Silly Season has begun

It's almost Labor Day, when campaign season officially begins, but any serious candidate has been working all summer, getting their team into place, raising money, testing messages on friendly audiences, hiring consultants and staff, or just lining up volunteers, endorsements and donors for the fall push.

There are no "big" races on this off-year ballot. But in this business, all races are big, no matter the scope of the office. For instance, in a local sewer board race, as reported in the last Campaign Slut blog post, the louts are out already, denouncing the very real possibility that a female majority may be elected this year.

Yes, this is nearly 100 years since women got the right to vote. But it is 41 years since the Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress, and that (equal rights for women, oh scary!) has never been ratified by the States. If we don't start electing more women, and yes, some female majorities in some jurisdictions, will we ever attain full equality? The answer to that, I fear, is obvious.

What we get, instead, is more and more male legislators behaving badly, Republican and Democrat alike. The jury is still out on whether Eliot Spitzer, can make a political comeback after the infamous "Client No. 9" scandal, while others like serial "sexter" Anthony Weiner and Bob Filner do not even have the good grace to look chagrined. (Yes, Filner resigned under pressure, but managed to get the City to pay his legal fees, which I'm sure he thought was the least they could do for him, poor baby).

It's no wonder they call it "Silly Season."  And it's no wonder, fewer women than men run. Even though it has been proven time and again that when women do run for office, they win in the same proportions as the men. And, very few of them, if any, have their political careers derailed by scandal. 

Go ahead and Google it; I found none, nada, zilch, at least that were worth reporting. When enough women run, female majorities will no longer be the exception. We are more than 50% of the population. And who know, with more women in office, maybe dignity and respect will return to the job?

So is it any wonder the men are afraid to see female majorities? It may mean playtime is about to be over.

Backlash against women in office?

I was at a training last night hosted by the Marin Women's Political Action Committee. We're an organization helping women run and win elective offices. We endorse, give money and train our candidates. Men are welcome at our trainings and may be recommended if they meet our criteria (pro-choice, will help with women's issues, will help mentor women running for office and so forth), but only if no qualified women are running. Qualified means meets the above stated criteria.

                                              Is this the "Cabal" or maybe it's a Coven some men are so afraid of?
A woman who is running for a local board told this story:

"I met with a man yesterday from one of the local agencies and asked for his support. Smiling all the while, he said, sorry, I cannot support you because if you win there will be a female majority board."

Taken aback, she said, "Why is that a problem for you?"

Still smiling the man said, "Because then you would be able to put in your agenda."

"Our agenda?" she asked. "Did you feel this way about the male majority board? Is there a male agenda?"

He just kept on smiling. One of the two women presently serving on that board said, "I bet he was just picturing us gathering in the woods, stirring our brew and singing "Double double, toil and trouble, let's reduce the men to rubble." Then she cackled and we all had another glass of wine.

This is the most overt example of male bias against women in office (women in power) that I've encountered in this supposedly liberal bastion I call home.  But really, don't we see it all the time?  Why do they call women "sluts" for doing what they (men) think is perfectly normal for them - having sex, having power.

Power is what it's all about, and women seizing political power may be just one step too far for many men.

You are what you look like - NOT

This blog post appeared http://www.progresswomen.com/2013/04/10/a-womans-appearance-is-not-a-measure-of-her-credibility-get-it/ and I'm sure they won't mind if we print it here. 

A Woman’s Appearance is NOT a Measure of Her Credibility – Get it?

April 10, 2013 , by State Rep. Stacey Newman THANKS TO MSPRESENTATION FOR THIS.  AND YES, IT DOES HURT US WOMEN WHEN WE RUN FOR OFFICE.  JUST TALK ABOUT OUR QUALIFICATIONS AND OUR EXPERTISE, OK?  AND…OH YES, WHAT WE’RE WEARING IS NOT IMPORTANT EITHER.

courtesy of triblocal.com

In the wake of President Barack Obama apologizing to California Attorney General Kamala Harris for complimenting her on her good looks comes this blockbuster finding from a new study: when it comes to a female candidate, any media coverage about her appearance–even positive–hurts her with voters.By Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times

That’s a key conclusion of the poll for the Women’s Media Center and She Should Run, to be released Monday in Chicago at the Council on Foundations annual conference at the Hilton Chicago, 720 S. Michigan.

The survey’s release is timely because Obama’s remark about Harris is the latest in the long-running struggle of women seeking public office, not to have their looks influence how people assess their credibility.

Obama apologized Friday for saying, during a Thursday fund-raiser for the Democratic National Committee near San Francisco  that Harris is “brilliant,” “dedicated” and “tough.”  What Obama said after that is what got him in trouble: “She also happens to be, by far, the best-looking attorney general.”

The “Name It. Change It” survey, conducted by Celinda Lake of Lake Research and Robert Carpenter of Chesapeake Beach Consulting found that when any media coverage focuses on a female contender’s appearance–positive, negative, or neutral–”it made voters less likely to vote for her.”
Lake said, “Women candidates pay a real price when they are covered in a way that focuses on their appearance. “Even what we thought was benign coverage about how a woman dresses has a negative impact on her vote and whether voters perceive her as in touch, likeable, confident, effective, and qualified.  And, in close races, sexist coverage on top of the attacks that every candidate faces can make the difference between winning and losing.”

Harris through her spokesman shrugged off the Obama comment, an option an incumbent and Obama loyalist–not in an election battle–can easily take.

“When a woman candidate’s looks become part of the election story, she loses ground,” said Julie Burton, President of the Women’s Media Center.

The on-line survey was conducted March 3-7 of 1,500 likely voters, with an oversample of women between the ages of 18-35.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2013/04/blockbuster_female_candidates_.html