Female Politicians and The White Pantsuit

By Kate Vavra, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

A white pantsuit may first appear as merely a sleek, professional choice of clothing, but when worn by a female politician, it conveys a different message. Historically, suffragists wore white as they fought for equality. Today, many female politicians have revived the color and placed it on the modern pantsuit to honor the work that women of the past undertook to bring about rights for women of the present and future. Contemporary women, such as Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Hillary Clinton have chosen to wear the white pantsuit during moments of great national celebration. 

Harris repped the white pantsuit during her first speech as the first female vice president in United States history. Ocasio-Cortez wore her white pantsuit as she was sworn into the 116th Congress in January of 2019, becoming the youngest woman in history to be elected to the United States Congress. Clinton dressed up in a white pantsuit over a white crew neck as she accepted the presidential nomination for the 2016 election at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, where she became the first major party female nominee for president. 

In the male-dominated political realm, female politicians are often overly judged and criticized for their appearance, making it difficult to create a likable image for themselves. The pantsuit, with its more masculine frame, allows for women to match their male counterparts with a display of professionalism and leadership. The uniformity of the style allows for women to apply a personal touch and maintain a sense of femininity while conveying a sense of power. Clinton simply matched her pantsuit with nude heels and neat hair. Harris paired her pantsuit with a white pussy-bow blouse, which is not only a historic staple piece for women as they began to enter the professional domain, but also displays a sense of poise and style. Ocasio-Cortez accessorized her outfit with hoop earrings and a red lip inspired by Sonia Sotomayor, a current associate justice of the Supreme Court. These outfit additions, however small, have tremendous impact. They develop a new standard that a female politician does not need to show masculinity to deliver a rightful sense of strength and responsibility. Although Ocasio-Cortez chose to display her femininity, her actions break social norms for female politicians, creating potential space for future politicians whose appearance or expressions of identity do not meet traditional social norms. 

However, the suffragette white has been used not just for celebratory events, but also for moments of solidarity. For instance, the House Democratic Women’s Working Group invited female members from both parties to wear white to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union Address in 2019 as a message of unity between women of all backgrounds. The group also led democratic women to wear white to Trump’s joint address to Congress. This time, the women wanted to not just represent the history of female efforts, but also the current women of America who struggle to find equality in their everyday lives. The white was used as a way to show Trump that the fight for equality of the sexes is not over, and issues such as reproductive rights, equal pay, misogyny, domestic violence, and affordable health care need to be addressed at the national level. 

While the white pantsuit is a powerful statement piece that allows female politicians to express their femininity while matching their male counterparts, women in politics still receive negative commentary for their appearance, no matter how they choose to express themselves. However, if female politicians continue to break societal norms, there will be greater opportunities for politicians who do not adhere to outdated standards of appearance, and it will pave the way for a more accepting tomorrow. 

References 

[1] Friedman, Vanessa. "Kamala Harris in a White Suit, Dressing for History." The New York Times, Updated November 10, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/08/fashion/kamala-harris-speech-suffrage.html

[2] Friedman, Vanessa. "Why Hillary Wore White." The New York Times, July 29, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/fashion/hillary-clinton-democratic-national-convention.html

[3] Lang, Cady. "Here's Why the Women of Congress Wore White for the 2019 State of the Union Address." TIME, Updated February 6, 2019. https://time.com/5518859/state-of-the-union-2019-white/ 

[4] Schild, Darcy. "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is changing the dress code of politics." Insider, December 22, 2022. https://www.insider.com/aoc-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-style-fashion-statements-2020-11

Kate Vavra is a rising sophomore at Mount Holyoke College and is double majoring in International Relations and French. On campus, Kate plays varsity tennis and serves as the Community Service Subcommittee Chair on the Student Athlete Advisory Committee. After graduation, Kate hopes to go to law school and become an attorney.

Margaret Foley: The Life and Legacy of a Queer Suffragette

By Emma Quirk, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Margaret Foley was an activist who fought hard for the suffrage movement. She is best remembered as “the Heckler,” a woman who was loud about what she cared about, unafraid to interrupt men, and captivated her audiences when she spoke. Foley is credited with pushing multiple anti-suffrage politicians out of their positions in public office. 

Born in 1873 to Irish immigrant parents in Dorchester Massachusetts, her working-class background separated her from the majority of the well-known suffragettes, who were generally middle to upper-class. Foley worked in a hatmaker’s factory, where she joined the union. This is where she began her activist career: fighting for improved working conditions. She believed that all women deserved the right to vote, especially those who worked and paid taxes. 

As a suffragette, Foley worked for the Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Association (MWSA) and the Margaret Brent Suffrage Guild. Passionate about women’s rights and spreading this message in any way she could, she notably heckled politicians, distributed pamphlets from a hot air balloon, and spoke with people in mines, public meeting houses, and on street corners. 

Foley traveled to London, England to further learn from other suffragettes, particularly Emmeline Pankhurst. She was arrested alongside other suffragettes for protesting, and the news of this spread to the United States. Her parents were horrified, however, Foley was invigorated by this experience and kept in touch with Pankhurst via letters for years following, despite Foley’s return to America. Through remarks from Foley and the subsequent contents of the letters exchanged, it is relatively clear that Foley had a romantic crush on Pankhurst. 

