Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Religion That Guided Her

By Kate Vavra, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will forever be remembered as being the second woman, as well as the first Jewish woman, to be placed on the United States Supreme Court. However, decades before she was appointed by Bill Clinton, young Ginsburg lived in Brooklyn with her family where the presence of Judaism would guide her towards her future political career. Ginsburg’s father immigrated to New York from Russia, and her mother was a first generation Polish American. Ginsburg’s parents raised her Jewish, and the family was involved in the faith throughout her childhood. 

Brooklyn has had a large Jewish population for generations, so Ginsburg grew up in a vibrant religious and cultural community. During Ginsbrug’s childhood years, much of the Jewish American community had a strong yearning to be good Americans and help work towards a better nation, all while holding on to their Jewish heritage. Many of them faced the daily detriment of antisemitism, but they continued to work hard to climb the ladder of society. These ideals and attitudes were undoubtedly given to Ginsburg. Her mother, who passed away before Ginsburg graduated high school, guided young Ginsburg to strive for academic excellence and to build a career for herself. This influence led the way for Ginsburg to be accepted into the prestigious Cornell University, where she continued to push herself academically and graduated as the highest ranked female in her class. From Cornell, she went on to study at Harvard Law School and Columbia Law School, each of which are one of the best law programs in the nation. This advanced education, inspired by her Jewish roots, gifted Ginsburg with the skills and expertise that allowed her to reach her dreams of becoming a Supreme Court justice and changing the country forever. 

Additionally, Ginsburg has referenced the ways in which the scars of the Holocaust have influenced her views on legislation and justice.  In 2004, Ginsburg spoke at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and stated “in the Capitol, the lawmaking heart of our nation, in close proximity to the Supreme Court, we remember in sorrow that Hitler’s Europe, his Holocaust kingdom, was not lawless. Indeed, it was a kingdom full of laws, laws deployed by highly educated people — teachers, lawyers, and judges — to facilitate oppression, slavery and mass murder” [1]. These words convey how Ginsburg recognizes that discrimination can and does happen within the law, so it is necessary that legal systems must be constantly challenged and upheld. She got rid of language on certificates that framed the calendar year as Christian. She successfully pushed the court to not hear cases on Yom Kippur, and the practice is still upheld today. For years, Ginsburg led the fight against the discrimination of women. She successfully argued six landmark cases throughout the 1970’s in front of the Supreme Court, before she was even an appointed justice. It is clear how much Ginsburg stood up for minorities during her time on the Court. 

Ginsburg’s identity as a Jew inspired her to have empathy for unprivileged groups who do not hold power in society. She felt compelled to use her influence to protect these individuals. Ginsburg knew that the legal system needed to be modernized, and although it would prove to be long and difficult, she chose to work within the legal system, instead of outside, to create advancements. These actions reflect the popular opinions of the American Jewish population during this time period. Most American Jews believed that laws existed to protect them and other minorities, and although the laws may be flawed, the government is responsible for making changes for them to thrive. 

Although in the past Ginsburg had stated how she does not see herself as devoutly religious, she always identified as a proud Jewish woman. She was clearly connected with the Jewish culture, customs, and values. Ginsburg found political inspiration within Judaism, proving how one’s upbringing has the capacity to shape the trajectory of their life. 

References 

[1] Brockell, Gillian. “How Jewish History and The Holocaust Fueled Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Quest For Justice” The Washington Post Sept 2019, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/09/19/rbg-ruth-bader-ginsburg-holocaust-jewish/ 

[2] Mineo, Liz. “The Life and Legacy of RBG” The Harvard Gazette Sept 20, 2020. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/09/harvard-community-reflects-on-the-life-achievements-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/ 

[3] Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/justices/ruth_bader_ginsburg#:~:text=In%20this%20position,%20she%20led,were%20discriminated%20against%20as%20well 

[4] Shimron, Yonat. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was Passionate About Judaism’s Concern For Justice” The Washington Post Sept 18, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/09/18/ruth-bader-ginsburg-was-passionate-about-judaisms-concern-justice/ 

[5] Shimron, Yonat. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Was Shaped By Her Minority Faith” The Washington Post Sept 19, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/ruth-bader-ginsburg-was-shaped-by-her-minority-faith/2020/09/19/45f02f3e-fa9d-11ea-85f7-5941188a98cd_story.html 

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.

