What Do You Do When Your Husband Dies? And You Caused It?

By Adelyn Krucoff, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

For this we are going to go back into history, like way back in history to the Classical Greece age (480 BCE - 388 BCE). Now before we begin, it is important to remember that murder is bad. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt passed away his wife Eleanor Roosevelt; continued his legacy wonderfully at both the United Nations and at home. She was able to do this even with a difficult marriage with FDR, she made a personal sacrifice for the betterment of women and used her husband's and legacy name to do so. You don’t have to murder people after your husband dies to have a massive impact as a woman in the world nowadays; back in the day, well things were unfortunately different. For most of human history, women were treated poorly, and in ancient Greece an unfortunate double standard existed, men could have multiple partners (including other men) while women could only have a singular male partner. Even in Sparta in which women were granted much greater freedom than elsewhere in the Greek world, Women were expected to deal with finances of the Polis, and governance while the men were away. The spartans also enslaved a population 7 times their size in the Helots [1], so they weren’t exactly progressive. But Sparta and Athens would not dominate Greece, no, in fact, that would be Macedon. The rise of Macedon is worth several thousand articles by itself, but to keep it short they were a monarchy that rose under the genius of several competent generals, and 2 extraordinary kings. And both of those kings, in fact all of the Macedonian kings, were Polygamist [2].  

To start with, the focus of this blog will be on the wives of one of those Macedonian kings. For today the Queen I will speak about is Olympias, wife of Philip of Macedon and mother of Alexander the Great. In this of course we will be talking a fair bit about both of these men, as it would be utterly impossible to ignore. Philip of Macedon had 7 wives at one point or another, but his main wife was Olympias. It was a political marriage that had its ups and downs [3] but very importantly she bore Philip a son making her the most important of his wives, that son happened to be Alexander the great. The Macedonian court however, while not extraordinary in its chaos, was extremely volatile. Philip as a young man, was a hostage in Thebes [4] which allowed him to escape and learn how to struggle and jockey for power, and it would bring him unmeasurable success as he would become master of Greece itself. His relationship with his wife, and his children was extremely rocky. Philip had many lovers as well as wives; he got around much to their dismay, but he also butted heads with his son, his heir Alexander. At times both Olympias and Alexander were threatened in court [5] but such conduct was more or less normal in Macedon.here is no such thing as a peaceful monarchy, so it always got messy. This love hate relationship however, would eventually turn into love for Alexander, and coldness for Olympias. Alexander would signify himself militarily in his fathers campaigns many times, even saving his fathers life, [6] but in the process Philip fell in love again, with a new woman:Cleopatra Eurydice. This was a massive problem for Alexander and Olympias. For one, Philip in his aging insanity, truly loved his new 7th wife meaning he had far less time for Olympias. Also she was Macedonian meaning that any potential child would be fully Macedonian, to Alexander’s half. Olympias was not of Macedon, she was married into the family and the throne to secure an alliance with the Molossian dynasty [7]. But Philip as the undisputed master of Greece no longer needed their support, he was free to do as he pleased, Alexander, at least initially, was spared from this, as he had saved Philips life and was a proven military leader. He would be needed for future campaigns, and was still his heir until proven otherwise, but upon Philips 7th marriage to Cleopatra Eurydice, Attalus her adopted uncle loudly prayed that Philip and Cleopatra would have a male heir, a direct threat to Alexander and Olympias. Philip in again his stupidity, did not dissuade this, stunning the court, Alexander, and Olympias. At this time, both Alexander and Olympias high tailed it out of town [7], for their safety was very threatened. Cleopatra Eurydice was pregnant, and if the child was a boy, it would replace Alexander as heir to the throne. Philip would absolutely keep Alexander around in some capacity, for he was a competent military leader, but Olympias would most likely no longer be needed. Further inflaming the tensions, her daughter Cleopatra of Macedon would be married off to her own brother Alexander I of Epirus, his niece [8] against the wishes of Olympias. Philip had used Olympias’ own daughter against her. If Cleopatra had bore at that time a boy for Philip, it is almost certain he would have rid himself of his problem by having his brother/son in law Alexander I, kill his sister Olympias. But history is strange and ever twisting, Cleopatra Eurydice bore a daughter to Philip, Olympias would live another day. At that time, tensions between Alexander and Philip cooled, Alexander was recognized as Philip's heir in an informal way, Cleopatra Eurydice would even later finally have a son for Philip, but that was no longer an immediate issue, Philip would not replace Alexander as his heir. The storm being weathered, Olympias returned to see off the marriage between her daughter and her brother, in Macedon. Philip at this wedding would be confirmed as Greek Hegemon [9] and invade a weak Persia in the midst of a succession crisis, he most surely would have conquered it as Alexander would do. But Olympias was not gonna let that happen. 

Olympias either finally snapping from years of tension with her husband, or losing it at the prospect of her daughter marrying her brother in a direct affront to her personally, no longer cared directly about Alexander and Philips rekindled relationship. She would come to the wedding, but not to see him off to Persia, she would have her husband murdered [10]. Since his marriage to his 7th wife had caused so many problems, Olympias too looked inward into the Macedonian court and its life-threatening drama. Attalus had started this whole issue by loudly praying for a male heir at Philips 7th wedding, so she found an enemy of Attalus, Philips bodyguard and ex lover, Pausanias of Orestis. Attalus had raped Pausanias of Orestis over the death of his friend also named Pausanias ,in order to partially rectify this Philip had expressed sorrow at his lovers rape [11] and appointed him bodyguard of the king; a great honor. It was not enough however to dissuade his anger, Philip and Pausanias would become estranged. Olympias, ever opportunistic, seized upon this, and made a few deals about assassinating her husband and what would follow. She first made a deal with Pausanias to kill Philip and most likely promised to not chase after him, if he were to escape after said assassination [12]. Then she turned to Leonnatus, another bodyguard of Philip,and told him to kill Pausanias instantly after he completed his task so that he could not be interrogated [13]. He would later be offered Cleopatra of Macedon's hand in marriage, which was of course Olympias’s daughter, he would die before any wedding could commence but the deal and timeline was clear. 

Olympias would have her husband murdered, then kill the assassin, then later kill her brother for marrying his niece and siding with Philip instead of her. This was an ingenious plan, if Pausanias got away, well she could fake trying to get him for years and still regain the loyalty of the Macedonians. If Leonnatus turned upon her, she could seize upon his killing of Pausanias instead of taking him alive while remaining in her standing, and if it all went wrong she could simply turn to Alexander who now had a baby brother threatening his rightful place on the throne, and have him perhaps kill his father, down the line. Now did Olympias tell Alexander the great of this plan? Most likely not, Alexander upon his death would have similar problems with his wife Roxana but Alexander who had problems with Philip probably would at least want to wait a bit to see how his position developed. He was secure for now. Things could change, which is why he might entertain the idea, but it was a gamble that wasn’t necessary, so it was most likely not taken. The evidence for this is that Alexander would chase after his fathers assassin, the evidence against is that he would be proclaimed as king and Hegemon instantly after his fathers death [13]. Then it finally came, Philip marched first in a wedding procession of his daughter and now half-son/brother in law was stabbed and died instantly. Pausanias would attempt to escape but in his flight, his horse tripped and he was instantly killed by Philips bodyguards and Leonnatus. Leonnatus would then be demoted for not taking Pausanias alive, but Olympias had not a shred of evidence against her, she was clean. Now her son was instantly hailed as the next king of Macedon, the killing had not ended, it had just begun. 

Now comes the hard work, killing everyone else. Alexander had threats to his new crown. He had brothers, one was deemed mentally unfit to rule so he wasn’t a threat (he would later of course rule for a time after Alexander's death but that’s later), and he did have a half baby brother Caranus son of Cleopatra Eurydice [14]. This was a very big problem, an ambitious general could seize upon this, claim the son as the rightful king and assume a decades long regency of the throne. There were 2 generals who threatened Alexander at this moment, Antipater and Parmenion. To quell these threats Alexander promised Antipater rule over Macedon while he was gone in Persia and appointed Parmenion and his son to his soon to be invading army of Persia as well, this worked. Parmenion would not have to duel in a power struggle, he could enjoy the fruits and riches of conquest, and if Alexander were to die he and his son could take over his conquest and become kings in their own right in Persia. Antipater would be granted Greece itself a massive reward, and if Alexander were to die he could too wield it and even marry Olympias to become king himself. Alexander would bet on himself and the loyalty of his new men, in the process however he had to make 2 major concessions, one rather quickly Alexander the Great banned taxation in Macedon [15] and had to buy off several wealthy Macedonians as well. All of Macedons wealth would now come from conquest, and to make this conquest assured Alexander would take on almost all of his fathers advisors and military leaders, except for 1. Attalus, the man who had insulted Alexander and Olympias, would be killed and, later the justification would be made up that he intended to defect to the Athenian cause and play kingmaker in Macedon [16]. He was most certainly killed as part of either the deal that Olympias made with Pausanias or for his great insult; the odds that he would have tried to rebel against Alexander were slim, in a time of great generals he was merely a good one. He would have lost any civil war, against Antipater or Alexander, even in a massive power struggle, he was almost certainly killed for other reasons than betrayal. It is at this final point, Olympias and Alexander would purge what remained of their threats, and Olympias would act in revenge upon those who had threatened and damaged her in court over the decades. 

