Breaking the Gender-Merit Link

The notoriously liberal state of Massachusetts has never had a female senator in its roughly 220-year existence, a deficit that may persist unless we stop saddling women with a higher burden to prove that they are qualified. This year, in a special election to replace Ted Kennedy, we have a woman running for the office. Not just any woman, but Attorney General Martha Coakley, a highly qualified woman whose entire life has been dedicated to public service. Yet already we see media stories linking her gender to her merit.

Last week the Boston Globe published an op-ed by Yvonne Abraham titled "Merit over Gender" and PolitickerNY had an article by Steve Kornacki titled "The Martha Coakley Story". What's wrong with these articles? Why are they examples of the unconscious gender bias in the media that keeps women down?

I'll start with the "Merit over Gender" piece. 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.

I've seen the exact same thing in college admissions. Colleges often proudly announce that their students come from every state in the US. I've even known of people who consider moving so their kids will have a better chance of getting into a prestigious college. I have never heard anyone question the importance of having a college class that is diverse geographically. But say you want to take gender or race into consideration and whoa - listen to the howling, "Can't have that. It's only merit that matters".

What about Kornacki's snarky-toned piece about Coakley? Maybe I'm being oversensitive on this one but to me the tone is decidedly negative. And what is Coakley's crime? Too ambitious! Imagine a woman wanting this job and planning how to get it and getting in ahead of the guys. And you know what other crime she has committed? Being female. That gives her an unfair advantage in the race according to Mr. Kornacki. Excuse me? Recall the data in sentence one above. I don't' see that women have had much of an advantage running for office in Massachusetts!

My friend has coined a phrase for this phenomenon, saying that a female candidate being examined through an unconsciously sexist lens is being "Hillaried." During the Democratic primary, women watched in amazement that morphed into disgust, as Hillary Clinton was subtly and not so subtly bashed relentlessly by the media for the sin of being female. The worst kind of female: an ambitious one. It wasn't just the disgusting primitive media stuff - the nutcracker, the cleavage, the tears - but the more subtle bashing that many of us believe brought her down unfairly. And we can see that its already happening to Martha.

And here's the worst thing about both articles: Both writers should be taking the view that "Eureka!" we finally have a woman who can become a senator in Massachusetts. It's about time and God bless her. She can put an end to the embarrassment of being a state that has never had a female Senator. Why aren't we down on our knees saying, "Thank you Martha, and how can we help?"

The US ranks about 70th in the world in terms of female representation in its central government. The Senate has a paltry 17% women. How embarrassing is that? And how can we help change the world and make it better if we can't be leaders in this area? As Nicholas Kristof has brilliantly written in the NYTimes - women's rights are the human rights issue of our time. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has brilliantly declared, women's equality worldwide is the answer to many of the world's most serious problems. How can we not be begging Martha Coakley to run, showering her with money, and saying, "Thank you Martha for helping the US be a leader in equal rights in the 21st century!"

Comments

[samjer]

Great article! Its about time that somebody in the media finally recognized what happened during the primaries and that it was actuly posted here on huffpost. Hillary had been bashed by people to combat Obamas inexperience. I guess sexism is fair game when the r@ce cards start flying. Carter threw one the other day. Do you think he would have stood up to the sexist jerks out lthere that called Hillary a miriad of names during the primaries? Heck no because r@sism trumps all. And some people think its fair game to go into private lives

[2Bfair]

Was any criticism of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign legitimate?

Is it possible some voters, media, and commentators acutally looked at her qualifications and found her lacking based on record, integrity, judgment, campaign strategy and management? Can two people look at the same "facts" and draw different conclusions?

Or is all criticism of female candidates sexism,and everyone who votes against them sexist? You seem to paint with a very broad brush.

[lbicomber]

What is it with you and straw arguments? No one is claiming that HC was/is "above criticism". No one is claiming that you HAD TO support her. No one is claiming that all criticism of female candidates is sexism.