Hortensia and the 2nd Triumvirate

By Adelyn Krucoff, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

In a dying republic, what is bravery? Is it to fight to the very end, until the last breath of democracy is eased out? What if you have no role in statecraft, no role in this virtuous republic, would you still fight? Against the Titans of Rome, in a dying republic, Hortensia, daughter of the great statesman and speaker Quintus Hortensius, walked into the lion's den of the neverending death spiral of the Roman Republic. She would be arguing against the son of a Roman God in the future Augustus Caesar [1], Mark Antony, and the Pontifex Maximus of Rome Lepidus. The Pontifex Maximus is a position today called the Pope [2], however, it's a little more complicated than that. Of course though, Pontifex Maximus meant chief religious officer of Rome, an elected position in the Roman Republic, an appointed one in the empire. The Pope itself is not in the same organization as the Roman Republic, considering it collapsed 2000+ years ago but there is a direct lineage between the two. All that aside, in order to talk about Hortensia’s brilliance, we must first talk about the men she was facing. There is no shortcut around these 3 men, but that’s what makes it all the more impressive and incredible, how she dueled with them in the public square and won.

But I want to emphasize the sheer and utter political, religious, and military power that one woman, Hortensia, would be facing, spearheaded by three men, Lepidus, Antony, and Augustus*. I’ve already gotten into Lepidus a bit, he has been mostly forgotten to history but was an extremely competent albeit unpopular general [4], who served under Julius Caesar’s dictatorship as master of the horse or number 2. He replaced the fired Mark Antony, and did so practically flawlessly. Even after his eventual defeat in said power struggle to Augustus, he was allowed to keep the head religious officer of Rome even though Caesar literally had it in his will that Augustus should get it [5], and lived a life of luxury in semi exile. The only other man who lost as much as he did and ended up in a great position was Tiberius, who was Augustus’s 8th choice in the imperial line to replace him as Princeps or Emperor [6]. To summarize in order to be allowed to lose as Lepidus did, you must first win at an extremely impressive rate, and be respected by all. Lepidus was an extremely competent man, even in a time of extremely competent leaders, and he was for the time the 2nd most powerful person in the 2nd Triumvirate [7] behind only Antony. The 19 year old Augustus was 3rd most powerful, but things would change. 

Mark Antony was a lightning rod of controversy and general insanity in his time, this has not changed even today. He was perhaps the personification of the proverb “May you live in interesting times” [8]. At several points in his life, he abandoned his children to his arch enemy's sister (his 4th wife Octavia the Younger, Augustus’s sister) [9], Augustus never even considered leveraging them because he knew Antony did not care at all. In 42 BCE he had not even truly begun his complete and utter just main character syndrome, but at this point in his life at age 41 he had been married twice or three times with an unknown number of children, but at least four[10]. He had served under Julius Caesar in Gaul, commanding the Roman cavalry in the legendary Battle of Alesia in which the Romans were outnumbered at least three to one, and besieged on two sides. He was then promoted by Caesar to a legate with two legions under his command. After the conquest of Gaul, he was appointed to the college of Augurs as a Roman priest, and elected Tribune of the Plebs, an extremely powerful position that could veto legislation in the Roman senate. He was directly responsible for helping to interpret the will of the gods by watching the flights of birds [11]. He was sent to Rome as Caesar’s main representative to try and stop a civil war from erupting, was almost assassinated leading to said civil war as Caesar was stripped of his office and his legions as the senate demanded he return to Rome on trial for war crimes. Caesar would return to Rome, with his legions just not in the way the senate had hoped and Antony on the march to civil war was promoted to number two of Caesar. In the first act of the civil war he engaged in a naval campaign against the Pompeins and Lucius Scribonius Libo tricking them and smashing their fleet [12]. Only then was he able to join Caesar in Greece, with Antony's support and legions, Caesar was able to defeat Pompey, the man called the next Alexander the Great [13] in an equally legendary battle of Battle of Pharsalus outnumbered two to one He then returned to Rome, and was appointed Master of the Horse under the now Dictator Caesar (Dictator was an office in the Roman Republic, it was meant as a temporary position to deal with massive threats, using it in a massive civil war or Hannibal marching on Rome was a good idea [14]) and was left behind to keep Italy in check. He was appointed by Caesar to not mess things up in Italy while he had to go Hadrian style hopping around Rome’s provinces to put out fires everywhere, and fight further in the civil war. All Antony had to do was not fuck shit up in Italy. He then proceeded to fuck shit up in Italy. As Caesar was besieged in Alexandria with his new Mistress Cleopatra [15] Antony was basically head of the Roman state, and as head of the Roman state he deliberately allowed a riot to spiral out of control, then sent the Roman army to kill hundreds of people [16]. He openly threatened members of the Senate including Cicero saying he would display his severed head and hands in the Roman forum. He tried to parade around Rome in a chariot pulled by Lions;he had allowed Rome to fall into a state of total and complete anarchy. Rome had survived at this point 3 military occupations by Sulla twice and by Caesar, there were mass killings before, mass killings would follow, but even during the great fire of Rome never before or since has there been such chaos in the imperial city. It was all due to Antony’s ego and mismanagement, he was then fired by Caesar when he returned from Egypt. But Caesar, in his dual insanity, allowed Antony, now just a private citizen, to lead Romans in battle as he tried to extinguish lingering flames from his civil war and allowed him back into his court. During his temporary rift with Caesar a senator approached him asking if he wanted to help assassinate him, Antony declined. Antony then met with Caesar on the road back to Rome, reconciled in the long journey, but did not tell him that a conspiracy to assassinate him had almost gone through. We have no idea Antony’s motives here. It is both possible that he didn’t want to tell Caesar because he was bitter about their rift, he may have been worried that Caesar would react negatively, or the likeliest of scenarios he was such an idiot he did not consider to even tell Caesar about such a plot because it had fallen through [17]. But nevertheless he would be elected in 44 BCE to serve as a Consul with Caesar, as Caesar had been appointed dictator for life not needing the Consulship as much as Antony did to govern, as he would soon be campaigning in Parthia to wipe the Roman slate clean after the disastrous campaign by his former ally Crassus. Caesar would never reach Parthia, his dictatorship for life was the shortest appointment he ironically had. But before that Mark on the Roman holiday Lupercalia, as a religious officer just like Caesar, presented a Diadem in front of a crowd of shocked Romans [18]. Caesar rejected it, but it was at this moment his fate was sealed, no Roman would ever bow to a king, not Caesar at least. He would a month later be killed, quite famously on the Ides of March. In the immediate aftermath of Caesar’s assassination Antony fled the city, but would return and pushed Lepidus and the conspirators towards a peaceful solution. The compromise in essence was while not state sanctioned, the murder of Caesar would be allowed and those who did it pardoned, in exchange for all of his official acts being ratified. The situation was tense, Lepidus had 6000 men outside Rome that could have stormed the city and murdered thousands, but Antony and Cicero who hated one another, formed an unholy alliance to keep the peace even though it disgusted Cicero to ratify Caesar’s insane number of illegal actions [19]. For this Cicero would be remembered immortally as a savior of Rome, and in the greatest irony a legitimacy of Caesar and those who would follow him. Antony, on the other hand, immediately ruined this moment. 

I will take a brief pause from this to return to Hortensia, who I do promise we will talk about for a great deal. I just must show the general level of insanity and leadership drain in Rome at the time, was specifically generally insane even for a Roman civil war. There is absolutely not a single shred of evidence in existence that Hortensia would have acted at all in this situation, but the 2nd Triumvirate which was about to form drove such a level of true and utter chaos Hortensia felt compelled to act. If she felt compelled to act it is only because of the chaos Antony, Lepidus, and Augustus would compel Rome into. It is directly because of these 3 mens power struggle that Italy would be thrown for the first time in a generation into such a chaotic state, that the Women of Rome became the final line of defense, never before had it happened in the Roman Republic, and never since. Mark Antony in a very direct way, is responsible for Hortensia’s actions because he threw everything into such a chaotic state there was simply no one left to act but her. 

