The Success and Necessity of Historically Women’s Colleges

By Kate Vavra, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Image from: Mass Moments

Today, women increasingly outnumber men in colleges throughout the United States. This makes it easy to forget that higher education was created for men, not women. Historically, even privileged wealthy women were unable to receive the same degrees as their brothers. They were instead educated at home or in a finishing school. The oldest college in the U.S., Harvard University, established in 1636, did not admit women for over three hundred years. As a response, women’s colleges became established around the country throughout the 19th century. These institutions offered women the opportunity to obtain an advanced education and degree that would allow them to influence the public and professional sphere. Some of the most prestigious of these schools are Mount Holyoke College, Vassar College, Wellesley College, Smith College, Radcliffe College, Bryn Mawr College, and Barnard College, otherwise known as the Seven Sisters. “The Seven Sister schools were supposed to be the female counterparts to the male Ivy-league colleges, a connection that served them well as they strived to make the quality of education for female students equal to the education of men at the best men’s colleges of the day” [2]. Although Radcliffe was absorbed by Harvard in 1999 and Vassar became coeducational in 1969, this group became the inspiration for women’s colleges throughout the country. 

Although the large majority of colleges today admit both men and women, historically women’s colleges continue to produce powerful female figures. While women’s college graduates represent less than two percent of the American population, one-third of female board members on the annual Fortune 1000 list, 30 percent of the women on Businessweek’s list of Rising Stars in Corporate America, nine percent of female CEOs on the S&P 500, and over 20 percent of female US Congress members graduated from a historically women’s college. Some notable women who attended a historically women’s college include Frances Perkins, Margaret Atwood, Meryl Streep, Zora Neale Hurston, Nancy Pelosi, Madeleine Albright, Helen Keller, and Hillary Clinton. These women broke precedent in their disciplines and paved the way for future females to make their own marks. 

When looking at comments from women’s college students and graduates, it becomes easy to understand why they become so successful after graduation. They detail that “the women’s college experience integrated values and ethics in the learning, which helped them to develop moral principles that continue to guide their actions” [3]. While in school, women’s college students report greater participation in campus leadership, internships, extracurricular activities, and community service. Much of the coursework at women’s colleges is focused on leadership and the individual, giving students the space to directly engage with their education. With this in mind, it makes sense that 81 percent of historically women’s college graduates go on to receive advanced degrees and they are twice as likely to go to medical school than graduates from a coeducational institution

As I approach my second year at Mount Holyoke, the oldest of the Seven Sisters, I become increasingly thankful for my college community. My classmates spend their days passionately working towards a future of increased creativity, equality, and opportunity. My professors are wholeheartedly dedicated to helping me reach my goals. I don’t feel like I am competing with my classmates for educational and professional opportunities, conversely, we work together. Additionally, being a member of a Seven Sisters institution gives me access to an extensive alumni network in addition to my individual school. Overall, my historically women’s college has given me the skills and resources I need to build the future I want for myself. 

Today’s male-dominated society is difficult for women to navigate, no matter how intelligent they are. Although there are many high-quality coeducational colleges and universities throughout the nation, it is necessary to maintain guarded havens for women and non-binary individuals within higher education. Historically women’s colleges have repeatedly produced revolutionary individuals, and the world would not be the same without them. 

References 

[1] Carlton, Genevieve. “A History of Women in Higher Education.” Best Colleges. March 20, 2023. https://www.bestcolleges.com/news/analysis/2021/03/21/history-women-higher-education/ 

[2] Feroe, John. “The Founding of The Seven Sisters.” Vassar Encyclopedia. May 1, 2007.

https://vcencyclopedia.vassar.edu/notable-events/the-seven-sisters/ 

[3] Free, Rhona. “Women’s Colleges Produce Strong Leaders.” Hartford Courant. December 6, 2015. https://www.courant.com/2015/12/06/womens-colleges-produce-strong-leaders/ 

[4] Kerpen, Carrie. “Want Your Daughter To Go To The C-Suite? Send Her To A Women’s College.” Forbes. Oct 19, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carriekerpen/2021/10/19/want-your-daughter-to-go-to-the-c-suite-send-her-to-a-womens-college/?sh=cabab8598469

[5] Moody, Josh. “A Guide to Women's Colleges.” US News. May 18, 2021.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles

/a-guide-to-womens-colleges

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.

Catcalling Kills

By Kaitlyn Nguyen, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Her name was Ruth George. 

She was only 19 years old when she was catcalled to her death. She had only experienced one year of college before all her future plans died with her in the backseat of her parked car. 

Catcalling kills. Catcalling killed Ruth George. 

After a long night out with her professional fraternity, George was dropped off in front of the all too familiar parking structure at the University of Illinois-Chicago. As she walked back to her car, George was approached by 26 year old Donal Thurman, who had followed her in. Trying to demand her attention, Thurman shouted degrading comments to the young college student, who chose to respond in the most appropriate way possible- she ignored him and kept walking. The next morning, Ruth George was found unconscious in the backseat of her car. Authorities were led to believe she was choked to death by Thurman, who decided that being ignored tha night was his last straw. 