But your jealous, obsessive, fact-free, mind-reading, hate-filled, delusional attacks on the Clintons?

They're just little fairytales.

[2Bfair]

I don't agree with Peggy Noonan on politics, but she does have some insights and a gift for expressing them. In her WSJ column on May 28, 2008 she addressed the charge that Hillary Clinton lost the presisendcy to sexism.

Noonan describes world leaders, who were women: Golda Meir, INdira Ghandi, Margaret Thatcher, and then observes:

"Great women, all different, but great in terms of size, of impact on the world and of struggles overcome. Struggle was not something they read about in a book. They did not use guilt to win election -- it comes up zero if you Google 'Thatcher' and 'You're just picking on me because I'm a woman.' Instead they used the appeals men used: stronger leadership, better ideas, a superior philosophy.
...Meir and Gandhi and Mrs. Thatcher suffered through the political downside of their sex and made the most of the upside." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121148557268715077.html

Hillary lost because she is not a strong leader.

[wreckdiver]

Noonan?!? A long-time right-wing Clinton-hater?!? You'd cite ANYONE who attacks the Clintons and then claim they're credible (on this issue only, please!) . What happened to John Bolton? No M@ureen D0wd? LOL!

I like the article where (relying on Drudge, of all things) she mocks the worshippers for their "Best President Ever" campaign after his first 100 days. "What makes it hard at the moment to write sympathetically of Barack Obama is the loud chorus of approbation arising from his supporters in journalism as they mark the hundred days. Drudge calls it the "Best President Ever" campaign." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124052010393349643.html.

Or the one where she praised the re-election of George Bu$h and mocks one of the only Dem0cratic gains of the 2004 election, the election of B@rack Obama: ""I do not know what the Democratic Party spent, in toto, on the 2004 election, but what they seem to have gotten for it is Barack Obama. Let us savor." http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110005844

Peggy Noonan! .... LOLOLOL.......

[2Bfair]

Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully. I don't agree with Peggy Noonan one many aspects of politics. She showed an alternative perspective and real insight about the claims that Hillary Clinton lost the presidency solely because of sexism. I read and consider viewpoints across the politcal spectrum and feel competent to analyze bias and distortion.

Some people look a politcs through a much more narrow lens, sorting others as us and them, friends and enemies, loyalists and haters. Labling, attacking and belittling someone else because you don't like their opinions, whether an accomlished commentator or a poster on Huffpo, is not in the spirit of democracy and simply fuels the deep, bitter partisan divide that is paralizes our nation.

[2Bfair]

paralizes* = paralyzing

[noudidnt]

This author seems to forget Geri Ferraro and Harriet Christian. Whi te women engage in the same behavior.

Cry me a river!

[humanrace]

again why would any woman choose to run for office in the US?
We are so far behind the world in equal representation in state and federal government.
I wonder if shows like Mad Men with its all but 1 women in power help keep women in our less than executive status in the good ole boy US of A?

[2Bfair]

progress comes in stages. The current Speaker of the House is a woman, seond in line to the presidency. Three of the last four Secretaries of State have been women, fourth in line to the presidency. A woman ran a viable campaign for the Presidency , and a woman was a Vice Presidential nominee in 2008.

Unfortunately, none of these women have been viewed by the voting population (over 50 percent of whom are women) as strong candidates for the presidency. Please name the 10 women among governors, Senators, Congressmen, coroporate executives, others, that you believe would be strong, electable candidates. Blaming "the Good Ole Boy U S of A" is a dodge.

[2Bfair]

Edit = not one of these women has*

[Donkslayer]

Thought-provoking article...but I must say I live in a completely different world. In my world, where I read blogs, read online news and watch TV news and commentary, the "need for a woman (judge,pre­sident,sen­ator,etc" or "the need to elect/appoint a hispanic (or black, etc)" is much, much, much more prevalent and frequently mentioned than "we need a candidate from the midwest (insert other geographic loc here)" and it's not even close.