Let us now continue with the Insanity of Mark Antony. First he stole the Pontifex Maximus and gave it to Lepidus so he wouldn’t attempt to murder him immediately to seize power, then he gave a speech at Caesar’s funeral [20]. Shakespeare has affected pop culture and history in a way that made this speech into something incredible. “Friends, Romans, Countrymen lend me your ears' ' [21] is a masterful speech that I encourage you to watch or listen to, the writing is truly fantastic. However it is a fiction, at Caesar's funeral, Antony’s exact words are lost, but he immediately threatened those who he had just made a deal with in Brutus and Cassius, he grabbed the bloody garment from Caesar and showed the crowd where he had been pierced. He then proceeded to move the crowd into such a frenzy they started to burn the city, it became a total event of collective madness [22]. He would manage to screw the situation up in Rome so quickly and insanely, the senate and politicians would turn to the 19 year old Augustus to try and save them. It is at this point Antony plunged Rome into a conservative estimate of a 7 sided civil war [23], which is just so maddeningly confusing that we just can’t get into it, managing to be defeated by a massive Roman senatorial army but killing both opposing Consuls, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat at the battle of Mutina[27], which has Augustus allied with Decimus Junius Brutus a man who helped kill his dad. Antony had managed to create so many enemies, they were unable to effectively fight him at the same time. 

It is at this point the 3 men, Lepidus, Augustus, and Antony came to a shared realization that fighting in this convoluted civil war would hand victory to Brutus and Cassius who were unrivaled in the rich Roman east. Not only that but the Roman senate was attempting to stab Augustus in the back as he had marched on Rome rather recently as well, if they continued fighting like this, they would surely be destroyed. And thus the 2nd Triumvirate was formed.

The first Triumvirate was an informal 3 sided power sharing agreement between Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar. The 2nd Triumvirate had the full force of Roman law [29], with 5 year terms for each partner, Augustus would have Africa as the junior partner to both Lepidus and Antony. Antony Gaul, as he had conquered it, and Lepidus Spain. They would jointly rule Italy, the Republic was officially dead. I wish to stress that this was probably Mark Antony’s more normal moments, his career would only get stranger, and more insane. He is truly just something else entirely. 

The power of a name 

Augustus Caesar would have something far more powerful than any army, he had his new last name, Caesar. He was 19 years old, he had marched a private army into Rome triggering a civil war [30] but that didn’t matter anymore. He was young, reckless, he would soon drive Italy itself into a massive famine, he would in his pre Augustus days rule incompetently, and violently. But that didn’t matter either. He had Caesar as his name, his dad was Deified [31] as a Roman god, he was small now but would soon grow into a giant of Rome, the Giant of Rome. He would be written into the Bible, his soon adopted name would be the title of which an emperor retained, you were an Augustus or if you were a junior Emperor a Caesar [32]. He would leave Rome a city of Marble one day, but for now he was 19, he was there but mostly restrained. Lepidus and Antony were running the show for now, but Augustus had a dark side, he was just as ruthless as Antony and Lepidus, he was more bloodthirsty than his father by far and away. Caesar had pardoned his enemies, he had lived through Sulla’s purges [33], he did not wish to kill his enemies. This however enraged his enemies even further, for in a Republic you kill traitors, only a king pardons his enemies, so they killed him. Augustus would not make that mistake. And so the 2nd Triumvirate wrote a list of enemies, of potential future rivals, just rich people and Proscribed them [34]. The act of proscribing was quite horrific, it immediately stripped said person of Roman citizenship, and condemned them to death. To help someone who was proscribed was a death penalty offense, if you captured or killed said person who was proscribed, you were entitled to a share of their wealth, this turned a generation of murderers into some of the richest men in Roman society. The 2nd Triumvirate needed money, they had to go and fight Brutus and Cassius in what would be the largest battle in Roman history, so they targeted people with money who had done nothing wrong to be murdered so they could rob them. And then they purged the political class of Rome, so they could pack the senate forever ending what little of what was left of a Republic in Rome, even Cicero was not safe. His severed head was displayed along with his hands, as Antony’s revenge for the Philippicae [35], a series of speeches he made against Antony to try and save the Republic. Augustus, who had been calling Cicero privately father, let it happen. Rome had fallen into an era of darkness. 

Now I have taken you on this incredibly long journey because you need to understand what Hortensia was facing. 3 men had just strangled the Roman Republic, openly, after warring with each other, and had only stopped to war with others. Anyone who stood against them, who had the misfortune of being rich at a bad time, anyone who could have been a threat was publicly and brutally murdered. Trying to talk to one of the 2nd Triumvirate could be actual suicide, to speak out against them your head would be severed and nailed to the Forumn, Hortensia didn’t just do that she did it to their face. She would openly, publicly, as a woman who was barred from the Republic in every single way, that was actively being murdered in front of everyone defy these men. That is a level of bravery that is just unimaginable, unthinkable, completely insane, but she would do it. 