At the time, queer relationships were not accepted in mainstream suffragette circles, and they were certainly not accepted in wider American society. Those who opposed the suffragettes often called them untraditional, mannish, and unladylike and used these notions to push against the right for women to vote. Within the movement, organizations such as the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA), distanced themselves from suffragettes like Foley who defied norms, were working-class, and did not behave in ways that were deemed ladylike.  

Foley never formally married, however, she lived with fellow suffragette Helen Elizabeth Goodnow from the mid-1920s until her death in 1957. The two lived in what is referred to as  ‘Boston marriage,’ a domestic relationship between two women who lived together and did not choose to marry a man. These most commonly occurred in Boston, hence the name, where there was a dense population of college-educated women who had the financial ability not to enter a heterosexual marriage. While not all of these were necessarily romantic in nature, based on evidence from their lives, Foley and Goodnow’s was. 

The two met while working for MWSA, with Goodnow volunteering to be Foley’s secretary in 1916. They toured the country together during this time, promoting suffrage ideals to people in the southern United States. Years later, Goodnow wrote to her grandmother “I think of the hundreds of people who would give anything to be with her for a week. We read together, walked together, got up, and went to bed when we felt like it. And she really loves me.” Despite retaliating from cultural and social norms of the time, Foley and Goodnow chose a life in which they weren’t accepted by most. They served as an image for future queer relationships to look upon and further the fight for acceptance.

When learning about the suffragette movement, it is imperative to not only explore the most commonly shared narratives and names but to examine closely who and what are being purposefully excluded from these accounts. The stories of suffragettes who were not deemed model women and defied norms — whether they dressed in “men’s clothes,” were working women, chose to remain unmarried, or were simply not wealthy white women — have been purposefully hidden, and it is time to uncover and share them.

References

[1] Boston National Historical Park. “Margaret Foley.” National Park Service, Updated January 17, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/people/margaret-foley.htm.  

[2] Boyles, Anna. “Boston Marriages and the Queer History of Women’s Suffrage.” City of  Boston, Updated November 15, 2022, https://www.boston.gov/news/boston-marriages-and-queer-history-womens-suffrage. 

[3] Connolly, Jenna. “Boston Irish-Americans to Remember: Suffragist Margaret Foley.” Very  Local, April 15, 2022. https://www.verylocal.com/boston-suffragist-margaret-foley/21627/. 

[4] Margaret Foley Papers, 1847-1968. Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. https://id.lib.harvard.edu/ead/sch00004/catalog  Accessed June 15, 2023.

[5] Rouse, Wendy. Public Faces, Secret Lives: A Queer History of the Women's Suffrage Movement. New York University Press, 2022. 

Emma Quirk is a rising sophomore at Mount Holyoke College and is double majoring in English and Critical Social Thought. On campus, Emma is a staff writer and photos editor for Mount Holyoke News and works as a student fellow in the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Emily Kirby Goodman's Talk on Polling for our Speaker Series!

By Sylvie Richards, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

We want to extend our deep gratitude to Emily Kirby Goodman, Senior Principal at EMC Research, for speaking with our 2023 team about her inspiring career in polling as part of our 2023 Speaker Series! Her talk was extremely interesting, insightful, and informative, as we learned about her journey to a career in polling and politics and about the art of effective polling.

Goodman’s interest in politics bloomed as she grew up helping her mom, a council member and later mayor. After earning a degree in political science at Texas A&M University, she moved to Washington DC, and got an internship for a polling firm where she worked for six years. After getting a master's degree, Goodman returned to a career in polling where she continues to thrive. She has now worked for EMC research since 2012.

Emily Kirby Goodman gave our team many fascinating insights into the world of polling. In an extremely informative presentation, she introduced us to multiple polling approaches and how they are employed to effectively accomplish different goals. Goodman covered quantitative and qualitative methods, giving a comprehensive yet accessible overview of the research process, including research design, methodology, sampling, and challenges.

Additionally, she shared the important role that polling plays in politics, including in political campaigns, informing elected officials, gauging public opinion, and shaping public policy. Specifically, she depicted its impact on LGBTQ+ and women’s rights, using examples like California’s 2022 Proposition 1 which established and enshrined the rights to reproductive freedom and contraceptives in the Constitution. She explained how polling assisted in the development of the proposition and in strategically campaigning for its passage. These insights were especially informative for our purposes, as they are aligned with our goals to uplift politicians from historically marginalized communities.

Again, thank you Emily Kirby Goodman for expanding our knowledge on polling which will assist us in our goals, especially in researching and increasing Gen Z’s civic engagement. Thank you for your time and invaluable insights!

Power In Place's 2021 Speaker Series

BY AVA VIOHL, SUMMER 2021 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

The Speaker Series Team collaborated with the Politikus Team to create this graphic, highlighting the incredible speakers’ accomplishments as women in politics and their hopes for future generations. Each speaker’s insights are encapsulated in a haiku written by Power in Place collaborators.

The graphic was created by Ava Viohl and the illustrations were drawn by Riya.

---

Ava Viohl is a senior at the University of Virginia, majoring in Leadership & Public Policy and minoring in Entrepreneurship and French.

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

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.

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

BY LIZ CHADWICK, SUMMER 2021 COLLABORATOR AT POWER IN PLACE

“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.