It’s a harsh reality that almost every single woman and young girl has experienced. Part of the female experience is thoughtfully deciding how to respond in certain situations to de-escalate the imminent threat of violence. Oftentimes, women feel like the best response to catcallers is silence, solely because their safety is never promised. As a result, the effects of catcalling psychologically affect women down the line. It forces victims to rethink their mindless habits by avoiding certain streets and minimizing their expression of revealing clothing. Yet, studies have shown that the occurrence of catcalling has nothing to do with the decisions women make everyday. According to an online survey, 99 percent of respondents had experienced street harassment in public places. And, about 45 percent of women reported that they experienced sexist comments in public at least 25 times in their lifetime. In fact, in New York, catcalling is only another part of many women’s daily routine. 

In 2014, an anti-street harassment organization known as Hollaback! released a video of a woman walking through the streets of New York for 10 hours. In that video, the woman was catcalled over 100 times while wearing a plain black t-shirt and jeans. From the social experiment, Hollaback! found that catcallers responded poorly to being ignored by their victims. The woman walking through the streets of New York had received backlash from the offenders with comments suggesting she should be grateful for their “compliments”. The video released by Hollaback! exposes daily life through the lens of young women. Acknowledgement of the normalcy of catcalling has since then been brought to the attention of countless authorities. In fact, several countries and regions have made sexual street harassment illegal. For instance, in 2018, France passed a law that allowed police officers to sanction harassment perpetrators in the moment, rather than waiting out strenuous public trial processes. And in both New York and California, state law criminalizes aggravated harassment in public places, which even covers willful conduct towards a specific person that so much as annoys them without a legitimate purpose! 

All in all, progress has been made towards chastising catcalling. As we hear the stories of women, we empathize with their female experience in today’s society, and we adapt to wane the effects of street harassment

References 

[1] Alter Charlotte. “Watch This Woman Get Harassed 108 Times While Walking in New York City.” Time. October 28, 2014. https://time.com/3543632/street-harassment-hollaback-video/ 

[2] Bosman, Julie. “A College Student Was Killed by a Man Whose Catcalls She Tried to Ignore, Prosecutors Say.” The New York Times. November 27, 2019. 

[3] Kendja, Avondale. “Catcalling Kills: Defining the Impacts of Street Harassment.” Garbo. August 2, 2021. https://www.garbo.io/blog/catcalling-street-harassment 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/27/us/chicago-college-student-killed-catcall.html 

[4] Roy, Jessica. “Another Woman Killed for Turning a Man Down.” The Cut. January 26, 2016. https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/another-woman-killed-for-turning-a-man-down.html 

[5] Sharkey, Joe. “A Worldwide Fight Against Street Harassment.” The New York Times. October 21, 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/business/fighting-harassment-of-women-on-streets-worldwide.html?searchResultPosition=2 

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! 

WGA, SAG-AFTRA Strike, and The Gender Wage Gap

By Emma Quirk, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Disclaimer: This blog looks at the gender pay gap with a strict male/female lens in order to accurately describe the data and research done on this topic. 

Two major unions in the entertainment industry are on strike. Since May 2, the Writers Guild of America has been on strike, and on July 17 The Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists joined them. This is the first time the WGA and SAG-AFTRA have been on strike at the same time since 1960. The WGA details how streaming has negatively impacted compensation for writers in a report called “Writers Are Not Keeping Up.” 

Both unions are led by women; Meredith Stiehm is President of the WGA and Fran Drescher is head of SAG-AFTRA. Drescher has stated that joining in on the strike was necessary, not only for the entertainment industry but for all industries. “I am shocked by the way the people that we have been in business with are treating us. I cannot believe it, quite frankly, how far apart we are on so many things. How they plead poverty, that they’re losing money left and right when giving hundreds of millions of dollars to their CEOs. It is disgusting. Shame on them. They stand on the wrong side of history,” Drescher said in a speech. “We are labor and we stand tall and we demand respect and to be honored for our contribution. You share the wealth because you cannot exist without us.” 

While Drescher and Stiehm are fighting for labor rights for all in Hollywood, a gender-based discrepancy exists. It has been found that in top-grossing movies, women have fewer lines, less of a presence, and often are put into supporting roles. Only 36 percent of all major characters are women and only 35 percent of actresses are given speaking roles. In feature films, only 31 percent are women-led stories. In terms of the gender wage gap, there is an “unexplained” wage difference of about 25 percent between male and female actors. Even for big stars, there is at least a $1 million difference per film. Women who work in other roles in Hollywood, especially as writers and directors, are paid less than their male counterparts and they are often not afforded the same number of opportunities. 

Gender pay inequities are not only present in the entertainment industry but in every industry. According to the State of Working America Wages Report, highlighting data from 2019-2022, while low-wage workers made higher hourly rates overall, the gender pay gap has actually widened. In 2019, women were paid 20.3 percent less than men on average, but by 2022 the gap widened to 22.2 percent. No matter how the wage gap is measured, it persists. This disparity is a result of societal norms, discrimination, occupational segregation, and devaluation of women’s labor. 

Education does not negate the gap; women with a high school diploma are paid 78.6 percent of what men with a high school diploma are, and it only increases with the level of education. Between workers with college degrees, women are paid 70.2 percent and with advanced degrees, women are paid 69.8 percent of what men are. 

Race and ethnicity also play a dominant factor. These averages erase the discrepancies that Black and Hispanic women face. While white women are paid 82.5 percent and Asian American and Pacific Islander women are paid 93.4 percent of what non-Hispanic white men are paid on average, Black women are only paid 69.5 percent, and Hispanic women are only paid 64.1 percent. These disparities are enormous.  

Beyond participating in the gender wage gap, Hollywood has had a unique impact on perpetuating it. Through the media it produces, which more often than not abides by strict gender stereotypes, the general public sees men in positions of power and respect, while women are shown to be mere side characters, subordinate, and in need of saving. This is also true in the way white men and women are the protagonists and even the majority of side characters, while BIPOC characters are far less likely to be found. While there has been more discussion surrounding representation in media in recent years, not enough has been done to improve the systemic disparities between men and women, white men and BIPOC, and white women and Black and Hispanic women. 

References

[1] Frank, Jason. “The 2023 Hollywood Strike for Dummies.” Vulture. July 19, 2023. https://www.vulture.com/article/wga-strike-2023.html.  

[2] Gould, Elise and Katherine deCourcy. “Gender wage gap widens even as low-wage workers see strong gains.” Economic Policy Institute. March 29, 2023. https://www.epi.org/blog/gender-wage-gap-widens-even-as-low-wage-workers-see-strong-gains-women-are-paid-roughly-22-less-than-men-on-average/.   

[3] Park, Joann. “Uncovering Hollywood’s Contribution to the Gender Pay Gap.” Berkeley Political Review. October 12, 2022. https://bpr.berkeley.edu/2022/10/12/uncovering-hollywoods-contribution-to-the-gender-pay-gap/.  

[4] “SAG-AFTRA head Fran Drescher: What she said about actors strike.” Al Jazeera. July 14, 2023. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/7/14/sag-aftra-head-fran-drescher-what-she-said-about-actors-strike.  

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.

Assata Shakur and Her Influence on Grassroots Movements

By Katerina Svoronos, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Grassroots movements have been an essential part of American history for a long time. To this day, people will come together with a common goal in order to enact change. The difference between a grassroots movement in comparison to a regular social movement is that they use bottom up efforts starting at a localized level to gather initial support rather than top down effots. Most regular social movements try to gain traction by working at a national level. Grassroots movements have been increasingly used by social justice movements,  as they usually do not have a lot of funding, but instead rely on the power of human motivation for their activism. The civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s had a lot of grassroots activism involved because it was important to attack the issue from all angles. Assata Shakur was a big part of those movements. 

In today’s day and age, when people hear the name Assata Shakur, they often feel conflicted. On one hand, she is a hero to many for the hard work and perseverance she put in during the civil rights movements. On the other hand, she is on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list, which is quite daunting. Despite this, I argue that she is one of the most influential women of the past 100 years and that she should be seen as an inspiration rather than be villainized. 

Assata Shakur, a black woman, grew up in the South during the Jim Crow era, an extremely difficult time period for people of color. During her adolescence, she faced a lot of racism both through macro and microaggressions. It shaped her in a way that was irreversible. Her experiences made her become interested in civil rights. As she got older she began to discover her passion for not only the civil rights movement but the movements and work that came after. Shakur joined the Black Liberation Army, in the hope to garner more attention for the common goal of equal rights. She considered herself a radical black feminist, which meant that she was willing to do anything for the liberation of black people and women. There was a lot of intersectionality between these two movements and Shakur helped to build a bridge between the two. While some of her methods were unconventional and dangerous, such as robbing banks, she also spent a lot of hours behind closed doors educating her fellow peers and spreading the message locally. Shakur started working for the BLA throughout New York, handing out pamphlets and spreading information through rallies. Her grassroots movement was of utmost importance to both the feminist movement and  the aftermath of the civil rights movement, as both struggles were not over. 

Unfortunately Shakur’s life took quite the turn when she was involved in an incident of police brutality. While pulled over for a very minor issue, a police officer became suspicious of her and her unarmed friends. The officer shot and killed one of Shakur’s friends, and alongside that Shakur became injured. Shakur shot back in self defense, yet she was convicted of a multitude of crimes. There is much evidence that shows how her trial was unjust, but in the end she was sentenced to life in prison anyways. Eventually, Shakur escaped and now lives in Cuba, where she was granted political asylum. However, the FBI continues to go after her, despite the fact that there is evidence that she was given an unfair trial. Today Shakur is still advocating for herself and for the movements she believes in. 

What sort of viewpoint should we see Assata Shakur from now? I would argue that she is an inspiration in many ways. While there is no condoning some of the violent methods that she used, her tireless efforts to further the movements she believed in should encourage us all to never give up. Grassroots movements helped to bring about some of the most important changes in this country, and racialized profiling and injustice are the cause for Shakur’s escape. While the FBI is still pursuing her case, in today’s modern society,we should be able to recognize that the justice system failed her again and again. Shakur’s involvement in the civil rights grassroots movement did bring about a lot of positive change, and she showed us the potential impacts that advocating at a local level can have on society. 

References 

[1] Adewunmi, Bin. “Assata Shakur: from civil rights activist to FBI’s most-wanted.” The Guardian. July 13, 2014. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jul/13/assata-shakur-civil-rights-activist-fbi-most-want ed
[2] Longley, Robert. “What is a Grassroots Movement? Definition and Examples.” ThoughtCo. July 29, 2022. https://www.thoughtco.com/grassroots-movement-definition-and-examples-5085222

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.

Queer Representation in US Politics: Progress and Challenges

By Molly McNamara, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Image from: Vecteezy

Being an openly queer individual in the United States has become increasingly challenging, with hate crimes and anti-LGBTQ+ legislation on the rise. Many people live in fear of discrimination and violence for their identity, leading many to keep their sexuality private. This is true not only for the average individual but also for politicians. Being openly part of the LGBTQ+ community can be risky for current and prospective politicians as their identity may lead to lower approval ratings, losing votes, and increased prejudice. But thankfully, queer representation in government is expanding. More and more elected officials are coming out, but more needs to be done to create an environment that is safe for LGBTQ+ politicians.

Electoral discrimination against queer politicians in the US is a substantial problem. Research shows that gay candidates face a 6.7 percent loss in points compared to their heterosexual counterparts. For lesbians and transgender individuals, the penalty is even higher. Among more liberal voters, discrimination is significantly less, while right-wing voters have a much higher rate of discrimination against queer candidates. This leads many candidates to not announce their sexuality during their campaign or wait until they are elected to come out publicly. This fosters an environment that is hostile to queer politicians and limits LGBTQ+ representation in government. 

Thankfully, more and more queer politicians are entering politics despite the risk of discrimination. The 118th Congress has a record number of lesbian, gay, and bisexual members. There are 11 House members and two Senate members that are openly queer, which is almost double that of just 10 years ago. While this is steady progress, these individuals only account for roughly two percent of Congressional members. It is estimated that 6.5 percent of Americans are part of the LGBTQ+ community, making the Congressional representation small in comparison. 

While queer representation may not be high, there are still some important queer women, non-binary, and transgender politicians that serve as an inspiration for the LGBTQ+ community today. Tammy Baldwin currently serves as a senator for Wisconsin and has been in politics since the 1980s. She was the first openly lesbian woman to be elected to the US Senate and is an advocate for queer equality. Danica Roem was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 2017 and became the first openly transgender person to serve in any state’s legislature. The first openly non-binary member of a state legislature was Mauree Turner of Oklahoma. All of these individuals and many more are helping create an environment that is safe and inclusive for LGBTQ+ people. 

Queer representation like this is crucial for members of this community, especially young people. Roughly 20 percent of the adult Generation-Z population identifies as LGBTQ+, while about 10 percent of Millennials and four percent of Generation X do. Millions of Americans are part of this community and need to have voices in government to represent them and their interests. These elected officials also serve as role models for young queer people. 

There is still a lot to be hopeful about surrounding queer representation despite the rise in discrimination and hate. Fortunately, queer politicians are helping to inspire queer youth and help push for positive LGBTQ+ legislation, creating a space and a voice for a group that has often been silenced and excluded. In order to help create this safe space, it is important to vote for queer politicians who are fighting for LGBTQ+ rights and voting for ballot measures that protect the queer community. 

References

 [1] Schaeffer, Katherine. “118th Congress breaks record for lesbian, gay, and bisexual representation.” Pew Research. January 11, 2023

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/11/118th-congress-breaks-record-for-lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-representation/  

[2] Hall, Jake. “Lesbian, gay and trans politicians still face ‘electoral discrimination’, eye-opening study finds.” PinkNews. August 10, 2021

https://www.thepinknews.com/2021/08/10/lgbt-politicians-discrimination/

[3] Jones, Sam. “Fact Sheet: Anti-LGBT+ Mobilization in the United States.” ACLED. November 23, 2022

https://acleddata.com/2022/11/23/update-fact-sheet-anti-lgbt-mobilization-in-the-united-states/

[4] Waxman, Olivia. “How Congressman Gerry Studds Made History by Coming Out as Gay,” TIME, June 1, 2023

https://time.com/6282755/first-gay-congressman-gerry-studds/

[5] Doherty, Erin. “The number of LGBTQ-identifying adults is soaring,” AXIOS, February 19, 2022. 

https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup

[6] Dowd, Rachel. “LGBT people nine times more likely than non-LGBT people to be victims of violent hate crimes,” UCLA Law School: Williams Institute, December 21, 2022

https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/lgbt-hate-crimes-press-release/

Molly McNamara is a rising Junior at George Washington University. She is double majoring in Political Science and American Studies with a minor in Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies. Molly is involved in the GW campus chapter of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and is interested in writing, mental health advocacy, and political engagement. After college she hopes to either enter the political realm or nonprofit work in hopes to create a more equitable society.

Edith Wilson

By Sean Skoog, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Image from: Arnold Genthe / Wikipedia

Although there have been many influential First Ladies who have left their mark on the nation, few have had an impact as profound and perhaps controversial as Edith Wilson. While officially known as the second wife of the 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, Edith's role in the White House extended far beyond that of a typical First Lady, particularly during the last two years of her husband's second term In fact, some historians have referred to her as the "First Female President."

Edith Bolling Galt was born on October 15, 1872, in Wytheville, Virginia, and raised in a family that valued education and public service. Edith's sharp intellect and strong personality set her apart from her peers from a young age. After the death of her first husband, Norman Galt, in 1908, Edith's path took an unexpected turn when she met Woodrow Wilson, then President of Princeton University, in 1915. Their connection was immediate, and they were married on December 18 that same year.

Edith's transformation from a private citizen to an influential political figure began during her husband's presidency. As World War I raged across Europe, President Wilson faced immense pressure to lead the United States through tumultuous times. Edith became an essential confidante to the President, offering advice and insight into complex matters of statecraft.

However, it was in the last years of Woodrow Wilson's second term that Edith's role would become even more significant. In 1919, President Wilson suffered a severe stroke that left him incapacitated. The nation, unaware of the severity of his condition, believed he would soon recover. Behind closed doors, Edith grappled with a difficult decision – she could either reveal the truth about the President's condition, potentially causing chaos, or assume a more active role in governing to preserve stability.

With patriotism and a sense of duty to the nation, Edith chose the latter. She took on the responsibility of acting as a "steward" for her husband, controlling the information that reached him and making critical decisions on his behalf. For nearly a year, Edith became the de facto President of the United States, though she exercised her authority behind the scenes to maintain the illusion of President Wilson's leadership.

During this extraordinary period, Edith effectively ran the White House, conducting meetings with Cabinet members and managing the affairs of the country. She proved herself to be a competent and skilled leader, handling domestic and international issues with remarkable acumen. Edith's influence over the President's decisions was profound, leading many to speculate that she was, in essence, the nation's first female President.

Edith's tenure as the "First Female President" was not without controversy. Some critics argued that her actions were unconstitutional and that a woman should not wield such power. However, many others praised her for her strength, intelligence, and devotion to the country during a time of crisis.

As President Wilson's second term came to an end, Edith reluctantly relinquished her unofficial duties, stepping back from the spotlight. Despite the passage of time, the debate surrounding her role in the White House continues to captivate historians and political scholars.

Beyond her time as an unofficial leader, Edith Wilson remained active in public life, advocating for women's rights and various social causes. Her legacy serves as an enduring reminder of the potential for women to hold positions of power and influence in American politics.

In the end, Edith Wilson's story challenges traditional notions of the First Lady's role, and whether one considers her the "First Female President" or simply an extraordinary woman who rose to the occasion in a time of crisis, her impact on American history is undeniable. Edith's strength, resilience, and love for her country left an indelible mark, shaping the course of the nation and inspiring generations of women to pursue their dreams and ambitions in the realm of politics and leadership.

References

[1] Black, Allida. “Edith Bolling Galt Wilson.” The White House. January 15, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/first-families/edith-bolling-galt-wilson/

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 Equal Rights Amendment: Is A Century Enough?

By Tori Zucco, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

On July 21, 1923 – almost exactly one hundred years ago – the Equal Rights Amendment was unveiled in Seneca Falls, New York by Alice Paul. After the 19th Amendment had finally passed in 1920, Paul and other suffragettes wanted to take women’s rights a step further: they wanted gender equality to be explicit in the Constitution. So, they got together and authored a new amendment that would do just that. The Equal Rights Amendment as it was unveiled by Paul was simple. It read “Men and women shall have equal rights through the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction.” This amendment was meant to be a huge step in giving women the rights and privileges that men have held since the founding of this nation. Unfortunately, a full century later, it is still not part of the Constitution. 

The ERA was introduced in Congress for the first time in December 1923. Unsurprisingly, it failed to pass and little progress was made over time. It was introduced in every session of Congress since 1923 and only made headway in the 1970s. After 49 years of rejection, the Equal Rights Amendment was passed by both chambers of Congress in 1972. By this time, the ERA had been revised and the new text read: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on the account of sex.” 

The next necessary step to becoming an amendment is for the text to be ratified by 38 states. Congress placed a seven year deadline on the ratification process and left the states to do their thing. Things got off to an optimistic start: 30 of the necessary 38 states had ratified the ERA within a year. However, momentum slowed. By the end of the seven years, it had only been ratified by 35 states. Congress voted to extend the deadline by an additional three years, but the proposed amendment was not ratified by a single additional state in that time period. In fact, opinions had shifted so heavily that five states voted to rescind their ratification of the ERA. By the time they reached the extended 1982 deadline, many people had considered the Equal Rights Amendment a lost cause. 

The ERA remained sidelined until 2017 when, 35 years after the extended deadline, it was ratified by Nevada. The resurgence of attention on the ERA was likely due to the increase of women’s activism and women-centric social movements such as the Women’s March on Washington and the #MeToo Movement. Illinois followed Nevada in 2018 and Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the amendment in 2020. Virginia’s ratification should’ve satisfied the final requirements for the ERA to become an official part of the Constitution. However, it has faced roadblocks that continue to stand in the way of its adoption.

There are a few issues stopping the ERA from being validated. The main hurdles are conflicting legal opinions and lack of precedent. Some believe that Virginia is not actually the 38th state to ratify the ERA. Given that Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Idaho rescinded their ratifications, some conservative lawmakers and legal scholars believe that the proposed amendment must be ratified by five more states. However, unratification has not stopped previous amendments from being adopted. Several states rescinded their ratification of the 14th and 15th Amendments after the Civil War but Congress disregarded these rescissions and declared the amendments ratified. The same should be done for the ERA. 

Those who feel the ERA’s adoption would be invalid also blame the blown deadline. Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia were late to the game. Some – mainly Republican – lawmakers and legal scholars believe that these states’ ratifications are null and void because they did not occur within the set timeline. Other scholars, however, believe that if Congress has the power to impose a deadline, they also have the power to dissolve it. It’s important to mention that the deadline is included in the resolution argument proposing the amendment, not in the text of the amendment itself. Because of this, many legal scholars argue that Congress has the power to dissolve the deadline. 

With all of these roadblocks, the ERA remains in limbo. It’s stuck in this strange phase where it’s satisfied all of the requirements to be an amendment but hasn’t officially been adopted as part of the Constitution. Efforts have been made to validate the ERA but they have unfortunately been unsuccessful. The text of the amendment states that it would go into effect two years after being ratified. If things had gone accordingly after Virginia’s ratification, gender equality would have become a constitutional right in 2022. If the ERA had gone into effect, the Supreme Court likely would not have been able to overturn Roe v. Wade with the Dobbs decision last summer. The ERA would also support expanding protections provided by the Violence Against Women Act, close loopholes that subtly permit wage discrimination, and strengthen legal cases related to TItle IX. Without it, we only have rights to lose.

No one is harmed by the Equal Rights Amendment. Yet it is stuck at a standstill because of antiquated processes and conservatives who seek to block initiatives that undo power structures they benefit from. How much longer will it take? It’s already been a hundred years, will it take a hundred more? How many rights will we lose in the meantime?

References

[1] Baker, Carrie N. “Fifty Years Later, the Equal Rights Amendment Is Ratified. Now What?” Ms. Magazine. February 10, 2022. https://msmagazine.com/2022/02/10/equal-rights-amendment-ratified/ 

[2] Bleiweis, Robin. “The Equal Rights Amendment: What You Need To Know.” Center for American Progress. January 29, 2020. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/equal-rights-amendment-need-know/

[3] Cohen, Alex and Wilfred U. Codrington III. “The Equal Rights Amendment Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice. January 23, 2020. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/equal-rights-amendment-explained

[4] Dismore, David M. “Today in Feminist History: Suffrage Is Not Sufficient, The Lucretia Mott Amendment (July 21, 1923).” Ms. Magazine. July 21, 2020. https://msmagazine.com/2020/07/21/feminist-history-july-21/ 

[5] Kurtzleben, Danielle. “House Votes To Revive Equal Rights Amendment, Removing Ratification Deadline.” NPR. February 13, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/02/13/805647054/house-votes-to-revive-equal-rights-amendment-removing-ratification-deadline 
[6] Puckett-Pope, Lauren. “The Equal Rights Amendment Could Still Pass Today – Here’s How You Can Support It.” Harper’s Bazaar. August 26, 2020. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/politics/a32175363/what-is-the-equal-rights-amendment-today/

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.

Sarah Stankorb's Per-Sister Speaker Series Talk

Sarah Stankorb via sarahstankorb.com

We want to extend our deepest gratitude to Sarah Stankorb for participating in our Per-Sister Speaker Series!

Sarah Stankorb graduated from Westminster College with honors in Philosophy and World Religions, as well as the University of Chicago Divinity School with a master’s degree focused on ethics and South Asian religion and history. She boasts an impressive background as an award-winning writer with work featured in The New York Times, Washington Post, Vogue, The Atlantic, and other acclaimed publications. She has directed the communications of multiple nonprofits focused on environmental advocacy, conservation, and education, and currently serves as the Vice Mayor of the Wyoming City Council.

During her talk, Stankorb shared insights into her upcoming book Disobedient Women (to be published August 8th) which describes the stories of women who utilized the internet to speak out about the abuse they experienced in their American Christian churches and communities, despite being taught not to threaten or question the men in their communities. In her talk, Stankorb explained how she became aware of the concept of Christian patriarchy and her years of research on the topic, which her book will encompass.

Another highlight from her talk was Stankorb’s stories of acting on the Wyoming City Council. Among these stories, Stankorb shared the challenges of running and acting on the council, including being far younger than her colleagues and living with a speech impediment which she worried could affect how people viewed her. She also shared many of her many achievements, such as raising 850,000 dollars to make a playground fully accessible to children and parents with disabilities.

Sarah Stankorb’s talk was extremely inspiring, with insights that the Power in Place interns can carry throughout their experiences in politics, in advocacy, and in facing prejudice.

Sylvie Richards is a rising Sophomore at Washington University in St. Louis where she is double majoring in Political Science and Women, Gender, & Sexuality Studies. Sylvie is passionate about youth civic engagement, social, reproductive, & racial justice, and LGBTQ+ rights. She is Senior Forum Editor of Student Life, WashU’s newspaper, and Action Council and Social Media Co-Chair of WashU’s Planned Parenthood Generation Action. In her free time, she likes to read, bake cookies, and listen to music.

Why We Need More Women in Medical Leadership

By Kate Vavra, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Image from: Forbes

For the first time in history, there are actually more women than men in United States medical schools. Despite this, significantly less women hold medical leadership positions than men. “Overall, women make up only 34 percent of physicians in the U.S., and gender parity is still not reflected in medical leadership. Women account for only 18 percent of hospital CEOs and 16 percent of all deans and department chairs in the U.S.—positions that typically direct the mission and control the resources at medical centers” [1]. There are various explanations on why female doctors are not advanced at the same rate as their male colleagues. On average, women receive less grant money and less institutional funding to publicize their work. They struggle more to find sponsors and mentors that may aid them in developing their research. There is also a lack of policies that protect the recommended six months of paid maternity leave, which often leaves new mothers struggling to excel at work, making them more likely to leave the medical field. Additionally, there is an unconscious bias against women in medicine, which affects their ability to be hired or promoted. These patterns lead to an overall disparity between male and female doctors in medical leadership roles. 

These actions hurt not only female doctors, but all women receiving healthcare in the United States, as medical practices are being increasingly influenced by the political world. “Lawmakers increasingly intrude into the realm of medical practice, often to satisfy political agendas without regard to established, evidence- based guidelines for care” [2]. Especially because large aspects of women's healthcare has more recently turned into political controversy, there are a multitude of bad medicine laws that are preventing women from receiving fair care. Some of these include biased counseling laws, ultrasounds requirements, mandatory delays, medical abortion restrictions, and targeted regulations of abortion providers. 

The first step to recover from the attacks on women’s healthcare is to uplift female doctors to positions in leadership. Many studies have even shown that female physicians provide better care compared to their male counterparts. These women can use their knowledge to help figure out courses of action to properly deal with legal restrictions while protecting their patients and doctors alike. 

References 

[1] Mangurian, Christina. “What’s Holding Women in Medicine Back from Leadership.” Harvard Business Review. June 19, 2018. https://hbr.org/2018/06/whats-holding-women-in-medicine-back-from-leadership#:~:text=Women%20account%20for%20only%2018,%25)

[2] Ness, Debra. “Bad Medicine: How a Political Agenda Is Undermining Abortion Care and Access.” National Partnerships. March, 2018. https://nationalpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/bad-medicine-third-edition.pdf 

[3] Searing, Linda. “The Big Number: Women now outnumber men in medical schools.” The Washington Post. December 23, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/the-big-number-women-now-outnumber-men-in-medical-schools/2019/12/20/8b9eddea-2277-11ea-bed5-880264cc91a9_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.

Why Is Feminism So Cringe?

By Madeleine Broussard, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Where feminism once was the driving force behind energized young activists’ fight for social equality stands a jaded generation of politically aware nihilists. We have self-identified leftists who conservatively appreciate feminism for its intersections with other, more important class analyses, and those who have taken the “black pill” and chosen immovable pessimism as a response to the plight of women. Both are slightly embarrassed of feminism, the language of which is too easily co-opted by market demands associated with neoliberalism.

Unfortunately, even embarrassment cannot stop the ever-flowing tide of sneaky pop feminism. As Caitlín Doherty smartly discusses in her recent article, “A Feminist Style”, feminists lately have taken to the atomized snapshot of a woman’s suffering as a representation of “cool” feminism. Exhuming influential writers of the past, such as Andrea Dworkin, proves to be convenient: her highly personal prose distracts us just enough from mulling over the theory she authored. We are also under significantly less pressure to engage critically with authors who do not benefit from our monetary support. Even better, Dworkin is dead.