The political climate of the time 

In 42 BCE the Roman political climate as best I can describe it was the Soviet Union after the death of Lenin. Things had already been extremely bad, a Pro-Consul named Julius Caesar had plunged Rome into a civil war that had been hot for a year 49-48 BCE [36], then for the next 4 had been constantly at war with Rome’s enemies, and internal rebellions. Rome had calmed to 

the point that there were now only 3 current factions engaged in a civil war, the 2nd Triumvirate, Brutus and Cassius, and of course the Boat King Sextus Pompey. Unfortunately the Boat king is for another time, but in Rome at the moment there was an aura of just death, and terror. The civil wars would not really stop until the final defeat of Antony 12 years later, ever since Caesar had crossed the Rubicon Italy and Rome had been engulfed in a level of terror not seen since Hannibal. The worst part was that it was Romans doing it to themselves, it wasn’t a son avenging his fathers death like Hannibal, it wasn’t a Gothic sack, it was Romans killing other Romans brutally. There is nothing more Roman than attacking other Romans, but for the time this was still shocking, which is why a purge was necessary. The pr situation had to be controlled, and if you kill your enemies they can’t really complain anymore. With a truly genius strategy of killing everyone you dislike, the 2nd Triumvirate seeked to raise funds. They had to pay for the largest Roman army on earth, and unlike Brutus and Cassius were not in the extremely wealthy East, they had the West which had been more or less on fire for a while now. 

In the process of killing so many rich men, several female aristocrats suddenly were free to do as they pleased. Some of course were murdered with their husbands to more effectively steal their riches, but Women were seen as such property that there wasn’t really a need to kill them at times. If you stole someone's house, you wouldn’t kill their dog, you would keep them. Of course said situation would be somewhat awkward, the number of women who were forced into relationships with their husbands killers was low, but not 0. Wealthy women in Rome weren’t really property of their husbands, they were property of their families [37]. Dynastic politics in the Roman Republic was based significantly on familial ties, it was how you got your career started. There were only like a few names that Romans would have, enraging me to this day [38]. You wouldn’t be addressed by your first name, there were just too many people who shared names. If you were writing to a specific person, you could use it but that’s slightly different. The name of your family though, would always be said, if you were of course in high enough standing for it to matter. If your name was Gaius Drussus Nero Constantius, you would probably

be addressed as Gaius Constantius, or Constantius [39]. If you were a member of the powerful Juilia family, and a Woman you would be called Julia. If you had siblings, you would be called Julia Major if older, Julia Minor if younger. However, as rich families could afford to keep their kids alive more and more, you would sometimes get a first name. The very powerful families that seeked to use Women as chips in alliances for marriage during this time would sometimes give their daughters the family name and their fathers name. The daughter of the Dictator Sulla would be named Cornelia Sulla after her dads official Lucius Cornelius Sulla [41]. So the aristocratic classes of Women were given 2 names, one from their dad, the other from their family, less powerful families just gave Women their family name. This of course then would immediately change in the empire, which drives me further insane. So Hortensia, is not short for anything, Hortensia was literally given her name from her dad Quintus Hortensius Hortalus, and that's it. She was not a member of a truly powerful family, on paper she was considered to be nothing more than an extension of her family, property of her clan, but it is from this disadvantage that she pounced.

Women's Role in the Republic:

None! Women were citizens of Rome but had none of the voting benefits, none of the education, none of the responsibilities, and as such were not a threat to anyone unless they were truly extraordinary. Meaning if you killed enough male family members of a Roman woman, their name could literally cease with them unless they married into another family. They were wholly extensions of their fathers and male family members, not pawns on a chessboard, but breeding animals treated like livestock [42]. This is not extraordinary for the time, but it was noticeable. Women were not quiet about it. The Roman Republic probably falls eventually no matter what, but if it hadn’t just as they had granted full voting rights to the Italians, one wonders when they would have granted full rights to women. Of course with a dying Republic this matters less, Hortensia was not an idiot, as she saw her brothers, and as other women saw their husbands, sons, and fathers be murdered in this so called virtuous Republic they were infuriated. They were told that the Roman Republic was the greatest system on earth, a system that they were banned from. Then that same system was murdering their families, and causing Rome to be in a spiral of total chaos from a truly unfathomable amount of Civil wars. It was a time bomb, the men of the 2nd Triumvirate did not see it coming at all. But Women of Rome in wartime were granted slightly more leniency, since Rome was towards the end of the Republic always at war this was exploitable. 

