Vote for Me! The One Who’s Not a Broad!

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Former Mother Jones intern and current Salon.com writer Justin Elliott brings up some good examples of sexism in the race for seats this November. In one, Joe Miller briefly compares opponent Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to a prostitute. In another, Ken Buck said Colorado voters should pick him over Jane Norton for the senate because he “doesn’t wear high heels.” Sexist attacks are nothing new on the campaign trail, though they somehow lack the destructive powers of racist remarks. But what some candidates are forgetting is that sexism is a two-way street.

Ken Buck said he made the remark about Norton’s footwear because she had assailed his “manhood” in an attack ad where she said he should be “man enough” to pay for his own campaign spots, and that Colorado should elect a senator who had “backbone enough to stand her ground.” Politicians use all kinds of gimmicks pursuing votes, but playing the gender card is a cheap shot, and one that often backfires. The “man enough” comment was indeed sexist, as was Buck’s response to it. Norton hit back in this video, but eventually lost to Buck by 3 points last month.

Sharron Angle is another female senate candidate who’s shown signs of playing the gender card, and not to her advantage. She said in two interviews that Harry Reid’s attack ads were an attempt to “hit the girl.” She told the Heidi Harris Show that Reid was bullying her in the campaign, “And he has been doing that to me and what we need to do is say, ‘you know Harry, it’s not going to do you any good to hit the girl.'” I have a lot of issues with Angle, but I can’t imagine portraying herself as a defenseless girl on the playground will do Angle much good: If you don’t want to be bullied, Congress is the last place you should go. I don’t think playing the gender card helps female candidates, but I for one would prefer to see candidates of both sexes attack one another based on what’s between their ears rather than what’s between their legs.

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate