The Crisis of Black Maternal Care

By Emma Quirk, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Image by: Stephanie Rutt / Flickr

Following the tragic death of Olympic track and field star Tori Bowie on April 23, 2023, the conversation surrounding Black maternal mortality rates and lack of sufficient care for Black mothers has returned to mainstream attention.

Frentorish “Tori” Bowie grew up in Rankin County, Mississippi with her sister and grandmother. Bowie originally began her track career as a jumper but became a sprinter, winning bronze and silver Olympic medals in Rio where she was also part of the gold medal-winning 4x100 relay. Her teammate Allyson Felix described Bowie as “a bright light” and “very, very sweet.”

Bowie died at 32 due to seizures brought on by preeclampsia, “a high blood pressure disorder that can occur during pregnancy,” and respiratory distress. Felix also experienced preeclampsia during her pregnancy in 2018, and a third member of their winning 4x100 team Tianna Madison experienced life-threatening pregnancy complications. Other notable Black women like Beyoncé and Serena Williams have shared their near-death experiences while giving birth. Despite their fame, wealth, or health before pregnancy, Black women are suffering and dying from giving birth at way higher rates than other women. These few stories of celebrities and elite athletes are only the start of the problem.

Evidently, Black birthing people cannot trust that they will survive pregnancy. According to statistics from the CDC, the maternal mortality rate for non-Hispanic Black women was 44 percent in 2019. In comparison, the maternal mortality rate for non-Hispanic white women was 17.9 percent and 12.6 percent for Hispanic women. These statistics are not great, but even more horrifying is how much they have increased over just a couple of years. In 2021, the maternal mortality rate was 69.9 percent for non-Hispanic Black women, 26.6 percent for non-Hispanic white women, and 28 percent for Hispanic women, and these numbers are continuing to rise. These statistics are striking and drastic changes must be made.

There is some legislation working to combat this. Congresswoman Alma Adams (NC-12), Lauren Underwood (IL-14), and Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) reintroduced the Momnibus Act on May 15, 2023. The Act includes 13 individual bills that cover issues such as investing in social determinants of health such as housing and nutrition, increasing funding for programs to improve maternal care for veterans, improving maternal health care and support for incarcerated mothers, promoting innovative payment models to incentivize high-quality maternity care and non-clinical support during and after pregnancy, and more.

Adams, who is also the Co-Founder and Co-Chair of the Black Maternal Health Caucus, said “The Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act of 2023 addresses this urgent crisis that affects thousands of American parents every year. As many as 80% of maternal deaths are preventable with proper care and treatment. The Momnibus makes over $1 billion in historic investments in the health and care of moms. It is nothing short of a game-changer for Black mothers as well as every parent bringing a child into the world. Now more than ever, it is critical we pass the Momnibus and make sure no child grows up without a parent. As a Black mother and grandmother, take it from me: Black mamas can't wait!”

Beyond this bill, the CDC has put out some guidelines for healthcare providers, hospitals, and states to reduce Black maternal mortality. For providers and hospitals, this means addressing unconscious bias, giving patients more information, standardizing care, and more. For states and communities, this means addressing social factors that heed maternal care such as unstable housing, food insecurity, and racial inequality.

What it comes down to is that the United States is having a maternal mortality crisis, and Black birthing people are at the greatest risk. These conditions must be improved. In the words of Felix, “I’m hopeful that things can get better. I’m hopeful that Tori, who stood on the podium at Rio, gold around her neck and sweetness in her soul, won’t die in vain.”

References

[1] Felix, Allyson. “Tori Bowie Can't Die In Vain.” Time, June 15, 2023, https://time.com/6287392/tori-bowie-allyson-felix-black-maternal-health/

[2] Hoyert, Donna. “Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2021.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 16, 2023, https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:124678

[3] Kindelan, Katie. “US Olympians call for change after death of teammate due to childbirth complications.” ABC News, June 15, 2023, https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Wellness/us-olympians-call-change-after-death-teammate-due/story?id=100106755

[4] Office of Health Equity. “Working Together to Reduce Black Maternal Mortality.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, April 3, 2023, https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/features/maternal-mortality/index.html

[5] U.S. House of Representatives. “In Honor of Mother’s Day, Adams, Booker, Underwood Reintroduce the Momnibus to End America’s Maternal Health Crisis.” May 15, 2023, https://adams.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/honor-mothers-day-adams-booker-underwood-reintroduce-momnibus-end.

