The Unpaid Care Burden Heightened Due to the Pandemic

Graphic by Sorbetto via Getty Images.

BY: CAROLINE PITMAN, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Times of crisis often amplify existing inequalities within society. From the disproportionate amount of black Americans dying from COVID-19 to the daily inequalities faced by women, COVID-19 is not a crisis that affects all equally. While the hope of a vaccine is on the horizon, the pandemic shows no sign of stopping within the United States and, a vaccine, while essential, will not solve rampant gender inequality. 

Unfortunately, the devastating economic and societal consequences of COVID-19 are more likely to affect women. For women, the unpaid care burden is simply a part of life. Even during a pandemic, women are more likely to shoulder the majority of unpaid work. This essential work, from childcare to household tasks, is undervalued and prevalent throughout the globe. With the mass closing of childcare facilities and schools, women with children are at a particular disadvantage.  In a recent New York Times pole, "Seventy percent of women say they’re fully or mostly responsible for housework during lockdown, and 66 percent say so for child care." One exacerbated role  brought on by the pandemic is the role of teacher. Long term closures have moved classrooms online, and parents, who are more likely to be women, assume the role of teacher in addition to their usual responsibilities. [1]

According to the United Nations, women do three times the amount of unpaid housework compared to men. [2] The pandemic has increased the amount of unpaid work, including increased cleaning. From longer waits at the grocery store (a task more likely to be done by women) to food shortages, the daily tasks, primarily done by women, are taking longer. 

The problem of the unpaid care burden and the devaluation of this burden goes across cultures and countries. Despite advancement in women’s rights, this burden both hinders economic growth and gender equality on a larger scale. With women assuming the majority of the unpaid care burden at home, this leaves less time for formal employment. 

Women are more likely to be underpaid and more likely to work in the informal economy. Jobs, such as hotel cleaners or child care professionals, are often paid under the table or income is not reported correctly. In times of pandemic and mass unemployment, this lack of formal work is a detriment to women who try to access government assistance. The lack of regularity in employment poses a serious problem for women, as they on average, have less money saved than men. [3]

In terms of formal employment, women are more likely to work in the health sector according to The World Health Organization. Globally, women make up 70% of the health sector. [4]

This creates a situation where a women’s care burden is heightened as a result of the pandemic. Both at home and at work, the demands are greater. This translates to often longer hours at one’s place of formal employment and a heightened burden at home. 

In the United States, the pandemic is not over and is still spreading throughout the globe. The promise of a vaccine will hopefully diminish the effect of the deadly disease; however, until then, women will continue to be at a disadvantage. Despite the urgency of the pandemic, women’s rights and the fight for equality must remain at the forefront of public policy decisions. In an unequal world, we must account for these inequalities, particularly in times of crisis. 

References

[1] Cain Miller, Claire. “Nearly Half of Men Say They Do Most of the Home Schooling. 3 Percent of Women Agree.” The New York Times, 6 May, 2020.https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/upshot/pandemic-chores-homeschooling-gender.html

[2] Nesbit-Ahmed, Zahrah and Subrahmanian, Ramya. “Caring in the time of COVID-19: Gender, unpaid care work and social protection.” UNICEF, 23 April, 2020. https://blogs.unicef.org/evidence-for-action/caring-in-the-time-of-covid-19-gender-unpaid-care-work-and-social-protection/ 

[3] Adamczyk, Alicia. “Women lag behind men in retirement savings—here are 3 things they can do to catch up.” CNBC, 18 November 2019. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/18/women-are-still-lagging-behind-men-when-it-comes-to-saving.html

[4] Boniol et al. “Gender equity in the health workforce: Analysis of 104 countries.” World Health Organization, March 2019. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/311314/WHO-HIS-HWF-Gender-WP1-2019.1-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Caroline Pitman is a student at Catholic University in Washington, D.C, where she studies Politics, History, and Theology. She is passionate about increasing the number of women in elected offices and in government positions and plans to pursue a career in law. In her free time, she loves to read historical non-fiction books, spend time with her yellow lab, and explore Washington, D.C.

Embed Block

Add an embed URL or code. Learn more

The American Politician: Why We Elect Women

Graphic by Ellen Weinstein for Politico.

BY: Haley Glover, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

I’ve heard it time and time again. Said off to the side at the dinner table, whispered in class, or mentioned in the news. The defensive, “I’m a femininist but I didn’t vote for Hillary,” the angry, “She doesn’t get to be president just because she’s a woman,” or the gender-neutral “I vote for policy, not the politician.” And I agreed. I agreed because I didn’t stop to think about who a politician is. Specifically who a politician is in America. “The who” varies across regions and states as a consequence of America’s vast land and diversity. The “American politician” cannot be defined by a set of qualities or qualifications because the politician is the physical manifestation of the voters. In the opening lines of The Constitution, America was defined as a representative democracy. Section two states, “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States.” [1] With the establishment of The House of Representatives, the politician became “the representative '' of the people. We the people, allow our voice to be projected through the individuals we elect. We give up certain political freedoms in exchange for representation with the expectation that our interests will be heard by the greater American political system.                                                                         

Graphic via The Cut.

But who is listening? Over two hundred years after the drafting of the Constitution, and it’s added amendments, “the people” has come to encompass those outside the white male demographic. Yet, representation in politics has failed to answer to the whole of the American people. In order for politicians to represent their constituents they must understand and empathize with the lives of those they represent to accurately relay their interests in government. Some argue that who the politician is doesn’t matter, and that only their policy platform should be voted for. While I agree policy must be considered when voting, I do not believe it overshadows the identity of the politician. This is because identity matters. It matters because the identities of the American people have been politicized throughout history. 

Marginalized individuals have been forced to advocate for their right to be represented in government and have not stopped fighting since. They cannot stop until their voices are echoed in government. Today, politics has not only defined the identity of women but has infringed on the woman’s body. This is evident in the Supreme Court's most recent decision to uphold the Trump administration’s ACA’s birth control mandate. With this decision, employers can choose to not provide birth control coverage in their employees’ health plans if they have a strong religious or moral opposition. [2] Such a decision prohibits women employees from accessing safe means of contraception and marks women’s bodies as a place of reproduction and shame. The identity of women as mothers pervades government and the normalized female rhetorical strategies of female politicians. This identity can be diversified with the increase of women in politics. These women act as the voice of women across America, and with enough representation, they can be loud enough to make a change for the politicized woman. 

Graphic via Catalyst.

While I am currently speaking for women, this logic can be applied to all marginalized groups. As America continues to diversify, our government should be a representation of this change, not a tool that actively works against the marginalized. This election season I am voting for women because my identity as a woman has been written into law time and time again. And every time I see no woman behind the pen and hear only muffled female voices. 

References

[1] U.S. Const. art. I, § 2.

[2]Adamczyk, Alicia. “The Supreme Court’s ruling on the ACA’s birth control mandate could cost women hundreds of dollars each year.” Article Title.” CNBC, June 8, 2020. Accessed July 15, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/08/what-to-know-about-the-supreme-courts-birth-control-mandate-decision

Haley Glover is an English and Political Science major at Middlebury College. Originally she is from a small town in Ohio and is particularly interested in the Midwest's political stage. She hopes to aid communities throughout middle America in a future law career.

Power in Place Interviewees Up For Re-Election

Photo by Yes! Magazine.

BY: JULIET SCHULMAN-HALL, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Power in Place has interviewed many influential politicians since its founding. Many of these politicians are up for re-election! Here are a few highlighted politicians:

When Power in Place last interviewed Tanya Cook, she was the Nebraska State Representative for District 13, a position she held from 2009 to 2017. She assumed office in 2019 as a member of the Metropolitan Utilities District Board of Directors, representing Subdivision 5 in Nebraska [1]. Tanya Cook is passionate about addressing intergenerational poverty. In office, she has focused on “quality public education, access to career education, removing barriers to working oneself towards stability, [and] home ownership” [2]. After advancing from the primary election on May 12, 2020, Cook is on the ballot for re-election to this position during the general election on November 3, 2020 [1].

Power in Place interviewed Rena Moran while she held the position of Minnesota State Representative for District 9. Since 2011, she has been a member of the Minnesota House of Representatives, representing District 65A [3]. She has and continues to fight for healthcare access, eliminating racial disparities, criminal justice reform, strong public education, living wage jobs with benefits, and affordable housing [4]. Moran is running for re-election for this position and is on the ballot for the Democratic primary on August 11, 2020 [3].

Jessica Ramos is a member of the New York State Senate, representing District 13. She is running for re-election for this position and is on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020 [5]. Supported by Bernie Sanders, Ramos is running to help provide economic relief for people of color and low-income individuals who have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 [6].

Tram Nguyen is a member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, representing the 18th Essex District. She is running for re-election for this position and is on the ballot for the Democratic primary on September 1, 2020 [7]. Among many key issues, Tram is running to keep the cost of housing in check, address the opioid crisis, advocate for environmental protection and climate resiliency, advance reproductive justice, and protect working families [8].

Sharon Tomiko Santos is a member of the Washington House of Representatives, representing District 37-Position 1. Santos is running for re-election to the Washington House of Representatives to represent District 37-Position 1 and is on the ballot for the primary election on August 4, 2020 [9]. Santos is passionate about “civil rights, women’s rights, economic and environmental justice, affordable housing, and quality public education” [10]. 

Ayanna Pressley is a United States Congresswoman, representing District 7 in Massachusetts. She is running for re-election to this position and is on the ballot for the Democratic primary on September 1, 2020 [11]. Throughout office, Pressley has advocated for low-wage workers, immigrant communities, supported sexual assault survivors, promoted the restructuring of our criminal legal system, and is dedicated to continuing these fights [12]. 

When Power in Place interviewed Andrea Stewart-Cousins, she was the New York State Speaker. Since 2007, she has assumed the role of a New York State Senator, representing District 35. She is running for re-election for this position and is on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020 [13]. Stewart-Cousins has been a proponent of legislation relating to gun safety, voting reform, women’s rights and healthcare, immigration and DREAMers, among others [14]. She hopes to continue to fight for these issues in office.  

Nicole Malliotakis is a New York State Assembly member, representing District 64. She is running for election for a new role, to the United States House to represent New York’s 11th Congressional District. She is on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020 [15]. In office, Malliotakis fought to drain the swamp in Albany, rein-in high taxes, and advocated for more legislative transparency [16]. 

Donzella James is a Georgia State Senator, representing District 35. She is running for re-election for this position and is on the ballot in the general election on November 3, 2020 [17]. James has brought about “progressive change” while in office, fighting for crime reduction, the environment, stronger drunk driving and drug trafficking laws, economic development, affordable healthcare, and quality education [18].

When Power in Place interviewed Lois Frankel, she was a United States Congresswoman for District 22 in Florida. She is running for re-election and is on the ballot for the Democratic primary on August 18, 2020 [19]. Frankel is noted to be “a loud voice and leading voice” and a defender of “racial injustice, human rights and women’s reproductive freedom” [20]. 

Remember that it is essential to vote and stay up to date on whom you are voting for! We hope that you will consider supporting some of the amazing female politicians listed above.

References

[1] “Tanya Cook.” Ballotpedia. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Tanya_Cook. 

[2] “POLITICIAN STORIES.” Power In Place. Accessed July 30, 2020. http://www.powerinplaceproject.com/stories.

[3] “Rena Moran,” Ballotpedia. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Rena_Moran.

[4] “RENA'S VISION.” Vote Rena Moran. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://www.renaforrep.org/rena-s-vision. 

[5] “Jessica Ramos,” Ballotpedia. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Jessica_Ramos.

[6] “Jessica Ramos.” Bernie Sanders Official Website. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://berniesanders.com/get-involved/jessica-ramos/.

[7] “Tram Nguyen.” Ballotpedia. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Tram_Nguyen.

[8] “MEET TRAM.” Tram Nguyen. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://www.votetram.com/meet-tram.

[9] “Sharon Tomiko Santos.” Ballotpedia. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Sharon_Tomiko_Santos.

[10] “Biography.” Washington State House Democrats. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://housedemocrats.wa.gov/santos/biography/. 

[11] “Ayanna Pressley.” Ballotpedia. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Ayanna_Pressley. 

[12] “Meet Ayanna.” Ayanna Pressley for Congress, January 9, 2020. https://ayannapressley.com/about/. 

[13] “Andrea Stewart-Cousins.” Ballotpedia. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Andrea_Stewart-Cousins. 

[14] “About Andrea Stewart-Cousins.” NY State Senate. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://www.nysenate.gov/senators/andrea-stewart-cousins/about. 

[15] “Nicole Malliotakis.” Ballotpedia. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Nicole_Malliotakis. 

[16] Nicole, Team. “Meet Nicole.” Nicole Malliotakis for Congress. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://nicolemalliotakis.com/meet-nicole/. 

[17] “Donzella James.” Ballotpedia. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Donzella_James. 

[18] Member. Accessed July 30, 2020. http://www.senate.ga.gov/senators/en-US/member.aspx?Member=372. 

[19] “Lois Frankel.” Ballotpedia. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://ballotpedia.org/Lois_Frankel. 

[20] “About Lois.” Lois Frankel. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://loisfrankelforcongress.com/about/. 

Juliet Schulman-Hall is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in English Language & Literature, minoring in Sociology, and concentrating in Poetry. At Smith, she is involved in Emulate Magazine, the club volleyball team, and the Sophian Newspaper. She is passionate about criminal justice reform and animal rights and advocacy and is the Communications Lead for an animal nonprofit called Global Strays. 

A Female Vice President

BY: BELLA LEVAVI, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

When I first heard that Joe Biden planned to pick a woman as his running mate, I was unimpressed. I knew that he was relying on the female suburban vote in a couple of key states for his victory, and picking a woman would boost his chances. This did not seem like a step forward; it was a tactical move that disguised itself as progressivism. 

I was angry that the women running for the Democratic nomination had to spend so much of their time and energy convincing people they were electable that it hindered themselves from gaining the momentum needed to win. I was angry that Joe Biden spent his campaign picking up endorsements from key figures in the party, especially right before Super Tuesday, when that attention could have gone to women candidates instead. I was angry that the Democratic party did not set their priorities to bolster well qualified female candidates, and let Biden passively sweep the country. And they think they are throwing us women a bone now? 

But now, four months after he announced his running mate will be a woman, I am feeling a slight change of heart. 

The biggest headlines for the past several months on the presidential race--albeit clearly not the biggest headlines of the moment--have not been about rallies or squabbles between the candidates, they have been incredibly uplifting stories of the strongest female politicians of the moment. 

Because of Joe Biden’s announcement, I get to learn about California congresswoman Karen Bass. A politician who is well respected across the political spectrum, who is head of the Black Caucus, and is outspoken in police reform and health care.

Since it is a female pick, Tammy Duckworth’s picture fills newspapers across the country. A disabled Asian-American who cares deeply about progressive issues, and certainly does not fit the cookie-cutter idea of what a politician looks like. I am lucky to be currently represented by her and know that she would do a great job taking charge of the whole country. 

Thanks to Biden, stories of Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren continue circulating through my news feed. Both well qualified presidential candidates, who clearly have bigger seats in their future. Harris, the Attorney General of California, and Warren, probably the smartest politician of all time who is currently the Massachusetts senator. Both dominated debates during the nomination process and should be held close by the Democratic party. 

I finally got to learn about the great Susan Rice. Once National Security Council Director under Obama, she is fluent in foreign policy. And I know she will speak her mind when things get stressful in the situation room. 

Gretchen Whitmer got to sweep headlines for weeks. As the governor of Michigan, she dominated the news cycle for being strict on Coronavirus and defying President Trump’s demands, but stayed in the news for longer as she attracted attention as a possible national figure whose fierceness people could see translating well to second in command. 

Although I was originally angry that the Democratic party thought they could win over women post smiting us in the primary, I ended up having a field day learning about these incredible people fighting for their local constituents. I learned that although the folks in the national party may not be as progressive as I want them to be, incredible women are representing the party across the county, and I’m happy we will at least get some say at the table if we flip the country this November.

Bella Levavi is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in Government and English. She is involved in Smith's newspaper the Sophian and the college radio station. She is passionate about vegetarian co-ops, writing, and social justice.

To Aim Higher as a Woman

Graphic by Javier Jaen for the Wall Street Journal.

BY: ELIZA KING FREEDMAN, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

A young boy tells his school teacher that he wants to be the President of the United States. That teacher is charmed, and, in the back of his or her mind, he or she believes that maybe he could really do it. 

A young girl tells her school teacher that she wants to be the President of the United States. That teacher is charmed, but, in the back of his or her mind, he or she believes that it is truly unlikely and assumes that that young girl will change her mind before graduating elementary school. 

Society teaches young boys to aspire to be CEOs, partners at law firms, lead surgeons, and tech pathfinders. And young girls are finally being taught that they can achieve in these same careers. However, for girls it is often not CEOs but employees, not partners but lawyers, not lead surgeons but participants in the field, and not pathfinders but lower-level coders. As females, we are asked to step back. We can be intelligent, we can get the grades in school, but after graduation only a few of us will fight against the male-dominated business world and win. Women make up 50.8 percent of the United States population, earning nearly half of all law and medical degrees handed out each year, however as of November 2018 women made up only 5 percent of CEOs of all Fortune 500 companies [1].

Power in Place represents far more than just a collection of stories. It is an organization that is teaching us, all women and girls, that we deserve to aim higher. We deserve to want to fill the House and the Senate and the White House, and we need to support the women who are paving the way for us right now. The female mind is chemically wired differently than the male mind, and that is not something to be ashamed of or something that should hold us back. We must embrace our womanhood, in whichever form it presents itself within us, and use it to our advantage. We do not have to learn to “be one of the boys” in order to succeed. Women are criticized in the media for their fashion choices, their emotions, and parts of their bodies that they have no control over. Hopefully, these realities will change with time. But in the meantime, it is organizations like Power in Place that will combat the media and the anti-feminist rhetoric that makes us question ourselves. 

That young girl is going to be the President of the United States. And we don’t know who she is yet, but we have to believe that any girl we meet could be her. 5 percent of CEOs is not a big enough number. None of the numbers are big enough. And it is my very personal hope that Power in Place, and organizations and movements like it, will give women and young girls the motivation and the option to strive for more.

References

[1] Warner, Judith, Nora Ellmann, and Diana Boesch. "The Women's Leadership Gap."  Center for American Progress. Last modified November 20, 2018. Accessed July 24, 2020. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2018/11/20/461273/womens-leadership-gap-2/#:~:text=Women%20are%20just%205%20percent,of%206%20percent%20in%202017.&text=Women%20are%20only%207%20percent,in%20the%20Fortune%20100%20companies.