[ConnieQue2009]

I hadn't really thought of the fact that our proudly liberal state of Massachusetts has never had a woman senator. That is embarrassing.
Here comes the Attorney General to campaign for the job and she is a woman.
She sounds perfect.
Seeing women leaders in our country helps all women and especially our girls. How do we expect girls to aspire for the top posts if they don't have role models? Women are in great majorities in law schools in our country, yet they aren't running for office. Let's change that. 2010 is a great opportunity to turn our lagging numbers around.

[pumaspirit]

This article is spot on. If merit was the criteria for electing government officials, the vast majority of them would not be male. We saw the gender bias, sexism, and down right misogyny hurled at Hillary Clinton, a highly qualified, experienced, fully vetted candidate for the Democratic nomination for president last year. It's way past time for this kind of ignorance to end.

[2Bfair]

HIllary lost because she is not a leader. She is intelligent and has accomplished many worthwhile things. But in the Senate, she also showed terrible judgment on the Iraq War vote, and her actions over decades in public life raised many concerns about her integrity.

In April 2008, in fact, at a critical time in the primary election, a WP-ABC poll showed that only 39 percent of American voters thought she was "honest and trustworthy." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883.html

Her campaign gave her an opportunity to demonstrate vision, strategic leadership and management. She began with major advantages: instant name recognition, huge amounts of money (contributed and personal), a "dream team" of handpicked, experienced, devoted advisors and staff, the well oiled Clinton poitical machine supporting her, great press and an aura of inevitablity, the unprecedented advantage of a popular former president campaigning for her FULL TIME in a Democratic Primary.

But with all that advantage, Hillary could not lead, could not deliver an honest, coherent, consistent message, could not keep her back biting staff at peace,showed terrible judgment and eded in deep debt. She drove her campaign into a ditch, embarrassing defeat and deep debt. The nation knew her well, looked at her on merit, and said "no thanks."

[wreckdiver]

The same old poll is all you've got? A poll after the right-wing trashed her for almost 2 decades (joined by some in the MSM), taken in the middle of the most heated primary in Democratic party history? That's IT?!?!

LOLOLOLOLOL......

BTW - Too bad Obama (well, AxelRove, really) running a successful campaign doesn't mean he can actually lead, huh?

Heh, heh, heh ...

[GoldieWilson]

Martha will be a great senator for Massachusetts. It is definitely tough being a woman running for office. They face a double standard all the time. She's been an excellent AG and really gone after businesses for defrauding people and the state.

[eaglec99]

Martha Coakley SHOULD be judged on her merit as a candidate: she has proven herself an able, committed, and, yes, ambitious public servant throughout her two decades of service in Massachusetts. We SHOULD be thanking Martha Coakley for running for Senate and ably demonstrating that, as she often says, "Sometimes the best man for a job is a woman."

[nalp99]

The gender bias is, unfortunately, very real. Coakley is not the first woman who has faced negative whispers of being too cool and ambitious -- qualities that would likely win her kudos if she were a male politician. The fact is, she's highly competent, she's got a solid record of public service, and she's shown initiative in this race so far. Those seem exactly like the qualities MA needs in its junior senator.

[Menemshasunset]

How brilliant- As a resident of Massachusetts I've been waiting years for the opportunity to have a woman represent us in the Senate- The old boys club had a tight lock on the political power here and Ms. Hopkins skillfully describes what happens to women when they dare to strive for equality in representation. Let me be one of the first of many who read this article to shout "EUREKA- Thank you Martha and how can I help!"

[2Bfair]

did you vote for Ted Kennedy. If so, his re-election reduced by 50 percent for half a century the chances that a women would be elected to the Senate. Do you feel that Kennedy did not well repesent or serve the rights and causes of women? Or is your point, that only women can represent women?

[2Bfair]

edit = that women would be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts*