Attorney and Human Rights Activist: Denera Pope-Ragoonanan

BY: AMELIA SEEPERSAUD, SUMMER 2021 COLLABORATOR AT POWEER IN PLACE

Meet Denera Pope-Ragoonanan

Denera Pope-Ragoonanan is a New Jersey and New York City-based attorney and activist. She is an advocate for marginalized groups. Prior to law school, she advocated for human rights in Turkey, and during her time in law school, she pushed for the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees. As a lawyer, she represents low-income people and in recent years. She is a political advocate for the Indo-Caribbean community of South Queens, where she was raised. She describes her law degree as another tool to fight for her advocacy. 

“My people… they never ventured out. I’m the first to venture out, to go see what is beyond any horizon… and I do think it enhances our world view and enhances our own culture when we can see what’s beyond.”

On breaking barriers within her own community: You know, up ‘til date, as a lawyer, being out in different continents,… I still find myself having to tell relatives that I am worthy of basic human rights… I am worthy of a career, of being able to make my own choices without others interfering in it…without others dictating what has to be done. You know, I’ve proven my competency even though, frankly, I don’t need to prove it to anyone other than myself. I had an argument with someone telling me I have ‘too many liberties’, and that I took ‘too many liberties’. Am I somebody’s property to take too many liberties from? Or am I not a human? And I think when we’re fighting for human rights we also have to bear in mind that we have to fight within our own communities. We have to break those barriers within our own communities. And allow our women, our kids, our people to go beyond… If we stop fitting into this mold of always being silent and always never causing a fight and always never challenging anything. Going ‘okay this is what you are, we'll go with it.’  is a ‘No.’ We need to challenge it and I think I’ve been doing that ever since I was a kid, you know. I always had a strong sense of who I am, what I am, and what I am here for.”

Advice she has for young women: Stand your ground. Do what your gut tells you. You know, if you feel that somebody is hurting you, they’re probably hurting you. If you feel that you can do more, and you have the ability to do more, but society is saying ‘no, you shouldn’t,’ - do more. Society will come along later. Saving face will come along later…You can always save your face, but do what you think is right… We think: ‘Oh my god, what will my parents say; oh my god, what would happen to my sister; oh my god, how are my parents gonna hold face…’ These different concerns are very valid and you do have to weigh your options for sure. But, at the end of the day if something’s hurting, or even if you think that you belong elsewhere and have the capacity to do more, to do better in life, to be your best, go for it. Don’t let anyone stop you.

---

Amelia Seepersaud is a rising Junior at Middlebury College. She is a Global Migration & Diaspora Studies major. She is interested in writing, social justice, and broadening her creative horizons. On campus Amelia is an Oratory Coach, is a member of an improv group called Middlebrow, and is a Cohort Leader for a food justice club called Campus Hunger Project.

Honorable Harriet L. Thompson: The Gem. The Judge. The Leader.

BY: JOLECIA SAUNDERSON, SUMMER 2021 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Meet Hon. Harriet L. Thompson
Kings County Surrogate Judge Harriet L. Thompson was named after the great Harriet Tubman and she always felt it was her destiny to walk in Tubman’s path, due to the great name bestowed upon her. Harriet L. Thompson earned her bachelor's degree from the State University of New York at Plattsburgh and her law degree from Albany Law School. Prior to joining the civil court, she practiced law at her own firm: Harriet Thompson & Associates LLP in Fort Greene, Brooklyn N.Y.

Gems dropped in our interview
During our interview, I was given the real on real estate: the importance of investing early, the power that comes with setbacks and rising from them, as well as, learning to accept your differences and making them strengths. Throughout our interview Judge Harriet L. Thompson provided such a comforting and inspirational atmosphere. As I looked around me at the art and degrees in her office I felt a sense of immediate empowerment. A quote from our conversation that I will hold dearly to my heart as I move through the rest of my journey of life is: “As you grow, enjoy the roses cause there's so many around you don't lose sight of the beauty and other things in the world.” It’s moments like these that remind me to always show and have gratitude towards the world and to never take for granted the good times as well as to make good memories to look back on because those are what truly matter in the end.

Character and what does it look like?
We also discussed the importance of character and how to nurture it. Character is more than what you say you're going to do; it has to be followed up with specific actions. Character can be developed through consistency, wisdom, understanding, and all things that come from experience. This specific conversation stood out to me because it made me reflect on the ways in which great leaders act on their visions and goals instead of having them and keeping them trapped in their heads or not making any moves at all.

What does leadership look like to you and why?
Leaders are people with the courage to create pathways of change for those around them who need help the most as well as to act on the visions that they have for themselves and for others when it pertains to the present and future. In addition, in our interview we were able to discuss the importance of leaders to: Reach back and pull the hands of others forward.

What art piece holds the most significance to you?
We both bonded over our love for images and art holding a significant place in our lives. During the interview in her office, I asked her which art around us meant the most to her. She pointed to a picture of Martin Luther King and explained this is due to his enlightened leadership. In addition, she pointed to two owls since they, too, symbolize wisdom. I mentioned my global world heart and how I loved the idea of spreading love and care throughout the world. Overall, I appreciated and loved our whole interview and this experience is something I will forever cherish.

Jolecia Saunderson is an incoming sophomore student at Brandeis University. She is majoring in African and African American Studies and Politics. She is passionate about social policy, activism, educational justice, hair, and law. In her free time she enjoys writing poetry, spoken word, art, and dance. On campus, she plans to volunteer, join the Student Union, and to start her own club: The Multicultural Hair, Art, & Empowerment Club.

Anita Earls: The Lawyer. The Justice. The Trailblazer.

BY: MAGGIE SHEALY, SUMMER 2021 COLLABORATOR, TIME CAPSULE FACILITATOR

Meet Anita Earls
The exclamation “oyez” evolved from the Latin word “audite,” later “oir” or “oiez” in old French and was adapted to American English to what we now know as “oyez.” Oyez is a call repeated two to three times before a federal court begins session. As the justices enter the courtroom in their robes, the spectators, and both arguing sides of the case remain standing until the justices are introduced and have been seated. In Raleigh, North Carolina, on the second floor is the state’s highest court of law, the North Carolina Supreme Court. The Chief Justice sits directly in the center of the bench, and directly to his left (our right) is an Associate Justice with nearly 30 years of litigation practice, political advocacy, and legal mentorship under her belt.

The Person
Justice Earls was born in Seattle, Washington on February 20 th, 1960. She and her brother were adopted by parents Garnett and Hazel Brooks. Earls made her way to the Northeast, attending Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts on the Lehman Scholarship where she studied political economy and philosophy. She graduated class of 1981 and earned another scholarship to study abroad for three years studying the role of women in the Ujamaa villages of Tanzania. Earls returned to the states and went to Yale Law School in New Haven, Connecticut. There she was an accomplished writer and scholar, earning a fellowship under the Robert Masur Fellowship foundation, which supports law students interested in pursuing careers in civil rights and liberties, and becoming the Senior editor of the Yale Journal, publishing one of her best pieces: “Petitioning and Empowerment Theory of Practice.”

The Attorney
After her graduation from Yale in 1988 joined the Ferguson, Stein, Wallace, Adkins, Gresham, & Sumter firm in Charlotte, North Carolina as an associate partner. Over the next decade with them, she built a solid reputation in the legal field. 10 years later, 43 rd President Bill Clinton appointed her as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice. And her assignments covered a broad swath of the legal landscape: litigation in state and federal courts, family law, criminal defense, personal injury, voting rights, police misconduct, school desegregation, and employee discrimination. Earls came back to North Carolina where she worked for four years at the University of North Carolina Center for Social Justice, and in 2007 she founded the Southern Coalition for Social Justice in Durham, North Carolina. The organization even served as the plaintiff for a landmark Supreme Court case of North Carolina v. Covington (2017), where the Roberts Court ruled that the state’s house and senate district maps were drawn unconstitutionally based on race. And after 10 years of working at her organization, she would step down as the chief executive officer to run for political office in 2018.

The Candidate
Earls’ decision to run was not without reason, sparked by the 2016 election, she saw significance in supporting the state courts and judiciary as her way to make an impact in law. She ran during a rare election year, a “Blue Moon Election,” Blue Moon Elections occur every 12 years and usually voter turnout is low. However, this election produced an all-time high midterm turnout. Generally speaking, women run for office less often than men do for a variety of reasons. The American political system has always been run and benefitted men. Historically, men have dominated political institutions, and their agendas seldom include or prioritize women’s issues. Unless women are present when and where decisions that affect them are being made, it is unlikely they will be heard. Women may also see conflict between their duties as a family member and running for office. Time management is a barrier to running a political campaign. The majority of candidates running are men. Most women with families have said that their children came first: “maybe when they’re off in college” or “I could’ve run before they were born.” Women also aren’t recruited to run at the same rate as men, finding endorsements and sponsors are challenging. Justice Earls’ ambition to run came from her own volition. She was not recruited to run for political office. Her previous experience as an attorney proved to be an advantage: “I feel like because I’d done so much voting rights work, I knew a lot about the political process [and I] knew about the electorates in North Carolina…I felt like I had a lot of advantages to start with…and while it was certainly daunting to run statewide as a first-time candidate judicial elections are a little different.” Earls continued, “you can’t talk about policy issues the same way that a candidate for a legislative or executive can for their office…All of my work in the past 30 years has been nonpartisan, unlike other attorneys I had never represented a certain party, I had always represented communities and individuals.” Running for office is not an easy task, getting endorsements, name-recognition, and overall stamina to run a campaign is challenging. And running a campaign as a woman of color is challenging. I asked Justice Earls: “where do you get your confidence from? To write your opinions. To write your dissents.” She recalls her time as an attorney. As an attorney, she told her clients a story, but as a candidate, she had to tell hers. On November sixth of 2018, Justice Earls was declared the winner of the election, beating out her opponents with 49.5% of the majority vote, and on January third, 2019, she was sworn into office. She is now coming up on her second year on the court.

The Justice
As she enters her third year on the court, Justice Earls has served under three different Chief Justices within two years: Chief Justice Mark Martin, Chief Justice Cheri Beasley, and currently, Chief Justice Paul Newby. I asked Justice Earls how she’d been handling the transition of Chief Justices. “They definitely all have very different approaches to the role…looking at the opinions that have been issued and the makeup of the judges in terms of how they voted on issues…but I think it’s fair to say that I’m looking at writing more dissents.” In addition to her duties on the bench, in 2020 Justice Earls was appointed to the North Carolina Task Force for Racial Equity. “In direct response to the events last Summer, and particularly George Floyd’s death, and [there were] instances of police killings of unarmed black people in North Carolina,” Earls began to explain. Governor Roy Cooper appointed the Attorney General Josh Stein and Justice Anita Earls as co-chairs for this Task Force along with 23 other members who represent other stakeholders such as law enforcement, public defenders, judges. Earls continued, “…and the charge from the Governor was that in six months developing recommendations and then spend the next two years implementing them.” Already after the first year, the Task Force has identified 120 structural recommendations such as bail reform, jury selection, police reform. One of their biggest accomplishments, Justice Earls notes, is their commission for the Governor to revisit people’s long-term sentences for crimes they committed as a juvenile, and to revisit individual cases to determine whether or not their sentences should be extended or cut short. The Task Force has made significant steps in pinpointing issues that need to be solved and giving solutions, though Justice Earls maintains that there are still failures in our [North Carolina] justice system, and still much work to be done on the judicial side. Justice Earls continues to emphasize that her role as a Justice, and as a woman of color, comes from identifying, upholding, or refuting laws in North Carolina’s constitution. And that the state and local courts are where the roots of change begin. As knowledgeable about the law she is, Justice Earls says she is still learning. One of the things that she aims to emphasize is the importance of mentoring the future. Sometimes making an impact isn’t just what is happening now, but what will happen in the future and who will make that impact.

Maggie Shealy is a rising junior at Brandeis University. She is majoring in politics with a minor in women’s gender and sexuality studies. In addition to her time spent studying, she is team captain for the Brandeis Varsity Fencing Team, a 2020 NCAA qualifier and All-American Honoree, and All-Region Academic Team member as well. She is a cellist in the Brandeis-Wellesley Orchestra and likes to spend her off-days playing rugby and doing graphic design.

Shiva Baby: The Irony of Power Relations in Sex

BY: vanessa crespo, summer 2021 collaborator at power in place

Shiva Baby (2020) is Emma Seligman’s debut film following Danielle, a recent college graduate as she attends a Shiva reception. Shiva is a seven-day Jewish mourning period following the burial, but the movie only takes place in the reception right after the funeral. Danielle is soon found in a home surrounded with family and family friends which becomes a claustrophobic place when they start asking questions about her future and personal aspirations. For Danielle, there’s nothing more scary than facing graduation and not knowing exactly what’s out there waiting for her. But even worse, not being able to fulfill her family’s expectations and the fear of being a disappointment in front of her tight-knit religious community is Danielle’s worst fear. Shiva Baby tells a deeper story where Danielle is secretly a sugar baby trying to exert some control over her life and gain validation from her part-time job, but this is contrasted by her confusion and fear of facing the real world after graduation. 

The film is a comedy and horror, but the director chose a score that gives the movie a horror ambiance rather than a comedy. This is an artistic decision made to incite the anxiety our main character is feeling when she is placed in a room with her demanding parents, her ex-girlfriend (Danielle is openly bi-sexual in the film), and her sugar daddy Max. Everything escalates when Danielle finds out her sugar daddy has a wife and a baby, who joined the Shiva not long after. Danielle is faced with a dilemma when her secret relationship is at risk of being exposed to her family: either she gives up her only source of empowerment and doesn’t need to keep secrets anymore or  she keeps exerting this control but continues to lie to the people in her life.

The film juxtaposes the psychology of female exerting power through sex and what is actually lost when this belief is shattered by rejection and prejudices. Although Danielle is confident in her sexuality and believes her liberal arts major makes her more knowledgeable than the people around her, she is clueless when it comes to controlling her own life. The director loves to explore the hook-up culture in NYC by depicting Danielle as someone who shouldn’t show her emotions publicly, but who is able to perform sexual acts without taboos. In an interview with Shondaland, Emma Seligman describes the behavior and mentality of people in Danielle’s age as “to be sexual and empowered and independent but not to be attached or have feelings”.  But this is soon dismantled as Danielle is found in the same room with her sugar daddy and her ex from high school. Deep inside Danielle is still vulnerable and weak around her ex, but she attempts to look independent and emotionless in front of her and everyone else. 

I think this movie reaches its peak when Danielle’s phone is lost, and somehow it lands in the hands of Max’s wife. His wife finds out about Danielle’s side hustle, and sees some explicit messages sent from Danielle to her husband. Max’s wife tries to confront her passive-aggressively in the living room where the Shiva is taking place. Our main character not only realizes how her shenanigans escalated, but also recognizes how her multiple failed attempts to exert power over her sugar daddy led her to be seen as the villain of her own life story. As I dived deeper into this type of reasoning from our main character, I found Suzannah Weiss a blogger for Everyday Feminism sharing her opinion on empowerment through sex. She lists various stereotypes we find in pop-culture of women granting or denying sex to control the behavior of their male counterparts. However, Weiss disagrees that this type of behavior is empowering because “We could do better to empower women. We could teach them to view sex as a mutually enjoyed activity, not a pursuit of men that women may choose to indulge or reject.” Instead, we should teach women to explore and respond to our own desires over other people’s as a form of empowerment.

Although Danielle believes she’s clear on what she wants and desires, she is rejected whenever she expresses this. So where does this place us? Where are we positioned whenever we’re put down or feel rejected by others even when we’re true to ourselves? Well, everything seems to finally run kind of smoother for Danielle when she breaks down in tears in front of everyone at the Shiva, exposing her most vulnerable self. Only there, she finds peace with her ex-partner and her parents, leaving behind the stressful life of her sugar daddy and his family. Perhaps this is telling us something about women and our attempt to hide our emotions in public and using sex as a tool rather than a “love act”. Patriarchy has positioned us in a way, that apparently men are the only ones allowed to keep using sex without any emotions attached, or without bearing the consequences of having a sugar baby, or keep exerting power through sex. 

I’m not advocating for women being heartless and objectifying men, but this film showed me that when a woman decides to act in a similar manner, at least in her sexual life, she is humiliated and shattered. I think this hook-up culture should be reconsidered, taking more into consideration feelings and mental-health. About sugar relationships? Let people explore what works for them. But I think that we should take out the idea that sex has power, it should not be about exerting power but rather it should be looked as a journey of finding oneself. Ultimately, it should be about being true to yourself, fulfilling your own desires, and learning to say and accept noes from others. 

References

[1] Risker, Paul. “DIRECTOR EMMA SELIGMAN ON SEX AND INSECURITY IN HER DARK COMEDY, ‘SHIVA BABY’” Pop Matters. https://www.popmatters.com/emma-seligman-interview Published June 10, 2021.

[2] Valentini, Valentina. “In ‘Shiva Baby,’ Debut Filmmaker Emma Seligman Melds Sex and Family in a Jewish Comedy” Shondaland. https://www.shondaland.com/inspire/a36015771/shiva-baby-emma-seligman/ Published April 2, 2021.

[3] Weiss, Suzannah. “6 Reasons Telling Women Their Power Is in Their Sexuality Is Not Empowering” Everyday Feminism. https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/power-in-sexuality-problem/ Published December 14, 2015. 

