The women of the Massachusetts House of Representatives and the Speaker Wannabee Issue (only):
They are now 40 in number heading into the new session. That’s 25% of the House. Forty is enough to keep anyone from being Speaker of the House…Forty is enough to decide which way the wind will blow and for whom…Forty united that is…
Rather than consolidate their power and use that hammer to get something in return on the issues they share, many are satisfied to sit on the back of whomever’s bus they find themselves …and settle for the choice they are given.
Why aren’t they uniting around an agenda and going to Speaker DiMasi and saying we will stand with you if you will expand the number of women in leadership roles, and continue to keep your progressive commitments on choice and gender equity in pay and insurance, etc……
Why aren’t they standing as a solid force in front of Rogers and DeLeo and telling them that their conservative pro-life agendas will not do and to get their votes iron clad promises will have to be made in blood and 50% of leadership positions will go to women… ( A small group of female legislators with a purposeful agenda tipped the scales in the Finneran-Voke battle…far less than 40)
More pointedly, why are they even accepting Rogers and DeLeo, two pro-life conservatives, as the only options should the Speaker decide to stepdown? Why aren’t they coming up with a woman who could succeed the Speaker and lead the House far better than either DeLeo or Rogers, who have shown little enthusiasm for women’s issues to date… DeLeo had a meeting in Worcester to count noses, how many women were there in the back rows?
Who has the political courage and strategic acumen to step up NOW when their “power of 40” will never be more potent.
(Disclosure: I like Speaker DiMasi, on most liberal issues we are on the same side and the House could do a lot worse…I like John Rogers, too, although we disagree on a few key issues…I do not know DeLeo but I know his record…and, lastly, I know and like many of the smart women in the House, I just think they sell themselves short in times like these. i haven’t lost hope.)
<
p>this diary should be deleted.
So women are a monolithic entity? A “they” who function as a single organism? What controls “us”? What negates our individuality? Ovaries? Uteri? How is it women, as a group, have a performance standard in their legislative responsibilities?
<
p>Are there no men in the House who are silent or whining or complaining or stomping their feet or weeping or docilely following like sheep? What do ovaries and uteri have to do with all this? What about black legislators? Have they met their black performance standard? How about short men? How about short black men? Have they met theirs?
<
p>This post is offensive on so many levels. Laurel is right: this post is a sexist piece of shit.
<
p>Here’s my sincerest hope for you: that you get a clue.
My original opening paragraph was meant to get your attention…and clearly it did…although, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. But I have edited it as not to offend delicate sensibilities.
<
p>Women have the right to band together to move a shared agenda forward when an opportunity presents itself…whether on a bill or an issue or a leadership decision…just as other groups band together to advance their agenda…African-Irish-, Hispanic-, Irish-, Italian- and all kinds of hyphenated groups as well as GLBT groups, environmental groups, etc, etc. Does that mean they must be in lockstep on all issues all the time giving up their individuality? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.
<
p>But when an opportunity comes along to flex your political muscle..and 40 like- minded legislators determined to do so can…it’s time to make a move to make an impact…women are over 50% of the population in MA, it’s not too much to ask…
<
p>As for your genitalia and excrement references…that’s not what this is about…couldn’t be farther off…it’s about brains, political strategy and moxie…there are more than a few strong and savvy women in the House but they need the rest of the women to step up NOW while it still matters.
<
p>It will be too late to whine and complain later.
<
p>It’s worth discussing…but, perhaps you feel that removing the discussion will make the issue go away…it won’t. We need to hear from Women Legislators…and after we hear from them, we need to support them.
are not much of an improvement. i don’t think you understand how obnoxious your post is. sad.
during this leadership debate? I say get together, pool your strength…what is your alternative?
not gonna validate your ugly diary.
What women should do is fight for whatever ideals they believe in because contrary to your belief, the lack of a Y chromosome does not result in a group of “like-minded” people with a “shared agenda”.
<
p>And what do you mean, “we need to hear from woman legislators?” The idea that women in the state legislature somehow are not heard from, that they do not take action? Pat Jehlen, Ruth Balser, Sonia-Chang Diaz, Pam Resor (for the next few months, anyway), Lori Ehrlich, Alice Wolf are terrific legislators that immediately come to mind. Oh, and the Senate President. And these are just the ones that first spring to mind.
<
p>Sorry, but what you seem to be suggesting is that women all should agree on who should be the speaker. And that’s ridiculous.