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.

The Parentification of Eldest Daughters: Pros and Cons

By Maddie Possamai, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Image by: Lilli Carré / New York Times

Parentification occurs when the eldest child assumes caregiving responsibilities within the family. This can include caring for their siblings as a “third parent,” or an abundance of unequally distributed housework. This process is primarily found in firstborn daughters. The eldest daughters often fall victim to this role reversal due to traditional gender roles and societal expectations. Parentification is often regarded as a negative outlook. Although many negative effects may come from this such as suppressed needs, people-pleasing and anxiety, being the eldest daughter also comes with heightened leadership and emotional skills along with a well-developed sense of independence. 

The causes of parentification have been studied by psychologists today. Doctor Sabrina Romanoff states that the main causes of parentification of children include emotional immaturity from parents, overwhelming responsibilities and lack of support. However, girls between the ages of five and fourteen years old spend 40 percent more time on domestic work such as cleaning or taking care of siblings than young boys of that same age. The societal expectation of girls and young women to do domestic work and take on a so-called “parent” role is prominent in household functions. The installment of gendered roles is due to the parent's understanding of domestic work being “traditionally feminine” thus subconsciously assigning the eldest daughter such work. Working mothers may also subconsciously cause parentification on the oldest daughter due to being busy with work and having to provide for the family, leaving the eldest daughter to do domestic work at home. This causes the eldest daughters to pick up the domestic work that the mother was not able to get to. 

In certain circumstances, young women who assume caregiving responsibilities may be stricken with negative effects. A common effect of parentification includes suppressed needs as young women learn that their needs and emotions are an inconvenience as they are eager to please their parents. This leads to another effect of people pleasing. Many eldest daughters who are victims of parentification tend to be people pleasers which is due to the suppressed needs that young women face as they take on more caregiving roles and nurturing responsibilities. Due to the fact that eldest daughters who have experienced parentification assume caregiving and parental roles, they lose time for their own emotions. Eldest daughters are taught that their own emotions are inconvenient therefore causing a loss of self in order to maintain relationships with their parental figures while simultaneously doing domestic work. As a result of parentification, eldest daughters may also be diagnosed with anxiety. A study showed that firstborn daughters have more anxiety than other siblings which is a result of the intense workload that comes from the process of parentification. Due to the expectations that the firstborn daughter has to be the second or the third caretaker of their siblings and other domestic work, the eldest daughters take on adult stressors and anxieties at a young age and into adulthood. 

Although many negative effects arise from the parentification of eldest daughters, being the firstborn daughter also comes with its perks. One of the strengths of being the eldest daughter is extremely high emotional intelligence. Even though this is due to having their needs suppressed, eldest daughters tend to have the ability to be extremely empathic and feel the emotions of others. Eldest daughters who have experienced parentification are shown to have a heightened sense of compassion which is also the result of taking care of their siblings. Eldest daughters who have taken on the responsibilities of taking care of their siblings are able to cultivate a deeper understanding of others’ needs and emotions. Another strength of being the firstborn is that eldest daughters have heightened leadership skills. Due to assuming parental responsibilities, eldest daughters become more responsible and organized in completing household tasks, therefore, nurturing leadership skills. Leadership skills not only include being responsible and organized, but also communication and problem solving which are learned and developed through parentification. These traits can translate into professional and academic success. Eldest children are sixteen percent more likely to succeed academically than younger siblings and eldest daughters are 4 percent more likely to succeed than eldest sons.

Prime examples of successful firstborn daughters are Kamala Harris and Hilary Clinton. Harris and Clinton exemplify excellent leadership abilities and high emotional intelligence such as empathy in a sense that is unique to their birth order. Both Clinton and Harris have been many “firsts” for women in politics and continue to lead with grace and empathy. Other successful, eldest daughters include Beyonce and Oprah Winfrey. Author Lisette Schuitemaker wrote a book in 2016 called “The Eldest Daughter Effect,” published in 2016 after Hilary Clinton, Oprah Winfrey, and Beyonce were incredibly high on the Forbes list of the world's most powerful women. It analyzes the question of what these women have in common. Schuitemaker’s answer? They are all eldest daughters.

References

[1] Gifford, Bonnie. “What is parentification, who does it affect, and is it always bad?” Happiful. February 15, 2023. https://happiful.com/what-is-parentification

[2] Gupta, Sanjana. “What is Parentification?” Verywellmind. January 5, 2023. https://www.verywellmind.com/parentification-types-causes-and-effects-7090611

[3] Hu, Yang. “What is 'eldest daughter syndrome' and how can we fix it?” Brainstorm. April 17, 2023. https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2023/0417/1377341-eldest-daughter-syndrome-siblings-parents-family/#:~:text=Mirroring%20the%20gender%20divide%20among,the%20burden%20among%20her%20siblings.

[4] “How people-pleasing develops in young children? Signs to spot and what parents should do to avoid it.” The Times of India. August 13, 2022. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/parenting/moments/how-people-pleasing-develops-in-young-children-signs-to-spot-and-what-parents-should-do-to-avoid-it/photostory/93525161.cms?from=mdr#:~:text=Nicole%20LePera%2C%20a%20psychologist%20and,relationship%20with%20the%20parent%20figure.%22

[5] Wood, Karly. “Study Says Eldest Daughters Have More Anxiety than Siblings, Surprising No One.” Tinybeans. August 31, 2022. https://tinybeans.com/first-born-children-anxiety/

Maddie Possamai is a rising junior at Wheaton College in Massachusetts majoring in Political Science with minors in Journalism and Visual Arts. At Wheaton College she is currently working on creating a Commuters Organization on campus to advocate for more benefits for commuter students. After graduating college, Maddie hopes to work in Political Journalism. 

Affirmative Action’s Perfect Baby - Sonia Sotomayor

By Kaitlyn Nguyen, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Image from: United States Supreme Court

While the idea of a woman in influential positions is relatively attainable today, it hasn’t always been this way. In fact, many modern females were the first to trailblaze success in their academic occupations. For instance, Sonia Sotomayor, a current justice on the Supreme Court, was the first Latino and third woman to serve in her position. Despite achieving accomplishments that are out of reach for most people, Sotomayor actually came from a humble background that tethered her access to resources early on. It was perseverance and a hard work ethic that enabled Sotomayor to even level the playing field among her peers. In light of recent precedents on affirmative action, Sonia Sotomayor is emblematic of equity as someone who benefited from affirmative action as a woman seeking higher education and a Latina with immigrant parents. 

Sotomayor grew up in the Bronx, where she lived with her Puerto Rican family in a city-owned housing project. In the area she lived in, her community thrived off of ethnically diverse working-class families. After graduating high school, the future Justice attained a full-ride scholarship to Princeton University and graduated with Summa Cum Laude Honors. Afterward, she attended Yale Law School, where she graduated in 1979. Yet, even in university, Sotomayor noticed how far behind she was from her peers in standardized measures of intelligence. She said, “I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative-action baby. I am Puerto Rican, born and raised in the South Bronx. My test scores were not comparable to my colleagues at Princeton and Yale.” Yet, despite having a late start in comparison to her peers, Sotomayor quickly proved her competence by outperforming her class. 

Later on, she was nominated to the United States District Court in 1992 for New York by the Bush Administration, which made her the youngest judge to ever join the court at just 38 years old. And in 2009, President Barack Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court, thereby celebrating her career as an affluent and reputable judge. Sotomayor was known for her thoughtful considerations and rational rulings. Her nomination was an eminent moment for the Latino community and young female scholars alike. And as she achieved greatness, Sotomayor never downplayed her extraordinary access to higher education. Throughout her school and work career, she prioritized hiring a diverse staff, which was prompted by the lack of women and ethnic minorities she encountered in her academic institutions. Furthermore, she personally worked on projects that prioritized the need for affordable housing, which paid homage to the home she grew up in. 

Sotomayor credits all of her accomplishments as a result of affirmative action, which exposed her to an environment that diversified her understanding of the world. However, with the recent overturning of historic precedents on the topic, Sotomayor has taken to heart the impact this will have on the college admissions process. Affirmative action pertains to any underrepresented group in society. It acknowledges women, Native Americans, Hispanics, and other minority groups that have historically been excluded from academic conversations. The natural criteria for it are race, gender, disability, ethnic origin, and age, which is how Sotomayor benefited as a Latina woman in the college admissions process.  In her opening statement on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and University of North Carolina, Sotomayor argued that racial equality could be “enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and never has been colorblind.” As a product of affirmative action herself, Sotomayor has always believed that equal access to opportunity is a prerequisite for race neutrality. According to her, the only way to “stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” This acknowledgment comes first and foremost in creating a race-impartial society. 

Yet, Sotomayor’s lifetime accomplishments are utterly symbolic of race-conscious decisions in the college admissions process. Sotomayor is a beacon of capability and aptitude amongst underrepresented social groups.  And lastly, her adversity in breaking barriers that hindered her access to opportunity demonstrates the power of affirmative action. Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect affirmative-action baby. 

References

[1] Acevedo, Nicole. “Sotomayor and Jackson Slan Idea that U.S. is ‘Colorblind’”. NBC News. June 29, 2023. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/sotomayor-jackson-write-strong-dissents-affirmative-action-rcna91817 

[2] Alvarado, Elisabeth. “40 Inspiring Sonia Sotomayor Quotes”. Spanish Mama. September 21, 2021. https://spanishmama.com/sonia-sotomayor-quotes-and-books/ 

[3] Angelucci, Ashley. “Sonia Sotomayor”. National Women’s History Museum. September 1, 2021. https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/sonia-sotomayor 

[4] Parrott-Sheffer, Chelsey. “Sonia Sotomayor”. Britannica. June 30, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sonia-Sotomayor 

[5] Politico Staff. “Read the Dissents in the Supreme Court Ruling Against Affirmative Action”. Politico. June 29, 2023.

Kaitlyn Nguyen is a rising sophomore majoring in Political Science at UCLA. She’s aiming to pursue a minor in social data analysis, with a concentration in international politics. On campus, Kaitlyn works to provide free resources for homeless women and children in the downtown region of Los Angeles. In her free time, she loves cooking and whipping up drinks as a barista! This summer, she’s working part time at a cute local cafe and interning for PiP! 

Electoral Overperformance

By Sean Skoog, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Image from: Britannica

A common term used in political circles is “partisan baseline”, often using either the last presidential election or a state or district’s Partisan Vote Index (PVI, which measures a state’s margin relative to the national popular vote) as a reference point. A candidate “overperforming” or “underperforming” this baseline means that their party either did better or worse than what is typically expected by a member of their party in their district or state. Partisan overperformances were particularly commonplace during the midterm elections of 2022 when both parties saw notable overperformances in various statewide and districtwide races. One such example is Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer in Michigan, who won by a margin of 9.6% in 2018 and 10.5% in 2022, which greatly exceeded the Democratic margins in the preceding presidential elections, when Hillary Clinton lost by 0.2% in 2016, and Joe Biden won by 2.8% in 2020.

Gretchen Whitmer’s 2022 win was notable for several reasons. First of all, 2022 was expected to be a very Republican year (or “red wave”) nationwide, as the party that holds the presidency typically loses congressional and gubernatorial seats in midterm years. Prior to 2022, the last time Michigan elected a governor from the same party as the incumbent president was in 1990, and that was by a margin of less than 1%. Additionally, Whitmer did better than Biden two years prior in every county in the state and improved compared to Biden among nearly every demographic. The other two Democratic statewide officials who won reelection in 2022, Attorney General Dana Nessel and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, also outperformed Biden two years prior, with Benson winning by an even larger margin than Whitmer did (she won by a whopping margin of 13.9%, better than any Democrat for president in the past half-century except Obama’s first election in 2008 when he won Michigan by 16%).

There are several factors that explain why the statewide Democratic slate did so well in Michigan in 2022. One notable factor is Dobbs v. Jackson, the United States Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade and returned the status of abortion rights to the states in June 2022. In Michigan, an abortion ban from 1931 would have come into effect had the state Supreme Court not halted its implementation. A ballot initiative overturning the ban and enshrining the right to an abortion in the state constitution was on the ballot in November 2022, and it may have created an environment with a higher turnout from women, who would have been directly affected by the ban. All three statewide Democratic candidates supported the proposition, and abortion was seen as one of the most important issues in Michigan that year. The proposition ended up passing by 13%, outperforming two of the three statewide Democrats, and slightly underperforming Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (whose opponent was extremely controversial). All of the statewide officeholders in Michigan made sure to focus on issues that the majority of the population supported, while their opponents took more partisan positions even when they were unpopular. This reinforces how it is always important to recognize the political positions of your electorate, and to try and minimize or avoid discussing issues that you support if the majority of the population opposes them.