---

Vanessa Crespo is an upcoming senior at the University of Texas at Austin double majoring in Political Science and Philosophy. She is interested in women’s rights, feminist theory, and Latin American politics. In the future, she is aiming at a career in Law but also sees herself as an advocate of women’s rights and human rights in Latin American.

Killjoys are essential in bringing about social justice and change

Image from: Main Wire

by: kate murray, summer 2021 collaborator at power in place

In the last few years, many Americans have experienced an increased threat to their free speech. Offhand comments that would have gone unacknowledged a decade ago have now fallen victim to “PC culture,” the growing tendency to disapprovingly call out language that perpetuates the oppression of marginalized people in the name of inclusion. Political correctness has especially gained traction amongst college-educated young people, many of whom have been newly exposed to critical race theory and the complexities of systemic oppression. However, a large number of Americans (especially those of older generations and whose political values are right of center) have responded to PC culture with disdain. When those on the PC bandwagon don’t hesitate to call out the offensive language that was previously permissible, it is met with indignation and chagrin. People begin to feel “like they can’t say anything anymore” because liberals always look for the “negative” in every interaction. While this growing resentment of PC culture is not going anywhere anytime soon, it may be the price we have to pay for a more equitable society. The world needs more killjoys, people who are uncomfortable with the status quo and will speak up to change it at whatever cost. Furthermore, this social justice-forward approach needs to be led by young people, for they are the ones who will set the terms for future discourse and lay the groundwork for systemic change. 

The concept of the killjoy stems from the work of Sara Ahmed, a British teacher and intellectual who originally wrote about killjoys in the context of feminism. Feminist killjoys have a zero-tolerance policy when it comes to misogynist language, and they do not hesitate to call it out even when it comes at the cost of personal discomfort, lingering awkwardness, or even the end of personal relationships. Killjoys accept that many will view them as downers, but that this is the price they have to pay for boldly and unapologetically proclaiming that the lives of marginalized people matter. In effect, killjoys complain. In a keynote address given on May 31, 2021, Sara Ahmed said: 

“...a complaint can be an expression of grief, pain, or dissatisfaction; something that is a cause of a protest or outcry, a bodily ailment, or a formal allegation...In making a formal complaint, you have to become expressive.”

In my view, the concept of the feminist killjoy can expand beyond what are typically viewed as “women’s issues” and apply to combating social inequities in general. From a feminist lens, all forms of oppression are intertwined with the patriarchy; therefore, being a killjoy becomes about eliminating racism, homophobia, classism, etc. as well as misogyny. Simply put, killjoys lead with their commitment to social justice in every human interaction, and as a result, they don’t hesitate to call attention to offensive language and behavior.

This often means acknowledging that the comments people make are understable, but not excusable. For instance, someone might imply that a person’s race or ethnic background led them to be unnecessarily hostile in an interaction. While it is understandable that one would be upset about being spoken to harshly, it is inappropriate to blame a person’s racial identity for their behavior, especially when it perpetuates harmful stereotypes about that racial group. Saying something “un-PC” in a venting moment is something many can empathize with, but killjoys understand that they can express understanding for someone’s frustration while also communicating that their use of language is unacceptable.

It's important to recognize that there are dangers in placing too much emphasis on the surveillance of language. There are plenty of self-proclaimed killjoys who take pleasure in informing others of the “politically correct” way to speak while doing nothing actionable to better the conditions of marginalized people. In my mind, these are performative killjoys who do not fully comprehend what it means to lead a life that is social-justice forward. Inclusive language requires inclusive action.

Secondly, it's also important to acknowledge that not all killjoys may feel safe to speak out against injustice 24/7. Those who walk through the world in marginalized bodies live with threats to their existence, a fact many are reminded of on a daily basis. This may require staying silent in the face of adversity as a matter of physical and/or mental safety, which no killjoy should ever be expected to endure. Audre Lorde expresses this eloquently in her book “A Burst of Light”:

"Caring for myself is not self-indulgence, it is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare.”

 It is for this exact reason that killjoys with privilege need to use that privilege in moments where their marginalized peers feel threatened.

Being a killjoy is easier said than done. There will always be times where we mess up, where we wish we would have said or done something differently. But this is a practice that young people cannot afford to abandon. In her book “Living a Feminist Life,” Sara Ahmed wrote:

“Survival can thus be what we do for others, with others. We need each other to survive; we need to be part of each other's survival.”

This is a killjoy’s mission, despite the work’s inevitable imperfections. If we ever want to witness a world that is more inclusive, just, and equitable, we must dedicate ourselves to the practice of disruption.

---

Kate Murray (she/her) is a rising senior at Mount Holyoke College double-majoring in Politics and Sociology. She is an opinion writer for the college’s newspaper and is involved in social justice activism, with a particular focus on gender inclusion and voting rights. As a summer intern for Power in Place, she co-facilitates the newsletter team and contributes to the blog.

Power in Place's Digital Patchwork Quilt

BY OLIVIA HOM, SUMMER 2021 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Crossover groups J, I, and B created this digital patchwork quilt using a variety of mediums. The theme of this quilt is “what does Power in Place represent to you?” Each square is unique, illustrating how Power in Place has various meanings to different people. The idea came from how how patchwork quilts are made up of many separate parts, yet they come together as one unified whole.

Squares created by Olivia Hom, Josie Morgan, Julia Boccabella, Siona Ahuja, Sophia Walker, Heidi Suh, Aryana Khalilzadeh, Julia Price, Ava Viohl, Fiona Hinds, and Olivia Geppel.

*For closeups of each individual square, check out @powerinplace on Instagram! https://www.instagram.com/powerinplace/

---

Olivia Hom is a rising sophomore at Mount Holyoke College. She is interested in feminism and intersectionality in today’s world, and issues concerning Asian Americans. On campus, Olivia plans to join the student newspaper. She also enjoys writing, photography, listening to music, and playing video games.

Hillary Clinton and the Public’s Discomfort with Women in Power

BY LIZ CHADWICK, SUMMER 2021 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

“I just don’t like her.”

This common statement, used by voters in reference to a female political candidate or elected official, represents a complex assortment of mental gymnastics, ultimately declaring women unfit for their positions and discouraging female onlookers from future political pursuits. Women running for office are constantly deemed too accomplished, not accomplished enough, or just not appealing.

There appears to be something uniquely difficult for voters to grasp about women in positions of power. 

One research study explains that “power and power-seeking are central to the way masculinity is socially constructed and communality is central to the construction of femininity.” Therefore, these researchers suggest that “intentionally seeking power is broadly seen as anti-communal and inconsistent with the societal rules for women’s behavior.” 

But that explanation fails to acknowledge voters’ fear of breaking tradition, particularly when considering candidates for the presidency. Women may not seem apt for the position partly because they have never held it before.

Men have publicly dominated the political playing field since the Constitutional Convention, when famous men crafted the famous words “all men are created equal”. Yet women have begun to participate in politics, publicly and privately, in steadily increasing numbers. For example, in every United States presidential election since 1984, women have shown slightly higher voter turnout than men, and this gendered gap is only widening. Additionally, women have recently been voted into office in record numbers. Right now, 27% of all members of Congress are women - the highest proportion of women ever to hold that legislative power.

As more and more women run for office and are elected, the country continues to experience many firsts for women in politics. Yet, one seemingly insurmountable goal remains: entrusting a woman with the responsibility of the most powerful position in the country, in the most powerful country in the world.

Because of the public’s discomfort with their goal, female presidential candidates are aware that they must go out of their way to seem attractive, likable, and less power-hungry in order to win the votes necessary to secure power in a democracy. The effort needed to meet these expectations consumes time, energy, and funds that could otherwise be used for other areas of the campaign, such as voter outreach or policy development. 

In the Hulu biographical documentary Hillary, former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laments the amount of time that she spent having her hair and makeup done on her campaign trail. 

“There were 600 days, give or take, on the campaign… I calculated it, and I spent 25 days doing hair and makeup,” Clinton said. “I knew that the man I was running against didn’t have to do any of that.”

In a zero-sum competition, female candidates’ loss of time, energy, and funds amounts to a gain for male candidates. With men in power as the default, and these sexist standards benefiting them, it is clear why they have been allowed to remain part of the conversation during election season.

Appearance-based critiques and the need to strategically manage a female candidate’s personality keeps a campaign busy enough. Yet female politicians are also faced with the prospect of being defined by the men around them.

When former Secretary Clinton was first elected to the Senate in 2000, many political commentators and some of her political colleagues adopted the belief that she owed her success to her husband’s presidency rather than to her own extensive experience as a lawyer and as a policy advocate.

This story of a powerful woman and the male figure(s) that must have aided in her success is not uncommon throughout power hierarchies in the country. But there is another element that can damage a female politician’s reputation - when a man around her does something wrong.

Recently, men in positions of power have been increasingly faced with scandals as part of the Me Too movement. Those headlines seem like a victory for women; they seem to demonstrate that powerful men can also be heavily scrutinized by the public. But as a consequence of this movement, powerful women still suffer: their husbands’ sex scandals are treated as their own.

In 2016, just minutes before the final presidential debate and weeks before the presidential election itself, Donald Trump hosted a surprise panel with three women who have accused Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. This panel, with its intent to damage Hillary’s reputation, is widely believed to be in response to Trump’s own leaked tape from Hollywood Access, in which he brags about sexually harassing women.

With this panel, Trump aimed to deflect criticism of his own actions by drawing attention to his opponent’s husband’s alleged actions. The method of this attack makes one thing strikingly clear: Trump and his team had determined that the most effective attack upon Hillary did not directly involve her, but her husband. They also determined that to launch this type of attack - to judge a woman based on the actions of her husband - would be acceptable to the public, or at least to their voting base. It is difficult to deny that Bill Clinton’s scandals have followed his wife throughout her life in a way that would not be possible were their roles reversed. 

In Hillary, Amy Chozick, a reporter for the New York Times, summarizes an infamous sentiment among female voters in the 2016 election, “I want to vote for a woman, just not that woman.” Chozick continues, “I always ask them, did 30 years of sexist attacks make her that woman?”

References

Okimoto, Tyler G. & Brescoll, Victoria L. “The Price of Power: Power-Seeking and Backlash against Female Politicians”. Gender Action Portal, published June 2, 2010, https://gap.hks.harvard.edu/price-power-power-seeking-and-backlash-against-female-politicians 

Burstein, Nanette, director. Hillary. Hulu, 2020.

Neumann, Sean. “Everything You’ll Learn from Hulu’s Revealing New Hillary Clinton Documentary”. People Magazine, published March 9, 2020, https://people.com/politics/highlights-from-hulu-hillary-clinton-documentary/ 

Igielnik, Ruth. “Men and women in the U.S. continue to differ in voter turnout rate, party identification”. Pew Research Center, published August 18, 2020, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/18/men-and-women-in-the-u-s-continue-to-differ-in-voter-turnout-rate-party-identification/ 

Blazina, Carrie & Desilver, Drew. “ A record number of women are serving in the 117th Congress”. Pew Research Center, published January 15, 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/15/a-record-number-of-women-are-serving-in-the-117th-congress/ 

Miller, Zeke J. “Donald Trump Meets With Bill Clinton Accusers Before Debate”. Time, published October 9, 2016, https://time.com/4524362/donald-trump-bill-clinton-accusers-debate/

Liz Chadwick is a rising junior at the University of Vermont pursuing a double major in political science and sociology. She is interested in criminal justice reform, voter outreach, and the ways in which sociological factors can shape political actions. On campus, Liz writes for The Vermont Cynic and serves as vice president of She’s the First UVM, a fundraising group for women’s education globally.

Perseverance in the House: N.H. Representative Safiya Wazir

BY OLIVIA WISBEY, SUMMER 2021 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

As I walked back to my car amidst the mid-June heat wave that hit New Hampshire this summer, I realized that it was weather just like this that N.H. Representative Safiya Wazir was walking in when she first campaigned back in 2018. 

At the time, Wazir was pregnant with her third child, and took her young daughter door to door with her in one of the hottest summers New Hampshire had ever seen. Despite the 100 degree heat, Wazir was unphased by the work and went directly to her constituents. She made phone calls, gained support from groups like the Young Democrats, and created a name for herself within her community. Her perseverance on the campaign trail led her to becoming the first former refugee to be elected into public office in New Hampshire, a state that is one of the oldest and whitest in America. 

Representative Wazir credits the start of her political journey with becoming a U.S. citizen. Born in Afghanistan and fleeing Taliban-controlled territory when she was only six years old, Wazir and her family had to wait over a decade in Uzbekistan before being resettled in Concord, New Hampshire. At this point, Wazir was sixteen years old and thrown mid-year into her freshman year of high school. Wazir knew little English and was working multiple jobs to help support her family at the time. As a new student in the United States, there were many cultural norms that Wazir had to adapt to—for instance, the size of Concord High School when she got lost on her first day, or having trouble with the lack of formalities she was used to back in Uzbekistan. Wazir took all of these changes in stride, and after her first spring in Concord, began to form relationships with new friends and teachers. She joined yearbook and other clubs, ran track, excelled in her courses and found a passion for learning and education. 

After finishing high school, Wazir began to pursue citizenship while going to night school for her business degree. Becoming a citizen led Wazir to want to deepen her involvement with democracy and activism. “It was just magical,” she said to me with clear joy on her face. “I was eight months pregnant and became a US citizen.” In the years that followed, Wazir got involved with her daughter’s education, first with Head Start and other programs in the area until she eventually became an officer in Concord’s Community Action Program. It wasn’t long before friends convinced Wazir to run for her district’s seat. 

When it came time for my interview with Rep. Wazir, it was no surprise that she chose to be documented back at Concord High School, the place where she found her inner confidence and perseverance as a woman. It is coincidentally also where Wazir came back to fill out the paperwork to run for office, a beautiful full-circle moment for her. 

As we sat together in the school, Wazir spoke to me about her time on the campaign trail, and how she used media comments about her motherhood and refugee story as fuel to her fire. While Representative Wazir was putting in the work in the hot New Hampshire heat, her opponent Dennis Soucy was sharing Islamaphobic memes on Facebook. He told The Guardian that “Wazir has never voted, does not know the community and does not have the best interests of the community in mind.” Despite her opponent’s baseless accusations, Wazir says that the racism and negativity doesn’t affect her; she knows that as a woman of color, the members of her community “need to work hard in order to earn that position [in public office]. And that's what I did.”

She also faced sexism for being a mother while on the campaign trail, as members of her community questioned if she could lead adequately while being a future mother of three. Wazir, however, was and continues to be determined to disprove the stereotype that mothers are incapable leaders. As Wazir explained to me during our time together...

“There's a setback in the minds of people who think that females are born to be housewives and raise kids, but certainly this generation has changed and I wanted to set a tone that regardless of me being pregnant, I'm mom of two, I can represent my constituents, I can multitask. And I proved that.”

As a representative, Wazir serves on the Children and Family Law Committee, and she pushes for legislation that will create economic justice for the communities of New Hampshire. She spoke with me about the bill she helped pass that allows parents to use campaign funds for childcare—an imperative piece of legislation that will get more young people and women specifically in the community thinking about running for office, which is something Wazir aspires for. “The average age at the moment in the state house is 66,” she told me. “We need to change that dynamic. We need to have more young people representing,” by giving them more opportunities to see elected office as a possible avenue for them. Wazir says she sees so much growth in diversity in the area, and is “proud of the organizations that are helping teach our younger generation about diversity and about the multicultural events that happen throughout the state.” Going forward, Wazir hopes to pass more bills that create avenues for quality childcare and paid family leave, affordable housing, and equitable education. 

And so, as I crank the air conditioning on the drive home from my interview with Rep. Wazir, I am hopeful for the future. Her passion, perseverance, and ability to lead is inspiring; you can feel it in the room and see it in her eyes that she has a confidence and a drive for change. She shows us that you really can do what you set out to do: acclimate to an environment, work and learn, attain a business degree as a mother, run as a mother, lead as a mother, all while standing strong amidst racially and sexist driven backlash. Safiya Wazir represents the strength of new roots that can grow solid with patience and care. She loves her community and wants to see it thrive. 

With more people in public office like Representative Wazir, there is no doubt that communities around the United States would become better. The voices of mothers, of women of color, need to be heard in these important spaces. I feel lucky to have had the opportunity to learn from Representative Wazir. I can’t wait to see what she does next.

---

Olivia Wisbey is a rising senior at Colgate University pursuing a double major in English literature and political science. She is interested in feminism, environmentalism, and the ways in which fiction can be a medium of advocacy for issues of social justice. On campus, Olivia is a writing center consultant and is involved with the Colgate Center for Outreach, Volunteerism and Education.

Wu Zetian and “Bloody Mary”: Examining History’s Most Demonized Female Leaders

By: Oliva Hom and Julia Price, 2021 Summer Collaborators at Power in Place

It’s a sad reality that in this patriarchal world, female leaders face far more criticism when compared to their male counterparts. In addition to shouldering the standard challenges of the political world, female politicians must also deal with constant scrutiny of everything from their speech patterns to their clothing choices. And historically, this trend is not new. Female leaders have been unfairly criticized–often to the point of demonization–for thousands of years. It is far too often that history’s most powerful female leaders appear in textbooks not as complex women, but rather as conniving, bloodthirsty villains. Of course, there’s no way of knowing for sure what these women were like; perhaps they were as evil as history tells us. Nevertheless, it’s just as likely that many powerful women of centuries past have had their legacies incredibly distorted by the misogynistic historians of their era. If we attempt to dig through the sexist propaganda that surrounds their legacies, as many modern historians are beginning to do, we can have much more nuanced discussions about these leaders. In this post, we will examine two of the most reviled female leaders in history: Wu Zetian, China’s first female emperor, and “Bloody Mary,” England’s first queen. 

Wu Zetian

Image taken from An 18th century album of portraits of 86 emperors of China, with Chinese historical notes. Originally published/produced in China, 18th century. (British Library, shelfmark Or. 2231)

Empress Wu was born in 624 CE in Wenshui (now part of Shanxi province) and died in 705 CE. Her actual reign lasted from 690-705 CE, but she effectively ruled the country from 660 CE onward. Wu was the only woman to rule China in her own right. However, her reign is anything but celebrated. 

Chinese history paints Empress Wu as a demonic woman who connived her way to power through murder and deceit. In fact, historians at the time claimed that she “killed her sister, butchered her elder brothers, murdered the ruler, [and] poisoned her mother. She is hated by gods and men alike” (Dash). Historians also highlighted Wu’s scandalous personal life, portraying her as sexually promiscuous because her second husband (Emperor Gaozong) was her stepson, and she also had relationships with younger men in her later years. 

It is true that in her ascent to power, Wu mercilessly eliminated her direct competition, Empress Wang, and Lady Xiao (another concubine of Gaozong). Apparently “Wu killed her own infant daughter and blamed the murder on Empress Wang. Gaozong believed this and soon dismissed his empress and promoted Wu [Zhao] to the position; she immediately put Wang and Xiao to death and exiled their relatives and supporters” (Lee). Wu was made empress in 655 CE. By 660, Emperor Gaozong’s health was declining, so Wu became the true ruler of China. After Gaozong’s death in 683, she ruled on the behalf of her sons, who were essentially puppet rulers. Eventually in 690, when Wu was 65 years old, she seized the throne for herself. She proclaimed herself emperor, and created her own dynasty, the Zhou Dynasty (690-705 CE). 

As empress, Wu was ruthless but effective, and the Tang Dynasty prospered under her rule, becoming one of China’s golden ages. Some of her innovations included introducing a civil service exam system based on merit (instead of nepotism), listening to the complaints of ministers and civilians, “publishing (albeit as part of her own legitimation campaign) Biographies of Famous Women and requiring children to mourn both parents, rather than merely their father” (Dash), reforming the military, improving the agriculture system, and waging successful wars to expand the empire. 

Wu’s reign came to an end in a coup in 704. Members of her court forced her to yield power to her exiled son, Zhongzong. Wu was in poor health, and died in 705. Her memorial tablet, which she had commissioned when she was empress, was left purposefully blank so future historians could compose an epitaph detailing her accomplishments. 

But over a thousand years later, it still remains blank, her legacy unwritten. Despite her accomplishments, historians of her era resisted any venerations to the country’s first female leader. It is due to sexism that historians criticized her, which could have resulted in over exaggerated accounts of her actions. The double standard here is very clear. Yes, Empress Wu might’ve been a murderer or ordered the murders of others, but that’s typical for Chinese emperors, and for most male rulers in history. Wu’s ambition is only looked down upon because she was a woman who went against traditional Confucian values, which emphasized women’s subservience to men. Meanwhile, ambitious men are praised for their masculinity. This is not to excuse what Wu did but to examine the expectations of rulers that affected her. Rulers have to consolidate power by eliminating their opposition, and that’s what Empress Wu did. She did everything men did, except as a woman. 

How should we remember Wu Zetian? Should we vilify her, praise her? The answer lies in the nuance of her life. We should do possibly the most difficult thing of all, analyze her by taking into account what it means to be not just a woman in ancient China, but the first woman to rule China as an emperor. 

“Bloody Mary”

Portrait by Antonis Mor, 1554

Mary I of England–or, how she is popularly known, “Bloody Mary”–ruled England from 1553-1558. Like Wu Zetian, she was the first Queen to rule her country in her own right. 

No other English rulers carry such a scathing title. Her own father, King Henry VIII–best known for being a ruthless and erratic tyrant who, among other atrocities, beheaded two of his own wives–had the hardly devastating epithet of “coppernose,” apparently due to his cheap currency (Barksdale). So how justified is Queen Mary I’s epithet? Was she really far bloodier than her counterparts?

It’s undeniable that Queen Mary I did authorize violence. For instance, she famously burned 258 protestants at the stake as part of her effort to reinstate Catholicism in England (Solly). That being said, religious persecution was not unique to Mary’s short reign. While the Catholic Mary indisputably burned protestants, her Protestant half-siblings Edward VI and Elizabeth I authorized the deaths of more than 6,000 Catholic rebels during their own Protestant reigns (Solly). The Tudor era was fundamentally one of extreme religious upheaval and violence. 

Mary I also did far more than simply burn protestants. Although she only reigned for five years, she initiated the “financial reform, exploration and naval expansion...that would be built upon by her much lauded-successor, Elizabeth I” (Solly). In addition to being an effective ruler, her journey to becoming England’s first Queen is remarkable; she certainly defied the odds. Perhaps it would be more accurate to remember her as “Mary the Defiant.” For example, When King Henry VIII divorced Mary’s mother Catherine of Aragon, he immediately declared Mary illegitimate, removed her title of princess, and attempted to force Mary into a convent (Simons). However, the headstrong Mary never retreated into exile, and stubbornly remained at court to fight for her right to rule. Later, after her half-brother King Edward VI died, and it appeared Lady Jane Grey and her supporters would claim the throne instead of Mary, Mary still did not retreat. Instead, she rallied support throughout England and, along with her half-sister Elizabeth, proudly marched on London to claim her throne and destroy the usurper. When a protestant rebellion threatened Mary’s reign, she famously went to the people and gave a rousing speech to thousands, calling on them to defend her (Simons). In short, Mary I was defiant, headstrong, and incredibly brave. She was the first woman to rule England in her own right, and showed a sexist society that women can be just as effective and inspiring leaders as men. 

So why is “Bloody Mary’s” actual story so forgotten? The reason is undoubtedly a mix of Protestant propaganda and sexism. Essentially, Mary I represented everything male English Protestants feared. Everything Catholic–especially powerful Catholic women–had to be rejected in order for the English patriarchal Protestant identity to maintain itself. Thus, historians chose to portray Mary I as a weak willed woman subject to the demands of her Spanish husband, or as an evil woman who burned innocents to sustain her bloodlust. The latter stuck, and she has been popularly remembered as “Bloody Mary” ever since. 

Queen Mary I deserves better. She was far more than “bloody.” Yes, she was ruthless when necessary; but she was also a highly intelligent, brave, and utterly groundbreaking woman. Her story must be retold so we can see England’s first Queen without the the sexist and anti-Catholic propaganda that has obscured her legacy for so long. 

Conclusion 

It’s highly likely that Queen Mary I and Empress Wu are not the only powerful female leaders to have had their stories utterly demonized. It’s almost certain that countless female leaders have been judged unfairly by the historians who told their stories. Thus, it is essential that we begin to humanize these female leaders, and to contextualize their actions. Female leaders should certainly be allowed to be remembered as horrendous; nevertheless, their actions must be judged the same way that history has judged our most famous male leaders. It’s time we retell the stories of the women that have been reviled or forgotten by history. All women deserve to have their stories told, whether they are considered villains, heroes, or somewhere in between. 

References

Barksdale, Nate. “8 Things You May Not Know About Henry VIII” HISTORY, https://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-probably-didnt-know-about-henry-viii. Accessed 21 July 2021.

Dash, Mike. “The Demonization of Empress Wu.” Smithsonian Magazine, 10 Aug. 2012, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-demonization-of-empress-wu-20743091/. 

Lee, Yuen Ting. “​​Wu Zhao: Ruler of Tang Dynasty China.” The Association for Asian Studies, 2015, https://www.asianstudies.org/publications/eaa/archives/wu-zhao-ruler- of-tang-dynasty-china/. 

Simons, Eric Norman. “Mary I | Biography & Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mary-I. Accessed 21 July 2021.

Solly, Meilan. “The Myth of ‘Bloody Mary.’” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/myth-bloody-mary-180974221/. Accessed 21 July 2021.

---

Olivia Hom is a rising sophomore at Mount Holyoke College. She is interested in feminism and intersectionality in today’s world. On campus, Olivia plans to join the student newspaper. She also enjoys writing, photography, listening to music, and playing video games.

Julia Price is a rising junior at Middlebury College majoring in International and Global Studies and minoring in linguistics. She is interested in feminism and reproductive justice. She also enjoys narrative podcasts, language learning, and intramural soccer.

The Power in Place Magic

By: Sophia Walker, Summer 2021 Collaborator at Power in Place

As I walked into Rep. Ruth Ann Gaines' office, I was struck by how genuine she is as a person. While politicians are real people too, many of us, including myself, see politicians as a figment of our imagination. They seem like a person you see, but one you often do not have the pleasure of getting to know.

After chatting about life, Rep. Gaines and I started the interview. The first question I asked her focused on the first political actions that led her to the position she is in now. Like many other women that ran for office, the first time running, Rep. Gaines lost. That did not mean she did not want to run again. Instead, it gave her the itch to continue to stay involved in politics. Rep. Gaines began to recount her life throughout the interview. She discussed her primary school years while first working as a student-teacher. Being the first African American many of the kids had met, some parents did not want her there. But she did not quit. The students loved her. She continued to teach for over 40 years, ultimately becoming the professor she is today.

Rep. Gaines gave an illuminating picture of her career as an educator while also being a public official. The interview questions began to focus more on change than on herself. I asked her a question about the emotions she experiences as a public official. She thought for a moment and began discussing moments of anger and moments of happiness. The moment of anger came from the law titled Stand Your Ground. The law allows a person who feels that they might be in danger to shoot at the perpetrator. Even if the perpetrator might mean no harm, the person could not face any legal reciprocations from the shooting. Upset about the law, Rep. Gaines knew that it would progress to today’s reality where people legally open carry guns in the State of Iowa. A moment of anger for her, she tried to figure out where to go from there. Rep. Gaines continues outspokenly against this law and the laws derived from it.

A moment of happiness came from the barring of chokeholds by police officers in the State of Iowa. As a member of the Black Caucus, Rep. Gaines helped spearhead the bill last summer. She noted that she thought of Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, and other Black people wrongly killed by the police when working on the bill. She was passionate about the bill, but her constituents also wanted it passed, making the passing exceptional. Rep. Gaines continues to stand with bills of this nature, employing her and her constituent's beliefs. In the interview, the difference in emotion was evident. As the interviewer, I could see her passion and beliefs being a part of her as a person and Representative.

Reflecting on the interview with Rep. Gaines, I began to think about how often public officials get taken for granted. Yes, we raise money or vote for them, but sometimes we forget that they are people. I would never have known that Rep. Gaines held class in the capital. I also would not have known how significant these issues are to her as a person. Part of the Power in Place magic gets highlighted in the stories of women public officials, but it is also in the magic of us meeting them. They are people with other commitments and families who take the time to represent people on top of it all. My interview with Rep. Gaines showed me the promise and grit these public officials have not only to their constituents but to producing change.

Sophia Walker is a rising senior at Drake University. She is a double major in Law, Politics and Society and Sociology with a minor in Marketing. Sophia has a passion for social justice and women’s rights. On campus, Sophia is part of the Drake Dems and the Roosevelt Institute. She is also a CASA volunteer in her free time.