaps you should call Bill Ayers and he can explain it to you. Have a bad
day OK?

[x004Ronin]

I have a lot of respect for mothers, and I love my mother very much.
However, "motherhood" cannot count as a political qualification for the U.S. Senate.
Motherhood is a very difficult job, but the skill set for that job is completely unrelated to becoming a successful legislator (although I know many members of Congress are indeed childish..­..)
The article is arguing that because women like Caroline Kennedy have maternal obligations, there should be different standards for them. And that's wrong (and insulting to moms like Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius, and Sarah Palin, who managed to get elected and be moms).

[smoore2614]

I take offense to the line of "the skill set for the job is completely unrelated.­" They are completely related. For example: house budget, education for your children, healthcare, immature family members not getting their way(this includes husbands and children) most male politicians from what I've seen have better tantrums then my four year old and the list can go on. Inside American homes we are our own government managing day to day life. Every woman who is a homemaker or career women is qualified. So, move over and get rid of that mind set. We are just as qualified as any of the men running our government.

[Myshkin57]

Everybody who's been a mother is qualified to be a senator? You cannot be serious. There may be important lessons to be learned from motherhood which are relevant to being in government, but you're going way too far with this suggestion of yours.

[meko]

Many of the Congresswomen of NY State are mothers too. So they still trump her on achievements as a measure of potential. But maybe raising non-famous middle-class kids doesn't count.

[meko]

I don't see how it's sexist to suggest that Congresswomen Maloney, Velazquez, and Gillibrand are more qualified and more experienced than Caroline Kennedy. They all got themselves elected. They've all initiated and passed legislation on behalf of the citizens of New York. They've put their ideals into action.

I think it's sexist to suggest that a woman receive a senate seat, when their are other more qualified women available, because she has a famous male relative.

[farseer]

A lot of monarchs who came to the throne with no "experience in ANY elective office" have ruled well - some brilliantly. And we know from Caroline's life so far that she would not be like one of the bad monarchs, like Ivan the Terrible, Kaiser Wilhelm, Louis XIV, et al.

[meko]

Are you suggesting that as long as we don't think Caroline Kennedy would destroy the state of New York we should overlook Andrew Cuomo, Byron Brown, Carolyn Maloney, Thomas Suozzi, Nydia Velazquez, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Steve Israel. Because they're all talented, hard-working passionate people with a heck of a lot more legislative accomplishments than Caroline Kennedy.

[farseer]

That they have been involved in politics longer doesn't prove that they would be a better senator than CK. Just like, sometimes someone enters the medical practice later in life, yet becomes an excellent physiciaqn.

Lots of senators have been elected because of their name. Probably the cases are few where the public set aside all their ideas and feelings about the candidates and just voted stricly on the basis their legistlative or elective experience.

[Myshkin57]

So, I should be appointed. I have no experience in ANY elective office either.

[farseer]

But you're not royalty.

[iburl]

So sexism is to blame, not the utter lack of experience in ANY elective office? Not some people's repulsion for unmerited political dynasties? If she was a man without famous parents named Carl Moten, would he get ANY play at all with a record like his? NO!

[LAGuy83]

It's a giant circus...w­ho takes any of these people seriously? I have absolutely no respect for about 99 percent of politicians and public figures. Build me a cabin in the woods and leave me the F alone...sc­umbags left and right.

[StellaRay]

Truth is, a career in politics is nasty for women...an­d for men. When women are trashed we call it sexism, when men are trashed we call it politics as usual. In any case, whoever pursues a place in government better be tough, strong and darn comfortable in their own skin. I think Caroline qualifies, we'll see what she does with it.

[meko]

Why should all of the congresswoman in the state of New York be overlooked?

Is having a famous male politician for a relative the only way a woman can achieve high office?

[Kartoffel]

I don't think she's a victim of a double-standard except in the "you know" verval tic. Barack Obama rountinely halts midsentence and say "uh". At times it's painfully awkward, yet the MSM has never seemed to care enough to call attention to it. I really doubt Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, or Caroline Kennedy could get away with that.

[jaielaw]

They're both bad habits. I've certainly noticed Obama's "uhhhs" and they're annoying, but not nearly as annoying or distracting as Kennedy's "you knows," which are probably so noticeable because they also impact the content of her sentences.

[tangenjill]

Yeah, in reading the comment she totally nails them on their condescending manner. They just didn't treat her as the smart, capable person she is. But she held her own. She's definitely on track in my opinion. These two guys were hapless in their harping. She was tough and polite and funny and stuck up for herself. She's no pushover.

[PaxEterna]

Language most showeth the man - or in this case, the woman.

If she is a victim (arguable), it is her own doing.

If she had something substantive to say - for example about her stand on various,
pressing issues - rather than blathering on about how her life experience qualifies her more than others who have actually worked hard for that experience - maybe the boys at the NYT would have had an easier time interviewing her - and produced a more interesting result.

She is supposed to be in charge of this lobbying effort - but she lacks the muscle and possibly the intelligence.

