Why is it stupid?
Article is about: specific politically powerful women who are supporting Martha Coakley; that these women don't just want to see a female MA senator, but that they actually support her political positions; how complex it is when women run for office (I would add, when women run for office in a sexist government system ZING--otherwise, it wouldn't matter that Coakley is a woman, duh).
What the link text implies: that women are voting for Coakley because they're women and she's a woman, and we're so excited to have a female candidate, we're obviously going to vote for her (because only men voted for Obama in the Democratic Primary, and Sarah Palin enabled McCain to win the presidency in a landslide victory).
All this bullshit aside, I'll be voting for Martha Coakley because I think she's an impressive candidate, because her support for victim's rights is absolutely necessary in the senate, and because she's a woman. That's right. If I didn't agree with her positions, I wouldn't vote for her. But between her and a man with similar political stances, I'd pick her all the way.
Why would I do something so "reverse sexist?" Well, check out this little blurb from Wikipedia!
Wow. Women are super-well represented! I mean, since only 17% of the population is female, it makes sense that only 17% of the senate is, too. Isn't it funny that there have been fewer female senators than seats available in the senate? So if you had every single female senator throughout history sitting on the senate now, the senate would be 37% female. Oh, and look how many were elected! And how many succeeded dead husbands!
There have been 37 women in the United States Senate since the establishment of that body in 1789. Women were first elected in number in 1992. Today, 17 of the 100 U.S. Senators are women. Thirteen of the women who have served were appointed; seven of those were appointed to succeed their deceased husbands.
So if there's a qualified female candidate, I'm voting for her. And Martha Coakley is AWESOME.