The issue on the table 

During the 2nd Punic war the Women of the Roman Republic had donated their jewelry in the war effort against Hannibal [43]. This was done for survival, the Roman state was threatened in a way that total destruction seemed possible. It was considered a Patriotic effort by said Women to voluntarily give up goods of excess to fight such an existential threat, it was a donation not a tax. The 2nd Triumvirate desperately needing funds and with total control over the senate and legislation, passed a tax on the 1,400 richest women of Rome [44]. This was the spark that lit the fury from the Women of Rome. For generations they had been treated as cattle, they had been disposed of for younger family members by powerful husbands. They were allowed to be vestal virgins, but if they were raped or became pregnant they could be sealed in box until they suffocated to death. They had seen their sisters and daughters die in childbirth, their children die from malnutrition while their husbands were gone fighting a never ending civil war after civil war. Even the richest women, the richest women in the entire Republic, the only women with any sorts of rights were widows like Fulvia, whose husband was executed on orders of Pompey the Great. It’s why Brutus considered Caesar a father to him. They had no political rights, no economic rights, they were not property of their husbands, branded with it as their only name. If they were lucky, lucky, they could get their fathers name too, the pleasure of being owned by your father as well as your family. They had seen their husbands, sons, fathers be killed by these civil wars about petty politics they could not even interact in. Women who were virgins were not supposed to be harmed in Rome, so the men sent to execute them would make them not a virgin anymore and then kill them. The Women of Rome now had seen a purging of the political class, a mass murder of aristocratic families for their wealth, so they had just witnessed many of those who they had loved killed simply so they could be robbed. And now those who murdered, those who intended to send more of their loved ones to die again in a civil war, for a Republic they were strangling by themselves, now requested further money from them. This was a bridge too far. Hortensia was the daughter of a famous Orator and as such, could speak just like those same men who dominated what was left of Rome. For most of these women what did they have to

lose? Their dignity? Their wealth? What wealth, what good is money when you cannot be free from your own family, what good is a home if your husband was murdered in it. What good is a Republic if you have no voice, it wasn’t about the Jewelry, it wasn’t about taxation. It was about stripping of further dignity from these Women who already had nothing left but the wealth they could never spend. If they acquired too much of it, they would be murdered anyways, so is there anything left to do but march on down to the Forum and give that 3 Headed abomination of a Hydra a piece of their minds. 

The women first reached out to the mother of Augustus, Atia and his sister Octavia. They agreed with the cause and gave them their support. Then they reached out to Fuvlia, wife of Antony, she being no less batshit than Mark, was extremely rude and slammed the door in their face [45]. Hortensia and her supporters, some of whom; were just curious citizens who wanted to watch such a large crowd of women, realized that even with the support of the women of the Triumvirate they would still need to act by themselves. So they marched and pushed their way into the Roman Forum, and got atop the Rostra Vetera so Hortensia could speak. The meeting itself must have been an extraordinary site to a Roman witness, the Women of Rome so often were simply just background characters, like ghosts in the wind. One can imagine many in the crowd had forgotten Women had a voice at all. I can try to explain what was to happen, but Hortensia’s words are just so truly incredible, I can still feel it. The historian Appian recorded as best he could, not an exact translation but still the message is clear.

“You have already deprived us of our fathers, our sons, our husbands, and our brothers on the pretext that they wronged you, but if, in addition, you take away our property you will reduce us to a condition unsuitable to our birth, our way of life, and our female nature. If we have done you any wrong, as you claimed our husbands have, proscribe us as you do them. But if we women have not voted any of you public enemies, nor torn down your house, nor destroyed your army, nor led another against you, nor prevented you from obtaining offices and honors, why do we share in the punishments when we did not participate in the crimes? Why should we pay taxes when we do not share in the offices, honors, military commands, nor in short, the government for which you fight between yourselves with such harmful results? You say “because it is wartime.” When have there not been wars? When have taxes been imposed on women, whom nature sets apart from all men? Our mothers once went beyond what is natural and made a contribution during the war against the Carthaginians, when danger threatened your entire empire and Rome itself. But then they contributed willingly, not from their landed property, their fields, their dowries, or their houses, without which it is impossible for free women to live, but only from their jewelry.... Let war with the Celts or Parthians come, we will not be inferior to our mothers when it is a question of common safety. But for civil wars, may we never contribute nor aid you against each other.” [47] 