In any event, she created the playing field for herself and made it incredibly "un-level" for others. If she is flubbing the plays, she has only herself to blame.

Like the voting record ....

This is not about gender ... it is about being clueless.

[SethBLiNK]

So, 57% of women think she is qualified and 47% of men feels she's qualified.

If the 53% of men who feel differently are sexist, then to the 43% of women who feel the same way suffer from low self-esteem.

Unless there is actual evidence of sexism, can we avoid jumping to that conclusion every time a woman runs for something and encounters resistance? She brings some interesting things to the table, but elected experience is not one of them. Can somebody point that out and not be accused of sexism.

There is sexism in politics and the world but it is getting very tiresome to have that brought up every time a woman runs for office. Considering that women like Caroline Kennedy and Hillary Clinton have quite a few advantages from name recognition and enter most races as the prohibitive favorite, the accusations of sexism seem particularly inappropriate.

[arcticterrier]

Double standard??? Hah? How about SOME standard? Those with high pollitical aspirations should be held to SOME standard. Obama and Palin get hammered for having thin resumes as they should have. However, cries of foul when both of the above had some experience to elected office ring hollow for Kennedy. Obama was in the state house and briefly in the Senate and Palin was a former mayor and a sitting governor.

Kennedy, an education activist (?) as seems to be her greatest claim of achievement, outside being born a Kennedy, has never even run for a school board seat or even joined the PTA as far as anyone knows.

She seems to feel "entitled" just as a Kennedy and a lib would.

[eus]

There's alot of merit to being raised in a political family. Being born a Kennedy is significant. Shes been in a political aquarium since day one. Im sure shes a fish who knows how to swim.

[iburl]

Bullshit. Move to england. Down with kings and queens. This is supposed to be a meritocracy.

[meko]

The same might be said of of Patrick Kennedy. But his upbringing didn't change the fact that he's been scandal-ridden for years.

Caroline Kennedy should be judged on her own achievements. She's been on this planet for 51 years. What she's done with those years is the best indication we have of what she'd do over the next 10.

[Myshkin57]

Why don't you suggest to Caroline that she run with that line? If she did, I'm sure things would go swimmingly.

[dizmo4]

continued from below...
I realize that there is a difference between appointment and an election. But the point is that many of those people had roughly the same amount of public service experience as Caroline Kennedy. Its not her fault that the mechanism that New York uses to fill Senate vacancies is gubernatorial appointment.

Yes, she could wait until 2010, but why? Whoever does get appointed isn't being told THEY have to wait, so there is a double standard. Because she is Caroline Kennedy, with a famous name, everyone assumes she's a vapid, spoiled socialite that feels entitled to the seat. Opponents are projecting their own disdain for legacy or "elitism" or just those that are better off onto Caroline Kennedy.

That is the part that does ring of sexism.

[arcticterrier]

unfortunately for the people of New York she seems to have answered the question as to whether she is vapid quite convincingly in the affirmative herself...­.for a product of the "best" private schools and a product of a politically plugged in family her admission that she has never been involved in politics and rarely voted as well as the toungue tied painful way she said it would would seem to be plenty to disqualify her.

After listening to her interview I believe if I were her family I would ask for a full refund for all that private education she received. Which also makes a point about private schools, especially concerning silver spoons such as her....peo­ple criticized W for getting a "gentleman's C" at Yale. Having worked, briefly, at a private school it is not uncommon for someone with as much pull as her family to not be allowed to fail. They donate too much money and bring in too many other silver spoons. Heck, up until the turn of las century class rankings at Harvard were not based on achievement but on the status of one's family. (look it up)

And of course....­.she wants to be an "advocate" for improving the education system.

[Palemoon]

"After all, she notes, there have been many male candidates with limited or no background in politics who used their personal wealth or public fame to become elected officials without much public outcry."

That quote from the article is 100% accurate. While Obama was criticized as one of the very few exceptions, it should be noted that Obama was also an exception in that he didn't have alot of personal wealth or public fame prior.

But that quote from the article is exactly how GW Bush got elected. He used his families wealth to his advantage, along with the wealth from all his dad's buddies, plus his dad's fame and the fame of anyone associated with his father. Then there is the fame for being the son of the dad in mention. ;o)

And yes, I agree 100% that Caroline is being criticized unfairly. Anyone can run for Congress. There are no special requirements. Arnold had zero experience and he's the Governor of California. Most of Congress had no experience prior, they still got elected. Just like anyone should be able to do.

Remember, this a country of the people, for the people, by the people. Nowhere in that statement was the words "professional politician".

[eus]

Remember, George Bush was good enough to get elected twice!

[BlackYowe]

Ruthless enough to rip off the election twice you mean?

[Palemoon]

Since when does "good enough" count for anything? Bush was rich enough, and famous enough. And in the USA, the rich are wildly admired even when they have very dubious morals or backgrounds. This is a capitalist society, that's why it's like that. That's why people like Paris Hilton hold more power in the public eye than most people. Money talks.