Alexander the Great was legitimately threatened by a child half brother in Caranus, this represented a powerful opportunity for generals to seize his throne and a very rewarding regency, to condemn Alexander for this murder would be a condemnation of monarchy not of him. It was quite simply nothing personal, but it would have been done by just about any monarch at this time. Alexander then further purged Amyntas IV, his cousin, and two Macedonian princes [17].

This while perhaps a little extreme was not out of the ordinary for Monarchy, you have to remove threats to your crown. Alexander had to deal with external threats and as such could not trust these relatives with the succession of the monarchy, while under more normal circumstances they could have been allowed to live. Alexander left to go and fight for his fathers kingdom with fellow Greeks, leaving Olympia's full control over what was left of her husband's court. The year was 336 BCE. 

Over this year I would call strange things started to happen, Philips first wife Audata died. No reason is given why she would have died, nor an exact timeframe [18]. She was probably murdered by Olympia. Phila of Elimeia, Philip's second wife is literally never heard of so she may not have been murdered, she either got really lucky or got killed so fast no one bothered to write it down. Nicesipolis, Philip’s 3rd wife had already died after giving birth to a daughter and was as such not a problem, the daughter Thessalonike of Macedon would be allowed to live and would play a game of power after Alexander's death in the wars of the Diodachi. She would later be married to Cassander, perhaps by force but would have 3 sons, Philip, Antipater, and Alexander [19]. If anyone were to have won the power struggles as a queen, she probably did the best for her relative position and the kingdom she would one day rule, but there are no happy endings and she would be murdered by her own son Antipater, so even by escaping Olympias’s wrath she was killed in a taste of irony. Philinna Philips 5th wife, we know basically nothing about so I hope she escaped and if there was no reason to kill her, she would have most likely been fine. Olympias was vengeful and scheming, but to spill blood for no reason would just be stupid. She most likely peacefully got to live out her days in Macedon. Meda of Odessos Philips 6th wife “committed suicide after Philips death” I do not believe she actually committed suicide though, she was probably murdered [20]. She was a Thracian princess and represented a more active threat than Philinna or Phila, she would have been killed. Then however it got personal, Cleopatra Eurydice and her daughter Europa remained the target of Olympias. Cleopatra had been Philips ‘love’ and replaced Olympia as his favorite queen, the child that could have had Olympia killed if it had been a boy, representing a major insult to her. So she had them both killed, some sources say even burned alive [21], though I personally doubt that Olympia would have been that messy. Alexander was said to have been furious, but Olympia now was the king's mother and the last remaining political wife of Philip. She had attained revenge, and the potential for far greater under her son. She would purge, kill, rule, and die just like any other monarch. She was every bit as politically masterful as Philip or Alexander, or any scheming general during the wars of the Diadochi. In a time of extremely unique men, she should be remembered as the one who rose above them all, in a stroke of political genius that gave way to the greatest conqueror in human history. She is not firstly the mother of Alexander the great, she is Olympias and should be remembered as such. 

References

[1] Cathill, Paul “Interesting Histories: Helots — The Slaves Of Sparta” medium.com 11/05/2017 https://medium.com/interesting-histories/interesting-histories-helots-the-slaves-of-sparta-46b70ebfdc05

[2] Greenwalt, William “POLYGAMY AND SUCCESSION IN ARGEAD MACEDONIA” Johns Hopkins University Press 1989 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26308586 

[3] “Olympias of Epirus: The Surreal Story of a King’s Mother” albanopedia.com, 09/11/2020 https://www.albanopedia.com/biographies/olympias-of-epirus

[4] Wilker, Julia "Philip II of Macedonia by I. Worthington" Cambridge University Press, April 2011, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41301112

[5] Bowden, Hugh “Prince: Alexander in the Macedonian court" Oxford Academic, July 2014, https://academic.oup.com/book/554/chapter-abstract/135293921?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[6] “Alexander the Great Timeline” Encyclopaedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/summary/Alexander-the-Great-Timeline

[7] Plutarch, “Alexander, Plutarch's Lives”  Harvard University Press, 1919. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg,0007,047:9

[8] "Cleopatra of Macedon: the Other Cleopatra Who Ruled in Two Continents" albanopedia.com, 06/05/2020 https://www.albanopedia.com/biographies/cleopatra-of-macedon

[9] Wilker, Julia "Philip II of Macedonia by I. Worthington" Cambridge University Press, April 2011, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41301112

[10] Carney, Elizabeth “The Politics of Polygamy: Olympias, Alexander and the Murder of Philip.” Franz Steiner Verlag, 1992, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436236

[11] BERNÁRDEZ, B. ANTELA “PHILIP AND PAUSANIAS: A DEADLY LOVE IN MACEDONIAN POLITICS.” Cambridge University Press, December 2012, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23470143

[12] Kuskowski, Ada-Maria “Whodunit? The Murder of Philip II of Macedon” 2001, https://www.mcgill.ca/classics/files/classics/2001-04.PDF

[13] "ENCYCLOPEDIC ENTRY, Alexander the Great" https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/alexander-great/

[14] M J Mann, "Caranus King of Macedon", The Second Achilles, 10/13/2014 https://thesecondachilles.com/tag/caranus/

[15] "Alexander the Great: The Balkan Campaign (336 to 335 B.C.E.)" Historia Civilis, 10/31/2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQw6rxk41A

[16] “The Destruction of Thebes (335 to 334 B.C.E.)” Historia Civilis, March 20th, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdNfTLF87eg

[17] Bartlett, Lilian Stoner "A Mediterranean Game of Thrones: The Tumultuous Legacy of Alexander the Great" The Met, 06/27/2018, https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/2016/mediterranean-game-of-thrones

[18]  M J Mann, "Philip II’s Wives", The Second Achilles, 10/30/2013 https://thesecondachilles.com/tag/audata/

[19] Gale, Alexander "Alexander the Great’s Sister, Thessalonike, and the Mermaid Legend" Greek Reporter, 05/25/2023, https://greekreporter.com/2023/05/25/alexander-the-great-sister-thessalonike-mermaid/

[20] "Archaeological Site of Aigai" World Heritage Site, 1996 https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/Archaeological+Site+of+Aigai

[21] “Cleopatra Eurydice: A Queen in the Midst of Plots and Intrigues” albanopedia.com, 10/09/2020 https://www.albanopedia.com/biographies/cleopatra-eurydice

[22] “Map Macedonia 336 BC”, Wikimedia Commons, 2009, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Map_Macedonia_336_BC-en.svg&oldid=659101792

Adelyn, sometimes called Aaron Krucoff is a rising senior at University of Maryland Baltimore county, majoring in history and minoring in political science. She is currently president of the Chess Club, and can be found routinely by the library protesting the school's past abuse of Vivien Barrett. After graduating she has no idea what she wishes to do, but is enjoying the ride. 

The Double Standard of Mothers Who Run For Office

By Tori Zucco, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Women make up 24% of Congress. A smaller number–7% of Congress–are mothers of children under 18. 

Some mothers proudly claim their motherhood title while campaigning. Sarah Palin branded herself as a “hockey mom” in 2008 and made history as the first Republican woman to be on the vice-presidential ticket. In her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton leaned heavily into her recent status as a grandmother. Two 2018 gubernatorial candidates, Krish Vignarajah in Maryland and Kelda Roys in Wisconsin, showed themselves breastfeeding in TV ads. Patty Murray has held a seat in the Washington Senate for 30 years after first campaigning as a “mom in tennis shoes.”