This is not about chromosomes!!!!!…it’s about a minority group within an organization (female legislators) pooling their collective strength on ONE issue (leadership of House) to have some say-so in the outcome.
<
p>I am talking about hearing from female legislators in the HOUSE on this ONE issue…of course they are heard from on other things during a session…and those you mention are good women all…I want to hear from them on the issue of LEADERSHIP of the House…I love Alice Wolf and I can’t see her wanting a pro-life Speaker leading the House…so perhaps the women can come up with better candidates…and maybe they can’t. But, I’d like to hear from them.
<
p>You have made this about chromosomes by singling out women as a monolithic entity. You have imposed an identiy on the female legislators that they neither possess nor demand. You don’t get to do that any more than you get to demand that legislators with blue eyes behave in a certain way. The fact that that is lost on you says way more about you than it says about anything else.
I think HL’s assumption is that all 40 female reps are like-minded on reproductive rights, and therefore ought to be opposing a pro-life speaker more loudly and suggesting some pro-choice alternatives. But maybe many of those 40 women in the house are pro-life, they’re not monolithic after all. Does anyone know if there are any pro-life women in the house?
<
p>I do disagree with HLPeary about supporting ethics-challenged politicians in exchange for their supporting progressive causes.
but, the majority of House women do share some affinity on Choice. Other issues like pay equity, domestic violence prevention, equity in insurance coast would have even more unanimous support from them…this thread is less about pro-choice and more about having input on who the choices will be for future House leadership…
<
p>In the end, women can be “players” in establishing the field to choose from or have the field decided for them. I agree with you that it is not preferable to have your choice be a Hobson’s choice based on ethically challenged alternatives. So you need to do something about that before the field is set.
<
p>Here is one issue ALL female legislators could agree upon: there needs to be more women in leadership positions: the Speaker’s leadership team and Committee Chairs…there is only one way that will happen.
<
p>Why is that important? Think about it….Do you think if the women had clout that S65 on Domestic Violence (already passed and engrossed in the Senate) would be dying in the House because a freshman rep’s stubborn grandstanding over a local liquor license is holding up anything important from being passed???
I think Colleen Garry from Dracut is pro-life – I remember her being opposed to stem cell research a few years back. I don’t know about any other Dems –
I think not.
<
p>Your sexism is in full display whether you want it to be or not. All one has to do is read your non-response to me and Laurel to see that.
<
p>The only individual who can be said to be whining around here is you. Your issues with women are your own business; you should try to keep them a little better under wraps.
1) it’s a very large assumption that there aren’t women (or men) who are still loyal to Sal, even those at DeLeo’s little party. Sure, some of the supporters would support DeLeo or Rogers over Sal, but many of them are only picking sides should Sal step aside.
<
p>2) While I think there are a lot of ways in which women stick together in the House, they ultimately have the same motivations as anyone else – as Laurel and Lightiris have already mentioned. I think you may see some of the women give an olive branch to other newly elected women, or see many of them campaign early and harder in races where a woman is poised to win the general… yet, it’s a mistake (and, yes, sexist) to think that they’re going to be one united bloc on all issues, including House leadership.
<
p>3) I also think it’s a very large assumption to be talking about any whining. Sal’s hunkered down pretty good and I still maintain he’s too smart a politician to be taken down, by Rodgers & DeLeo, or the media or anyone else. I also doubt he did anything illegal.
Ryan…in response to your points
<
p>1) I re-read my own entries…and I do not think I “assumed” (or wrote) that women were not standing with the Speaker…to the contrary, I know many who are stalwart in their support of the Speaker because he comes through on the issues they care about (that’s why I think he has been a good Speaker and is preferable to the more conservative alternatives currently being presented)…and I did say that this was about who to choose “should the Speaker DECIDE TO step down” (I hope he does not)
<
p>2) I think I was clear that this is only a strategy on one issue NOT all issues…the thread is about one issue…I wrote: “Does that mean they must be in lockstep on all issues all the time giving up their individuality? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.” and “it’s about a minority group within an organization (female legislators) pooling their collective strength on ONE issue (leadership of House) to have some say-so in the outcome. I am talking about hearing from female legislators in the HOUSE on this ONE issue.”
<
p>3) I agree with your point 100%…it seems silly to be discussing a “speaker race” in November when that contest will happen in January…and I agree that the Speaker is a better pol and more preferable option than DeLeo and Rogers (who are both actively lobbying for votes)…but, the media and Speaker wannabees do not seem to be in a wait and see mood and are driving the conversation.