Another interesting note about the 2022 statewide elections in Michigan is that the two women who won statewide by more than 10 points (Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson) also had female opponents, while Dana Nessel (who won by 8.6%) had a male opponent. This could potentially suggest that voters may still prefer male candidates when given a choice between a man and a woman, but will not hesitate to vote for a woman when there is no other option (although it is worthwhile to note that Nessel also won by the lowest margin in 2018, and had the lowest approval rating of the three statewide Democrats prior to 2022).

Overall, the results of the statewide elections in 2022 in Michigan show that it is possible for female candidates to significantly overperform how their party typically does in a state or district, as long as they strike the right message with their constituents.

References

[1] “Election 2022.” Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. November 8, 2022. https://uselectionatlas.org/2022.php

Sean Skoog is a rising junior at the University of Michigan majoring in Political Science. In his free time, he enjoys discussing and analyzing politics, traveling, and spending time with friends and family. One day, he hopes to be a campaign strategist for a high profile campaign.

The Front Lines of Red State Book Bans: Who protects? Who restricts? Who attacks?

By Gabriella Majeski, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Books have stood at the center of education and the distribution of knowledge for centuries. With each flip of a page, one has the potential to explore endless amounts of wisdom. Books give us a glimpse into a writer’s world by sharing their creativity and opinion. Through writing, authors explain and connect different perspectives, opinions, and experiences, specifically with complex topics that Americans are often faced with today, such as race, sexuality, and diversity. A reader that explores an expansive range of texts has the ability to diversify their thinking within these topics, which is why accessibility to these discussions is imperative. When access to certain books is restricted, so is a reader’s ability to expand their learning. An official definition of book bans by PEN America, a literary free-speech and expression rights organization, is as follows: "any action taken against a book based on its content and as a result of parent or community challenges, administrative decisions, or in response to direct or threatened action by lawmakers or other governmental officials.” With this definition in mind, one can argue that book bans stand at the forefront of limiting the diversification of American thought.

When the legal wildfire of book bans began to spread across the United States, Martha Hickson, a high school librarian in Annandale, New Jersey, was overcome with fear and anxiety for her personal safety when working, as her occupation became more and more politicized. Martha claimed that she lost sleep and weight due to the immense stress she experienced following a school board meeting where she was named by a right-winged parent group. The group claimed that Hickson allowed a 16-year-old boy to check out inappropriate, “pornographic” material. The obtained material the boy’s mother alluded to was “Genderqueer” by Maia Kobabe (2019), a graphic memoir meant to illustrate Kobabe’s exploration of gender and sexuality from adolescence to adulthood. The second book was “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evision (2018), a coming-of-age novel that tells a story about Mike Muñoz, a young Mexican-American who goes through a phase of self-discovery, taking the reader along the way. Both of these books have won multiple awards from the American Library Association in the past. Despite their success, they  are now facing multiple restrictions across red states, mainly due to discussions within the books regarding LGBTQ+ history, stories, and themes which are outlined in the courtroom as “homoerotic content” by right-wing individuals. According to PEN America, 41 percent of petitioned or banned books have titles or themes containing LGBTQ+ identity (NPR).

Martha Hickson isn’t the only person affected by the increasing politicization of literature. Most occupations that distribute books, such as teachers, librarians and school staff face the same fears as Martha. Nationwide amongst right-wing school groups, librarians have been named the “Arm of Satan” (LA Times) for allowing students to check out books containing discussions of sexuality, race, and gender.  They are vilified as groomers, and often cursed or harassed into taking books off of their shelves. Additionally, women are disproportionately affected by this increasing targeting and harassment, with 61.7 percent of librarians identifying as female, and 74.3 percent of teachers (Zippia). As more book bans are proposed and passed, these individuals are met with feelings of uncertainty in their job security, safety, and emotional well-being, much like Martha Hickson. The Director of Library Services for Victoria, TX, Dayna Williams-Capone, claimed that 2021 was the first time in her career of 25 years that she was asked to remove books from curated public collections. When she refused, the County Commissioner Clint Ines responded by giving Williams-Capone an ultimatum: remove the books from their shelves or face eviction from the government-owned building within 90 days. As more public libraries begin to face scrutiny, right-wing officials and citizens have also turned to targeting independent bookstores. In August 2022, a judge in Virginia dismissed two petitions to ban independent bookstores, including Barnes & Noble, from selling two books to minors: “Genderqueer” by Maia Kobabe, and “A Court of Mist and Fury” by Sarah J. Mass, the sequel to her fantasy series. Ultimately, the petition was struck down, although there is no guarantee that these novels will remain protected in independent bookstores in the future (The Week). 