---

Eliza King Freedman is a rising sophomore at Middlebury College. She intends to major in International Politics and Economics with a minor in Architectural Studies. In addition to Power in Place, she also works for a horse therapy organization that specializes in the rehabilitation of veterans. She is most passionate about the study of nonproliferation and prison reform.

The Impact of School Reopening Plans on Women

Illustration by Nat Thomas for St. Louis Public Radio.

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the world unlike any other phenomena; every day we see people and businesses making difficult decisions, trying to balance financial sustainability with health. One decision that must be made as we approach the end of the summer is how education will take place in the fall. In my younger brother’s school district, the Board of Education initially discussed using all public schools to educate elementary school-aged children in-person, and virtually educating older children who could stay at home alone. Following outrage in response to this idea, the Board of Education eventually decided to delay all in-person activities until at least January of 2021, at which time the situation will be re-assessed.

Personally, I have not come to a definitive opinion on the “best” fall plan. Children are at a lesser risk in this pandemic, and I believe that early education is critical to long-term development and mental health. However I also recognize that normal in-person education would put teachers and other school staff members at risk, especially in lower grades where children would struggle wearing masks correctly.

Although I have not yet come to a conclusion about the best fall plan, I think it is important to consider all aspects of the issue. Gender and gender bias must be taken into consideration in answering the fall reopening question. Societally, women often face the brunt of childcare. They are recognized as homemakers and not breadwinners. Should schools close this fall, many families will need near constant childcare. This responsibility will likely fall to mothers, given established societal expectations. Even without these expectations, women may differentially suffer from the increased burden of childcare. Because of the gender wage-gap, in two-parent families with a mother and a father, the mother is likely to have a lower income, and therefore it would make financial sense for the mother to become the main provider of childcare. Additionally, single fathers are far less common than single mothers [1]; families with only one adult member will struggle to balance childcare with income, and this struggle will differentially and negatively impact women. Opening schools will also present unique challenges for women. There are significantly more women that teach than men, so women will face a disproportionately higher risk with in-person education. 

It is critical to analyze all spheres of life in approaching this pandemic. Each day we neglect to follow social distancing guidelines is another day that we delay a return to normal life. This fall, students will face the consequences of our continued carelessness. There is not necessarily one correct answer to reopening schools this fall, and it will likely be a personal decision whether or not to attend school. However, it is important to acknowledge that whatever decision we make will likely differentially impact women, as they already face societal and financial discrimination. We must consider and manage all aspects of health, including the physical and mental health of children, teachers, and parents.

References 

[1] Livingston, Gretchen. “The Rise of Single Fathers.” Pew Research Center. July 2, 2013. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/07/02/the-rise-of-single-fathers/.

---

Sophie Lovering is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She is involved in the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, Penn Special Olympics, Penn's Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression, and Penn Women's Rowing. She is interested in criminal justice reform and social justice advocacy.

The Real World: The Inaccessibility of Birth Control

Photo by Shape Magazine.

BY: JULIET SCHULMAN-HALL, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

With more people stuck at home and less access to reliable forms of birth control, the inequalities of our society are being accentuated—specifically for women, and most especially for women of color. Tens of millions of people across the United States have lost their jobs due to the pandemic, many of whom can no longer afford health insurance. Without health insurance, the cost of birth control is anywhere between $240 to over $1,000 a year [1]. This cost is the reason “more than a third of female[s]...[have] struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives” [2]. The cost is not pocket change, it affects people’s lives.

Making matters worse, the United States Supreme Court ruled on July 8th that the Trump administration could “gut the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) requirement that health insurance plans cover women’s essential preventive services, which includes contraceptive care” [3] allowing any employer claiming a religious or moral objection to contraception to be exempted from the requirement that contraception be included in their employees’ health insurance plans. Seven of the nine United States Supreme Court justices voted to allow employers to violate women’s rights to control their own bodies, and to strip them of access to affordable and accessible birth control. The Supreme Court’s attack on women continues, as the justices have ordered a lower court to “reconsider two abortion victories,” involving “an Indiana forced ultrasound law and a law forcing teenagers to notify parents of their decision to seek abortion care” [3]. More and more, the United States government continues to infringe upon the private lives and rights of women. 

The CDC reported that in “2015-2017, 64.9% of the 72.2 million women aged 15–49 in the United States were currently using contraception” [4]. Without a universal requirement that health plans cover contraception, many of these 64.9% of women will not be able to afford their birth control. Birth control is not only integral to preventing pregnancy but to eliminating the difficult and otherwise often untreated symptoms of disorders such as PCOS or endometriosis, among others [5]. Even if one does not need birth control for a disorder, it has been shown in a Guttmacher study that “a majority of women say birth control allowed them to take better care of themselves or their families (63%), support themselves financially (56%), complete their education (51%), or keep or get a job (50%)” [2]. Thus, the decision by the United States Supreme Court is not a small matter. It is one that directly targets and perpetuates gender inequalities in U.S. society, at a time when tens of millions of people are unemployed, and unable to afford proper healthcare. 

The most immediate and obvious result of a radical increase in unemployment and an increase in the numbers of employers who are not required to provide birth control in their health plans, will be unplanned and unwanted pregnancies resulting from a lack of access to affordable birth control. Many of these unplanned pregnancies will stem from communities of color as the pandemic has been affecting these communities disproportionately. In fact, a study at the Guttmacher Institute found that a disproportionate number of women of color have lost their jobs, resulting in many having little to no access to affordable contraceptives [6]. Thus, the pandemic and ruling from the Supreme Court not only directly harms women, impinging on their rights and their independence, but is also highly likely to disproportionately harm women of color.

Nearly a century ago, on August 26, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, finally granting women the right to vote—half a century after black males were granted the right to vote in the Fifteenth Amendment, adopted in 1870. A century after women’s suffrage was won, the fight for women’s rights continues [7]. Today, many women not only lack control of their own fates, but are even kept from exercising the freedom to control their own bodies. 

References

[1] Kosova, Elly. “How Much Do Different Kinds of Birth Control Cost without Insurance?” NWHN, November 30, 2017. https://www.nwhn.org/much-different-kinds-birth-control-cost-without-insurance/.

[2] Parenthood, Planned. “7 Facts You Need to Know About Birth Control and Costs.” Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Accessed July 16, 2020. https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/birth-control/facts-birth-control-coverage.

[3] Manian, Maya, Feminist Newswire, and Nan Aron. “Reproductive Justice Under Assault at the Supreme Court.” Ms. Magazine, July 10, 2020. https://msmagazine.com/2020/07/09/reproductive-justice-under-assault-at-the-supreme-court/.

[4] Daniels, Kimberly. “Products - Data Briefs - Number 327 - December 2018.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, February 14, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db327.htm.

[5] “Medical Uses of the Birth Control Pill.” Center for Young Women's Health, June 22, 2020. https://youngwomenshealth.org/2011/10/18/medical-uses-of-the-birth-control-pill/.

[6] Lindberg, Laura, Alicia VandeVusse, Jennifer Mueller, and Marielle Kirstein. “Early Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Findings from the 2020 Guttmacher Survey of Reproductive Health Experiences.” Guttmacher Institute, June 24, 2020. https://www.guttmacher.org/report/early-impacts-covid-19-pandemic-findings-2020-guttmacher-survey-reproductive-health.

[7] Panetta, Grace. “Today Is National Voter Registration Day. The Evolution of American Voting Rights in 242 Years Shows How Far We've Come - and How Far We Still Have to Go.” Business Insider. Business Insider, September 24, 2019. https://www.businessinsider.com/when-women-got-the-right-to-vote-american-voting-rights-timeline-2018-10.

---

Juliet Schulman-Hall is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in English Language & Literature, minoring in Sociology, and concentrating in Poetry. At Smith, she is involved in Emulate Magazine, the club volleyball team, and the Sophian Newspaper. She is passionate about criminal justice reform and animal rights and advocacy and is the Communications Lead for an animal nonprofit called Global Strays. 

Historically Women’s College Graduates in Office

Photo of Senator Tammy Baldwin via The City Pages.

BY: SOPHIA CASTEN, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Historically Women's College (HWC) graduates and current students have longed for equal representation for gender minorities in all facets of professional life. Specifically, representation  of women and other gender minorities in politics is dear to the hearts of many HWC attendees and alums as the United States becomes increasingly political.  In 2016, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton brought attention to the Historically Women’s College education as a proud Wellesley College graduate. 

Before Clinton’s time in office, many other HWC graduates graced the political world with their poise, worldliness, and passion for intersectional women’s rights. The first woman to become Secretary of State, before Clinton, was Madeleine Albright. Albright also graduated from Wellesley in 1959 and truly set the stage for women in Cabinet-level positions to come. Some other notable HWC graduates in office include, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Smith College Class of 1984. She became the first openly gay senator in 2013 and continues to fight for women’s rights within the LGBTQ+ community. Senator Baldwin is still proud to be involved in the lives of Smith College students and often works with them in her D.C. and Wisconsin offices. 

Coming from my home state of Arizona, former Representative Gabrielle Giffords (Scripps College Class of 1993), became a beacon of hope, light, and strength when she survived an assisnation attempt in 2012. Just two years after the near-fatal shooting, Giffords became a gun control activist with a focus on women’s rights. She repeatedly advocates for decreasing gun violence because as she told The Atlantic, “gun violence is a women’s issue.” [1] Representative Giffords’ story is one of the many reasons I focused on applying to HWCs during the end of my high school career. 