The 3 Triumvirates were furious at Hortensia and these women for daring to critique them. They attempted to remove the women from the Rostra Vetera and out of the Forum and sight. But the crowd resisted, men and women alike protested loudly. The men, though, would not give up their stratified position in society, agreed somewhat with Hortensia, and free of the fear of losing 

what they had already lost in money, or loved ones they resisted. Antony and Lepidus and Augustus had to leave with their tail tucked between their legs, lowering the tax from 1400 to 400 women, and extending it to men as well. They still needed money for the wars to come, they were still going to fight them. But even for a moment, the Republic was alive in Hortensia, she was the last Republican left in Rome. Not Cicero, not Sulla, not Caesar or Jupiter Optimus Maximus, but a woman who dared defy 3 of the most powerful men on earth and embarrassed them so totally, they had no choice but to relent. In a dying Republic there still is light.

[1] Caesar, Augustus "Augustus religion" PBS https://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/augustus_religion.html#:~:text=Augustus%20claimed%20it%20was%20the,stories%20of%20his%20frugal%20habits

[2] Marshall, Eireann "The Confused History of the Title Pontifex Maximus" Prospettiva tours 09/20/2020 https://www.prospettivatours.com/newsletter/the-confused-history-of-the-title-pontifex-maximus/

[3] “Gaius Octavius Augustus Caesar” homepages 07/21/03 https://homepages.rpi.edu/~holmes/Hobbies/Genealogy2/ps32/ps32_017.htm

[4] Drake, Lee "Climate and the Collapse of the Roman Empire: Part 3b2: The Fall of the Republic" Medium.com 12/03/2017 https://bleedrake.medium.com/climate-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire-part-3b2-the-fall-of-the-republic-eab868db90e9

[5] Leveritt, Will "2027 years ago today: Augustus took the title Pontifex Maximus" University of Nottingham blogs, 03/06/15 https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/mintimperials/2015/03/06/2027-years-ago-today-augustus-took-the-title-pontifex-maximus/

[6] "The Crisis of Succession" ancient Roman history.com 23 BCE https://ancientromanhistory31-14.com/augustus/the-crisis-of-succession/

[7] Gill, N.S. “The Second Triumvirate to the Principate” Thought Co, 01/13/2020, https://www.thoughtco.com/second-triumvirate-to-the-principate-117552

[8] “May You Live In Interesting Times” quote investigator, 12/18/2015, https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/12/18/live/

[9] “Octavia the Younger", Imperium Romanum, 10/18/2021, https://imperiumromanum.pl/en/biographies/octavia-the-younger/

[10] Gill, N.S. “The Wives of Anthony the Great” Thought Co, 08/23/2018 https://www.thoughtco.com/who-were-antonys-wives-119726

[11] Tranquillus, Suetonius "The Lives of the Caesars" Tufts University http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0132%3Alife%3Dantony%3Achapter%3D1#:~:text=Antony%20accordingly%20left%20Gaul%2C%20B.%20C.,of%20Pompey%20and%20the%20aristocracy.

[12] Rickard, J “Lucius Scribonius Libo” 12/21/2010 http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/people_libo_l_s.html

[13] "A ROMAN ALEXANDER: POMPEY THE GREAT" Erenow.net, 106-48 BCE 

https://erenow.net/ancient/in-the-name-of-rome-the-men-who-won-the-roman-empire/8.php

[14] Wilson B., Mark “The Evolution of the Roman Dictatorship” University of Michigan, https://www.press.umich.edu/10150936/dictator

[15] "Caesar and Cleopatra in Egypt" University of Chicago, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/cleopatra/egypt.html

[16] "Mark Antony (Marcus Antonius) (83 - 30 BCE)", UNRV Roman History, https://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/marcus-antonius.php

[17] “The Assassination of Julius Caesar (The Ides of March, 44 B.C.E.)” Historia Civilis, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XBxMk_plhA

[18] Brewtnall, Edward Frederick "Antonius offering the diadem to Cæsar" New York Public Library, 1885, https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47e4-5f9f-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99

[19] "Cicero on the “Unforgettable Ides of March”" sententiaeantiquae 03/15/2018 https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2018/03/15/cicero-on-the-unforgettable-ides-of-march/