So what is being done to combat book bans? And how can we ensure that more novels won’t be removed from curricula in the future? It seems as though school board meetings stand at the center of lobbying efforts against certain novels, but the same goes for protecting such books, as described by a school teacher in Austin, Texas: “These conservative groups show up like clockwork to school board meetings. It’s clear to me that if you want to combat them, you have to organize, get out early and be disciplined” (LA Times).

 Jen Cousins, a mother in Orlando, Florida, founded a parents group that advocates for the upkeep of books in curricula, libraries and bookstores. She attended a school board meeting in 2021, where conservative parents and Proud Boys members attended to call for the banning of Maia Kobabe’s “Genderqueer”. Cousins, who had purchased the book as a gesture of support for her 12 year old who had just come out as nonbinary, felt the “inflamed culture” of the entire conversation heavily. She said that book bans “pit teachers, librarians, and parents against conservative parental groups and politicians such as Ron Desantis” (LA Times). Cousins also compared the climate of her own state of Florida to her favorite book, “1984” by George Orwell: “1984 is eerily relevant to the times. My encounters with conservatives often border on surreal.” (LA Times).

After her experience at the school board meeting, Cousins was inspired to take action. She co-founded the Florida Freedom to Read Project with another parent, Stephana Ferrell. The project aims to combat book banning across the state, preserve books at risk, organize protests and confront conservative parental groups who lobby against certain novels at board meetings, such as Moms for Liberty. Across the country, more and more organizations like the Florida Freedom to Read Project are beginning to sprout in order to protect books like “Genderqueer.” These organizations are primarily founded by mothers, librarians, and school teachers who wish to end the politicization of their occupation or their child’s curricula. Louisiana Citizens Against Censorship was founded by a librarian who was threatened and harassed for condemning book bans. Texas school teacher Frank Strong published and updated a list called the “Book-Loving Texan’s Guide,” which reports on the state’s school board races, and rates the candidates based on where they stand with book banning. The Round Rock Black Parents Association was crucial to the mobilization against the ban of Jason Reynolds’ “Stamped: Racism, Anti Racism, and You”. The initiative was led by three mothers from Round Rock, Texas, who wished to fight to keep the book in the school county’s curriculum. The association organized groups such as the Anti-Racist Coming Together group, who advocated for the preservation and expansion of diverse literature at local school board meetings. They also petition thousands of parents, community members and teachers to call upon the district’s Board of Trustees to protect the book. Ultimately, their efforts were successful, although far from over with the approaching threat of more bans across red states. 

 Books can be used as a means to share thought, creativity, research, and opinion with the world. They can incite conversation, inspire others to take action, help readers delve into creative worlds, and expand limiting beliefs or views. With women at the frontlines of many of these organizations, the success of such initiatives is essential to the protection of novels that discuss the necessity of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the United States. Their protection is vital to the future of an accepting, diverse, inclusive culture. 

References

[1] Fleishman, Jeffrey. “Two moms are at the center of the fight against book banning in America: ‘It’s exhausting’”. Los Angeles Times. May 15, 2023. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-05-15/florida-book-banning

[2] Bellamy-Walker, Tat. “Meet the moms of color from Texas fighting book bans at their kids’ schools”. NBC News. January 28, 2022. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/meet-moms-color-texas-fighting-book-bans-kids-schools-rcna13701

[3] Friedman, Jonathan. Johnson, Nadine Farid. “Banned in the USA: Rising School Book Bans Threaten Free Expression and Students’ First Amendment Rights”. PEN America. April, 2022. https://pen.org/banned-in-the-usa/#policies

[4] Coleman, Theara. “How book bans are affecting schools and libraries”. The Week. September 11, 2022. https://theweek.com/briefing/1016551/how-book-bans-are-affecting-schools-and-libraries

[5] Zippia Editors. “Teacher Demographics and Statistics in the US”. Zippia. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.zippia.com/teacher-jobs/demographics/

[6] Zippia Editors. “Librarian Demographics and Statistics in the US”. Zippia. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.zippia.com/librarian-jobs/demographics/

[7] Harris, Elizabeth A. Alter, Alexandra. “With Rising Book Bans, Librarians Have Come Under Attack”. New York Times. July 6, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/books/book-ban-librarians.html