Like many other women and gender minorities, I was terrified after the 2016 election. I feared for what was to come for all women and gender minorities. I thought back to the strength of Representative Giffords, Senator Baldwin, and Hillary Clinton. I also thought back to the women of color who graduated from HWCs, such as Elaine Cho, Mary McLeod Bethune, and Ruth Davis, whose legacies were seemingly obsolete after the election of Donald Trump. I was motivated to keep the legacies of HWC graduates alive and be a part of a network that continues to make history in the face of adversity. 

References 

[1] Westcott, Lucy. “Gabby Giffords Says Gun Violence Is a Women's Issue.” The Atlantic. 16 June 2014. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/gabby-giffords-calls-gun-violence-a-womens-issue/372876/?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share 

---

Sophia Casten is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in Government with a certificate in Reproductive Health Rights and Justice. Sophia is a yoga teacher and a Community Health Organizer at the Smith College Wellness Center and is committed to spreading inclusive wellness practices. Some of her interests include reproductive justice, LGBTQ+ rights advocacy, and public policy reform.

Imposter Syndrome: Who Does It Affect?

Photo by UnderPinned.

BY: Juliet Schulman-Hall, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Growing up, everyone has feelings of inadequacy. In quarantine this may be accentuated, with more competition for jobs and internships, limited face-to-face social interaction, and increased consumption of social media. Interacting through social media, such as Instagram, can make things worse, as social media often presents unrealistic highlights and high points of one's life. In reality, nearly every person struggles with feelings of inadequacy and some form of imposter syndrome. 

Imposter syndrome is the “idea that you’ve only succeeded due to luck, and not because of your talent or qualifications” [1]. This term was coined by two female psychologists named Pauline Rose Clance and Suzanne Imes in 1978. They theorized that only women were affected by this syndrome, however, since then, research has disproved this claim. Even still, prior to researching imposter syndrome, when I discussed the syndrome with a small group of friends, all of us had thought that women suffered more from imposter syndrome than men. In reality, this may have been more of a commentary on how society forms and distorts one’s own perceptions of reality. Men are characteristically seen as less emotional and are socialized not to speak as often about their insecurities. Women, who are characterized as more emotional, find it easier to discuss their insecurities and may do so with more freedom. 

To better understand the ways in which imposter syndrome may or may not affect different groups of people, I crafted a survey that asked how often one feels inadequate, why they think this way, and so forth, which I presented to sixteen people. The results were surprising in that everyone had relatively the same insecurities, regardless of multiple external factors, including sex, race, and school attended. It is important to note that this was a small sample size of sixteen college students with nine of the people identifying as female. However, as I will highlight later, the results of this survey were consistent with many of the general conclusions about imposter syndrome arrived at by other, more established research that relied on larger and more sophisticated sample sizes and methodologies.  

The general conclusion from this survey is that people tend to have feelings of inadequacy one to three times times a week. This is consistent across gender, race, and kind of college (ie. historically women’s, co-ed, etc.). An intriguing note is that all of the men who responded wrote nothing or little in response to why they felt inadequate, perhaps tying to the societal expectation that men aren’t supposed to discuss their feelings. There were two major reasons as to why the participants feel insecure. The first is that the individuals do not feel smart enough, despite being at a top school. Individuals noted that they feel as though they shouldn’t be at their college. The second is insecurities about one's body—this was a recurring answer for women and those who are genderfluid. Body image is difficult to deal with as social media reinforces what a ‘perfect body’ is supposed to look like. All insecurities mentioned in the quiz stem from comparing oneself to others. 

As evidenced by academic studies that I viewed, and as reinforced by the results I found, there are small differences between the way in which men versus women experience insecurities and portray them. However, it is important to note that everyone “doubt[s] their abilities and ha[s] a persistent fear of being exposed as a fraud” [2]. This is something that society reinforces in a multitude of ways. Insecurities are a part of human nature, however, as one study points out, one needs to learn and have “the confidence and/or courage to embrace vulnerability” [3]. What one shows others is often not what is happening in one’s life. Social media influencers have begun to display this through the multitude of photos they take as well as noting their insecurities during the photoshoot. This is a great start in demonstrating that life is imperfect and it is unrealistic to expect to achieve perfection—a movement that should be extended past social media and into the real world.

References

[1] Abrams, Abigail. “Yes, Impostor Syndrome Is Real: Here's How to Deal With It.” Time. Time, June 20, 2018. https://time.com/5312483/how-to-deal-with-impostor-syndrome/.

[2] Nedegaard, Randall. 2016. “Overcoming Imposter Syndrome: How My Students Trained Me to Teach Them.” Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping 22 (4): 52–59. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=126936993&site=eds-live&scope=site.

[3] Cowie, Megan, Logan Nealis, Simon Sherry, Paul Hewitt, and Gordon Flett. Perfectionism and academic difficulties in graduate students: Testing incremental prediction and gender moderation, November 23, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.027.

---

Juliet Schulman-Hall is a rising junior at Smith College majoring in English Language & Literature, minoring in Sociology, and concentrating in Poetry. At Smith, she is involved in Emulate Magazine, the club volleyball team, and the Sophian Newspaper. She is passionate about criminal justice reform and animal rights and advocacy and is the Communications Lead for an animal nonprofit called Global Strays. 

American Abortion Access in the Time of a Pandemic

Photograph by Glenna Gordon for CNN.

BY: SOPHIE LOVERING, SUMMER 2020 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

About one quarter of all American women will use abortion services by the age of 45 [1]. Access to safe abortions is a human right; the ability to determine whether and when to have a child has significant implications for the economic, social, and political equality of women [1]. Despite its essential nature, the right to receive an abortion has faced new restrictions in the age of COVID-19.

Many individuals are arguing to end abortion services during the pandemic, but these arguments do not stem from the desire for safety. Rather, they serve as a continuation of the long-standing debate concerning the morality of abortion. According to Reproductive BioMedicine Online, some argue that reproductive healthcare services interfere with hospital resources that should instead be going to COVID-19 patients in critical condition [2]. Others argue that providing reproductive healthcare services is not consistent with social distancing [2]. Both of these arguments are misguided. Most reproductive healthcare occurs in an “ambulatory setting,” and thus does not take away from the care of hospitalized COVID-19 patients [2]. Delaying reproductive healthcare might actually increase the demand for hospital resources, as pregnancies resulting in termination at later stages face significantly higher risks of complications [2]. Additionally, reproductive healthcare settings are taking steps to mitigate the risk of contagion by offering telemedicine, enhanced hygiene protocols, and infection screening prior to appointments [2]. Like all medical environments, practices providing reproductive healthcare are effectively minimizing the risk of infection and ensuring maximum possible social distancing [2]. These truths have not prevented the restriction of abortion access, however. Governors in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma have supported the cessation of both medication and surgical abortion, using a much more insidious argument: that abortion procedures are “elective” or “nonessential” [1].

The restriction of abortion care is always negative, but is particularly dangerous during this pandemic. The classification of abortions as “elective” suggests that women’s equality and autonomy is expendable [1]. It also implicitly questions a woman’s judgement to make decisions concerning her own body. In medicine, an “elective procedure” is one that can be delayed without consequences [1]. Considering the increasing risks associated with delaying abortion, and maximum limits on the gestational age at which an abortion may be performed legally, abortion is in no way “elective,” and classifying it as such will mean that “many women will be unable to obtain an abortion at all” [1]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this might mean that families will face the undue financial burden of an additional child, or that women will face an unplanned pregnancy resulting from intimate partner violence, which has increased as a result of quarantine orders [1]. 

Restricted access to abortion care is particularly harmful to women of color. Many women of color already experience limited access to abortion [3]. Women of color face income inequality, which means that they are more likely to be covered by Medicaid and in turn impacted by the Hyde Amendment, which bands federal funds for abortion care in Medicaid [3]. Women of color also face explicit racism; anti-choice organizations have targeted Black and Latina women with the false rhetoric that they devalue human life, even in the womb [3]. Restricting abortion access, which is already restricted to women of color, as a result of this pandemic, which also disproportionately impacts people of color, will significantly harm minority American populations.

We cannot sit idly by while women, and especially women of color, watch their rights fade away. Abortion is undeniably an essential healthcare service. Those who argue that the COVID-19 pandemic warrants restricted reproductive healthcare are either misguided or ill-intentioned. 

References

[1] Bayefsky, Michelle J., Deborah Bartz, and Katie L. Watson. “Abortion during the Covid-19 Pandemic—Ensuring Access to an Essential Health Service.” New England Journal of Medicine (2020): 382. Doi: 10.1056/NEJMp2008006. 

[2] Kushnir, Vitaly A., Banafsheh Kashani, and Eli Y. Adashi. “Reproductive healthcare during a pandemic: a New York state of mind.” Reproductive BioMedicine Online (2020). Doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.06.005. 

[3] Mhatre, Nikita. “Abortion Restrictions Hurt Women of Color.” National Partnership for Women and Families. April 25, 2019. https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-impact/blog/general/abortion-restrictions-hurt-women-of-color.html.

---

Sophie Lovering is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania majoring in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) and minoring in American Sign Language and Deaf Studies. She is involved in the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, Penn Special Olympics, Penn's Beyond Arrests: Re-Thinking Systematic Oppression, and Penn Women's Rowing. She is interested in criminal justice reform and social justice advocacy.