<
p>So if I am a sexist for being a woman who believes women who represent me should seize political advantage and opportunity when it presents itself, so be it. And if we don’t think there are issues that women legislators can rally for (including the fact that they are underrepresented in leadership positions) then we are not paying attention to many bills that sit on committee shelves unmoving.
<
p>Senate President Murray has got things moving on the Senate side…the fact that she is a woman has mattered a great deal on many gender related issues that had previously been back-burnered or considered not to be a priority.
<
p>As for whining at the State House…where to begin…it goes with the territory, it’s like white noise.
<
p>
One thing you’re missing — is that a substantial number of the women in the House haven’t been there all that long, and that a number of the incoming women are just that — incoming, with little or no clout at all. They need time just to get their feet wet and figure out how everything works, never mind participate in a power move before they even get sworn in.
<
p>The hard reality is that until you have some seniority, it’s hard to get clout in a body with 160 members. As women are reelected and move up in the ranks, throwing their weight around, individually and collectively, will become easier.
Exactly! The seniority system keeps women newly elected from moving up quickly…BUT…there is one time when every member new and old has an EQUAL standing and that is when they cast a vote for Speaker…each gets only one vote…so that vote has great value to the contenders (if only until the vote is taken)…
<
p>stupid you say? you don’t need a Harvard degree to figure that one…gee, Barack was the most freshman of freshman in a far larger body but figured out a way to parlay that to the White House before half a first term was over.
<
p>Take a lesson from that…if you have the will, you can find a way. Saying “I can’t do anything because of the seniority system” is a weak excuse. There are plenty of strong and savvy women who have been around that building for a while and can bring the newbees into the fold and collaborate on a strategy…how about the Caucus of Women Legislators? This could be their moment if they wanted it to be.
put a lot of backing and support into Obama’s entrance into Congress. Gave him Daschle’s aides, really vetted him. I don’t see that happening to “freshman” women in the MA House. Didn’t do it for Hillary either.
that I wasted reading this spam.
Worcester Dad…you need to find some AM sports on ESPN…so you won’t have to fritter your time away on women’s stuff…
and that there is a strategy in changing the game, much like the Repubs did some years back. I think you’re saying that there is at least some strength in numbers, and that through “compromise” and using the block to win at least a few considerations makes sense in the long run when there is no other way to win the game.
<
p>Unfortunately – it won’t work. That kind of strategy only works when the group has a vested, collective interest in the outcome. The legislature is not a colony of colleagues; they are more like frenemies. They work together when it suits them – when there’s a benefit, but most of them are jealous of their work, and any potential publicity. I know, I know – they speak as though they’re colleagues. It’s buffalo snot. They’re not. Think of them as 160 rock stars all vying for the spotlight, the microphone, and headlines at the end of the night.
<
p>As DemRedSox aptly points out – it’s all about seniority. It is also all about picking the right horse to win the leadership “run for the roses.” You back the wrong pony, and you’re answering your phone from a hallway and any legislation you write might as well be written in disappearing ink, for all the notice it will get. When it comes to getting the “right” committee assignments, and plum leadership roles – “what’s in it for me” will trump “let’s band together and pick the right one.”
<
p>I do think you’re right about some sheep up there. Regardless of gender, they are sheep when they are willing to accept ethically challenged leadership. They are sheep when they turn the other way to bad behavior. Unfortunately, being courageous isn’t rewarded at the state house.
<
p>
Yes, indeed, you get the overriding point I was trying to make…the game theory…and I agree with much of your assessment about the 160 rock stars and how the building works…it is what it is (unfortunately)
<
p>What I am arguing for is a suspension of the “business as usual” on this issue of House leadership should Speaker DiMasi opt to step down…stop the “‘what’s in it for me’ trumping ‘let’s band together and pick the right one'” just for this contest….if women can expand the number of leadership slots they control, they may actually find out down the road that there was quite a lot of benefit in it for each of them.
<
p>
it’s strategy, but that doesn’t make it game theory [which has specific and tight mathematical/economics definitions].
<
p>Just sayin’.
has been greatly expanded over the years, and includes many disciplines. If one assumes rational behavior (and you can’t – not with the legislature) you can calculate a reasonable outcome.
<
p>Wiki, anyone?
<
p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G…
<
p>
<
p>Took a class is B school. It’s interesting…but can’t be applied to that noble and august body called the legislature.
<
p>Just saying….