[8] Jankowicz, Mike. “Louisiana teacher sues conservative group after she was called a 'pedo' and a 'groomer' for opposing censorship in her local library”. Insider. August 18, 2022. https://www.insider.com/louisiana-teacher-sues-activists-after-vilified-for-defending-library-2022-8

[9] López Restrepo, Manuela. “Book bans are getting everyone's attention — including Biden's. Here's why”. NPR. April 25, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/25/1172024559/book-bans-spike-biden-culture-wars-lgbtq-gender-queer-libraries

[10] Fleischman, Jeffrey. “School librarians vilified as the ‘arm of Satan’ in book-banning wars”. Los Angeles Times. January 27, 2023. https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2023-01-27/school-librarians-vilified-as-the-arm-of-satan-in-book-banning-wars

Gabriella Majeski is a rising sophomore at Brandeis University and intends to double major in politics and women, gender and sexuality studies, as well as a German and legal studies double minor. In addition to her commitment to community service and activism on and off campus, she competes for the Club Gymnastics Team and works as a tour guide. She hopes to attend law school and work in social media marketing for a political campaign after graduation.

Powerful Women: Why We Haven’t Had a Woman President Yet

By Katerina Svoronos, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Image From: Britannica

Hillary Clinton ran for office in 2016 for the position of President. While she became the Democratic nominee, she was not the first woman to run. Many women besides her have run and unfortunately were unsuccessful, such as Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. 

Yet problematic male politicians have run time and time again, and won; for example, Hillary Clinton’s opposition: Donald Trump. There is a clear double standard yet there is no way out of it. It seems as if male candidates are allowed to display problematic behaviors and have an unclean record but the second a female candidate has something bad on her record, it becomes a huge focus of the election. If women address the double standard, people complain, and if they do not, they are branded a sellout. This is the result of systemic sexism, which has been around forever. Women did not even get the right to vote until 1920, over 100 years after our country was founded. 

One clear facet of sexism is that men are powerful and thus, in charge. While we have female elected officials, the president is essentially the face of our country, and people are so set in their ways that they often believe women are too emotional and too irrational to run a country. People who have this belief do not usually understand exactly what power a president has and can delegate, but instead have the intention of keeping institutionalized sexism in place. Women in powerful positions, especially one as dignified as the president of the United States, threatens that very system itself. Regardless of political party, a female president would bring about a great deal of attention to issues that may have been buried under the rug. 

As we can see, though, other countries have had female leaders including countries that have even more active sexism than we do. They have had female leaders for many years yet still have laws in place that actively harm women. So why have they been able to elect a female leader and we have not? Well the answer is simple. A big part of our presidential election is essentially how popular or likable a candidate is. The grandiose and intense attitude of Donald Trump made people believe he was passionate and would get things done, while Hillary Clinton’s calmer demeanor may have been off putting to some people. Unfortunately, this is a self fulfilling prophecy. Women in powerful positions are forced to act calm because otherwise the narrative will be told that they are too emotional to hold power. People typically wanted to be captivated by the candidate they are voting for, and unfortunately in the 2016 election that had seemed to happen with Donald Trump. It also seems that when women run, their male counterparts try to dig out every bit of their past in order to attack them. Donald Trump even attacked Hillary Clinton’s husband during the 2016 election, which is a sexist ploy in it of itself. 

Americans are also hesitant to make big changes. To elect a woman president would be a categorically big change. It would shift the political sphere forever and people do not want to deal with that. It would not be just tackling sexism but also toxic masculinity. Sexism and toxic masculinity need each other to function and a woman president endangers those concepts. 

Yet women are constantly under attack. The recent Dobbes decision threatened women and non-binary people everywhere and it will only continue to get worse. It is imperative that we elect a woman president now more than ever but with our current system it will be difficult. 

References

[1] Alter, Charlotte. Other Countries Have Elected Women Leaders for Decades. Why Can’t America? March 7, 2020. https://time.com/5798122/elizabeth-warren-woman-president-america/

[2] Aalai, Azadeh. This is What Institutionalized Sexism Looks Like. May 12, 2017. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-first-impression/201705/is-what-institutionalized-sexism-looks

Katerina Svoronos is a rising sophomore at Haverford College. She is an intended political science major with a concentration in international relations and law. She hopes to be a journalist one day and would love to work for the New York Times. In her free time she loves watching movies, hanging out with family and friends, and exploring new places.

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

By Adelyn Krucoff, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Image from: Wikimedia Commons

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

Photo by Gage Skidmore

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

Image from: Harper's Bazaar

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.