WHEN PEOPLE say there’s no real difference between the way men and women in public life approach the issues, I am reminded of a pop quiz my seventh-grade biology teacher thought up, which I flunked. The quiz was simple: match the parts of the human body to the parts of a car. So the lungs were matched with the carburetor, the spark plugs were the nervous system, joints were like shock absorbers - or something. I am sure I still have it wrong.
The point is that almost all of the 13-year-old boys in the class aced the test and the girls - even ones who knew the functions of the human body cold - failed. Most of us had never looked under the hood of a car. We had a different reference for understanding the material, which the teacher (male, of course) never considered. With the exception of a press conference and rally Martha Coakley held to tout the endorsement of prominent women back in September, the winner of Tuesday’s Democratic US Senate primary rarely mentioned her unique frame of reference. She didn’t have to; her voice and appearance instantly marked her as different, and her campaign feared over-emphasizing gender might alienate moderates.
--
Or is there is a deeper, more interesting question to engage, the one Sonia Sotomayor determinedly dodged throughout her confirmation hearing to the US Supreme Court earlier this year: Do women judge or prioritize matters of public policy differently than men?
Women at Coakley’s victory rally Tuesday night certainly think so. “Men take too many risks, they’re too aggressive, there’s not enough concern about families,’’ said Joyce Paul of Medford. With Coakley, she said, “I hope we won’t go to war so easily. I want to go to peace, and education.’’
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/12/11/the_look_of_women_in_politics/