As the last decade’s trend of nostalgia continues to pump through the veins of fashion and culture, the lingering relevance of second-wave feminism proves to be functional not as a means of mobilizing, but of fashioning a new aesthetic. Make no mistake: if Dworkin walked onto the political stage right now and breathed life back into her radical analysis of intercourse from the eighties, she would be socially lobotomized. The outstanding feminist writer of the second wave is a dead, safe legend. And unlike any previous decade of feminism, no singular female writer or advocate stands out as having adequately described women’s “situation” in the current moment — the ones that try are too alive, and thereby too difficult to iconify. 

Women in politics face much of the anger we harbor towards women assuming any systemic power. Elizabeth Warren's claim to indigenous ancestry eclipsed her 2020 presidential platform in the news, rightfully inciting more than a few flinches and prompting her to apologize. Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s campaign success soared as he racistly nicknamed Warren “Pocahontas”. A few years earlier, the internet obscured Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid with her infamously grimace-inducing “Pokémon Go to the polls” line. In light of the hair-raising “locker room” attacks on female dignity that her opponent got away with, it is an utter disappointment to see netizens joke that Clinton’s cringe factor cost her the presidency. 

Yet, the girlboss archetype represented by most prominent women in politics activating our frustrations with neoliberal feminism — despite the punch that both women’s campaigns took in response to their scandals and cringey moments highlighting the disadvantages of even wealthy, white, cisgender womanhood — was a perfect match for the right’s unapologetic woman-hating. Their lovechild is the undue power of cringe. 

The undue power of cringe is enough to catapult a woman’s mistakes and non-mistakes alike to the forefront of her image, dominating Google search suggestions and further sterilizing the puritanism that we currently call feminism. Meanwhile, Trump’s countless sexual misconduct allegations sit behind him scot-free, and his high-profile crimes do little to deter his fiercely loyal fanbase from tearing their loving gazes away from him. Men are expected to be gross. Women dare not commit the crime of being cringe. When we place our nostalgia for the feminism of the past under a microscope, it begins to make a little more sense: empathy is harder to have for women who dare to take up space in the same room as us.

It is a funny coincidence that the age of nostalgia in fashion has ushered in a side-by-side, age-appropriate era of regression in politics. In addition to women’s severe electoral handicap, leading up to and following Dobbs v. Jackson in the summer of 2022 was bad gender politics from both mainstream sides. Conservatives who believe children should be forced to give birth and liberals who spent a disproportionate amount of time correcting the language of other liberals to fighting the human rights violation at hand dominated the debate. (The shrill voices of those in power nearly drowned out those of the most deeply-affected low-income women of color.) Currently, nationwide book bans threaten free speech, anti-LGBTQ privacy laws in schools strip students of their freedom to safely come out of the closet, and moral panics reminiscent of years past shape our increasingly hostile political culture. We need mean, nasty feminism now that every day is a throwback, in a climate that pushes radical change to the back. When we neglect the second wave’s resonance in exchange for its fashionability, we risk watering it down to the very thing we hate: an aesthetic, a tool of capitalism.

In our yearning to relive a time we weren’t even alive to see, we unknowingly trade reading and relating to one dead woman’s stories about suffering for listening to each other’s. Consciousness is impossible where conversation does not flow. Fashionable nostalgia, which glamorizes the past and dreads the present, has defanged modern feminism. Neoliberal feminism continues to individualize feminist action as a matter of personal choice, and women and other gender minorities are deeply divided. Where does that leave those of us charged with the burden of doing something about it?

We were alive to watch the neoliberal system appropriate our most effective language for nefarious, “cringe” ends. This moment is our opportunity to reclaim the second wave’s best ideas and apply them to our current situation. Our foremothers called cultural misogyny into question; as it persists, we can do the same by rejecting fashion feminism, raising consciousness, prioritizing solidarity, having empathy, and voting for women.

References

[1] Doherty, Caitlín. “A Feminist Style.” New Left Review. July 7, 2023. https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/a-feminist-style

[2] Fraser, Nancy. Fortunes of Feminism: From State Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis, p. 472. Verso Books. 2013.

[3] Kaplan, Thomas. “Elizabeth Warren Apologizes at Native American Forum: ‘I Have Listened and I Have Learned.’” The New York Times. August 19, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american.html 
[4] Powell, Michael. “A Vanishing Word in Abortion Debate: ‘Women’.” The New York Times. June 8, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/women-gender-aclu-abortion.html

Madeleine Broussard is an English major at Mount Holyoke College. She is an editor for an on-campus pop culture publication and serves on a Student Government Association committee. Outside of school, Madeleine enjoys reality TV, poetry, writing Yelp reviews, and deep-fried food.