But what does “pulling the mom card” actually do? On one hand, it’s a moral appeal. We trust moms. They’re caring, nurturing, and we think that they’ll do what’s best for us. Pulling the mom card is an easy way to soften your image. Think about the mother figures in your life. Do you think they have your best interest at heart? Chances are, they probably do. In a world where politics is seen as a chess game of calculated moves by self-interested egos, publicly embracing your status as a mother helps you seem like a more comfortable choice. 

Hillary Clinton pulling the grandma card during her presidential campaign helped humanize her. She’s been in the game of politics for a long time and, according to the BBC article “Hillary Clinton’s grandmother gambit,” has often come across as “cold and mechanical.” Embracing her status as a grandmother worked to soften her reputation. Grandma isn’t calculating. Grandma bakes you cookies. Grandma tells you to vaccinate your kids because she wants them to be healthy. She comes off endearingly cringey when she tells you to “Pokemon Go to the polls!” Grandma is familiar.

Pulling the mom card can also help you appeal to other moms. Historically, women have voted at higher rates than men, so mothers can be a powerful demographic. In 2018, Kelda Roys made a plea against gun violence at a Democratic Party state convention. She told a story in which her three year old child was taught an active shooter drill in the form of a game at her preschool. I find that horrifying to hear about as someone who doesn’t have children, so I can only imagine the impact that it would have on people with kids her age.

None of this is to say that women embracing their motherhood status is purely a strategic move. Because, in reality, it is not a golden ticket to winning the hearts of every voter. We still live in a world where women are expected to do the majority of childcare. There exists a double standard: mothers who run for office appeal to us because we feel they will take care of us, but we simultaneously worry about their ability to take care of their children. Voters have questions: who is taking care of the children while she works? Will she be able to raise her kids properly if she’s committed to public service? Will she be able to fulfill her duties in office if she’s dealing with her kids? What are her priorities and what will suffer? 

Research shows that voters are aware of this double standard but continue to actively participate in it. The younger a candidate’s children are, the more skeptical voters become about her abilities to handle both duties. Research from the Barbara Lee Family Foundation finds that it is more important for women to speak to the public about their personal and family lives than men. If they do not address questions about their personal lives, doubt can fester about their ability to juggle their professional and domestic responsibilities. As soon as she steps into the public eye, a mother’s family life becomes the subject of public concern.

Why are we actively participating in this double standard? If voters acknowledge it exists, why aren’t we doing anything about it?

To end on a slightly higher note: an organization called Vote Mama is trying to make it easier for moms (and dads!) of young children to run for office. They’re pushing to enact policies that would allow candidates to use their campaign funds to cover childcare costs. As of 2023, 28 states have codified Campaign Funds for Childcare. Liuba Gretchen Shirley, the Founder of Vote Mama, became the first woman permitted to use campaign funds for childcare in 2018 while running to represent New York’s 2nd district. These policies minimize financial barriers that prevent low and middle income parents from running for office. Kids are expensive, and the average person doesn’t have the financial freedom to cover childcare costs if they’ve given up their job to campaign. But, if they can use campaign funds to help, running for office becomes more accessible. Hopefully, the work of Vote Mama will not only allow, but encourage more parents to run for office. 

References

[1] “Campaign Funds for Childcare - Where We Stand.” Vote Mama Foundation. 2023. https://www.votemamafoundation.org/cfccstates 

[2] Diaz, Jaclyn. “Why aren’t more moms running for office? One group is hoping to change that.” NPR. November 4, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/04/1133634546/mothers-running-for-office-election-midterm 

[3] Eggert, Nalina. “Female politicians and babies: a lose-lose situation?” BBC News. August 2, 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-40800687 

[4] Gibson, Caitlin. “A record number of congresswomen are mothers. Here’s a glimpse inside their first-ever caucus.” The Washington Post. April 1, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/a-record-number-of-congresswomen-are-mothers-heres-a-glimpse-inside-their-first-ever-caucus/2019/04/16/b563b964-5c77-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html 

[5] Neklason, Annika. “Moms Running for Office Are Finally Advertising Their Motherhood. July 23, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/07/midterms-2018-mothers/565703/ 

[6] Zurcher, Anthony. “Hillary Clinton’s grandmother gambit.” BBC News. February 19, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-31541469 

Tori Zucco is a rising senior at Wheaton College Massachusetts majoring in Sociology with a minor in Women’s and Gender Studies. She is interested in social justice, reproductive justice, and writing. On campus, Tori works as a Peer Writing Tutor.

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.

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.