[20] “Appian on Caesar's Funeral” livius.org, 44 BCE, https://www.livius.org/sources/content/appian/appian-caesars-funeral/

[21] “Friends, Romans, Countrymen lend me your ears”, poetry foundation . org, https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/56968/speech-friends-romans-countrymen-lend-me-your-ears

[22] Plutarch “The Life of Antony” University of Chicago, 1920, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Antony*.html

[23] Rawson, Elizabeth “144-43 BC The Last Age of the Roman Republic" Cambridge University Press, 1992

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/cambridge-ancient-history/aftermath-of-the-ides/F1EE83253858458B9AB9B33EE6A36F6A

[27]  Leveritt, Will "On this day in 43 BC the battle of Mutina was fought between Mark Antony and Octavian.” University of Nottingham blogs, 04/21/2016 https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/mintimperials/2016/04/21/on-this-day-in-43-bc-the-battle-of-mutina-was-fought-between-mark-antony-and-octavian/

[28] "The Second Triumvirate, 43-30 BC" digital maps of the ancient world ,  https://digitalmapsoftheancientworld.com/digital-maps/roman-republic/the-second-triumvirate-43-30-bc/

[29] N.S Gill, “The First and Second Triumvirates of Rome” ThoughtCo, 1/26/2019, https://www.thoughtco.com/first-and-second-triumvirates-of-rome-117560

[30] Toher, Mark “Octavian's Arrival in Rome, 44 B.C.” Cambridge University Press, 05/2004,

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3556291

[31] "Becoming a God: The Deification of Julius Caesar" Walking inside Rome, 

https://www.walksinsiderome.com/blog/becoming-a-god-the-deification-of-julius-caesar/

[32] Aldrete, Gregory Ph.D. “Unpacking the Titles of Augustus: Wordplay and Double Meanings” Wondrium Daily, 10/21/2019, https://www.wondriumdaily.com/unpacking-the-titles-of-augustus-wordplay-and-double-meanings/

[33] Green, Andy "Crossing the Rubicon: Brutal Role Models Influenced Julius Caesar’s Rise to Power” Magellan TV, 10/18/2020,

https://www.magellantv.com/articles/crossing-the-rubicon-brutal-role-models-influenced-julius-caesars-rise-to-power

[34] “Proscriptions” ancientromanhistory.com, 

https://ancientromanhistory31-14.com/an-end-of-the-republic/triumvirs/acts-of-the-triumvirs/proscriptions/

[35] Yonge, Charles Duke "M. Tullius Cicero, Orations, The fourteen orations against Marcus Antonius (Philippics)" Tufts University Press, 1903 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0021

[36] “GREAT ROMAN CIVIL WAR” Kings and Generals, https://history-maps.com/story/Great-Roman-Civil-War

[37] Cartwright, Mark “The Role of Women in the Roman World” World History Encyclopedia 02/14/2014, https://www.worldhistory.org/article/659/the-role-of-women-in-the-roman-world/

38,39,40,41 “Roman Names” The University of Vermont, https://www.uvm.edu/~bsaylor/rome/nomenclature.html#:~:text=Roman%20Names&text=At%20least%20two%20names%20were,a%20branch%20of%20a%20family

[42] “The painful art of being a Roman woman” 03/15/2018 https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/lucius-romans/2018/03/15/the-painful-art-of-being-a-roman-woman/#

[43] Truetzel, Anne "'Doing their Bit’: Remembering Women’s Contributions during the Second Punic War" Society For Classical Studies, https://classicalstudies.org/doing-their-bit%E2%80%99-remembering-women%E2%80%99s-contributions-during-second-punic-war

[44] "Hortensia" brooklynmuseum.org/ https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/dinner_party/heritage_floor/hortensia

[45] Wotring, Erin Leigh "The cultural creation of Fulvia Flacca Bambula" University of Louisville, 05/2017, https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3759&context=etd

[46] "13 incredible Italian women that made history" https://danteinlinea.com/, 03/07/2023, https://danteinlinea.com/en/13-incredible-italian-women-that-made-history/

[47]  Salisbury E., Joyce “Encyclopedia of Women in the Ancient World pg 161” https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofwo0000sali

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 Crisis of Black Maternal Care

By Emma Quirk, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

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

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

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

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

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

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.