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.

Anita Hill: From A Woman Scorned, A Voice is Born

By Gabriella Majeski, Summer 2023 Collaborator at Power in Place

Image from: Associated Press via Washington Post

It’s 1991 on the Senate floor. Former coworker of Clarence Thomas takes the stand, testifying against him as she shares details regarding multiple inappropriate sexual advances that Thomas made onto her. Little did Anita Hill know that her testimony would polarize the United States as questions of gender equality, safety in the workplace, and survivor stories began to arise. Due to their publicity as well as the poor treatment Hill faced from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the hearings propelled a record number of women entering politics the following year, coining 1992 as the “Year of The Woman” (Senate.gov). The repercussions of the Thomas confirmation hearings still ripple into political discourse today, making them one of the most influential public displays of gender and racial inequality in the United States.

Anita Faye Hill was born on July 30, 1956, in rural Love Tree, Oklahoma. As the youngest of thirteen children, she spent most of her childhood working on her family farm and heavily indulging in her studies. After graduating high school as valedictorian, she went on to receive a degree in psychology from Oklahoma State University in 1977 (Blatty). Three years later, she earned a law degree from Yale Law School. Her success in education led her to a job at a law firm, which she soon quit for a position with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. She served as legal advisor to Clarence Thomas, the assistant secretary of civil rights at the time. It was during this time that Thomas made multiple unwanted sexual advances towards Hill before he was promoted to be Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 1982. Hill left her position with Thomas shortly after in 1983 and began teaching at Oral Roberts University. She joined The University of Oklahoma three years later as its first tenured Black Professor. During her time at The University of Oklahoma, she taught commerce and contract law. However, the projectile of her career would soon shift in 1991 once she took the stand in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

On October 11, 1991, Anita Hill testified before an all-white, male Senate Judiciary Committee against her former coworker as he was set to be confirmed to join the Supreme Court. The televised hearings propelled her into the spotlight in front of millions of Americans across the country. As she began her testimony, Hill was met with multiple remarks from the Committee that seemed to attempt to undermine her experience and discredit her argument, deeming her an “unreliable source.” She was shamed by the Committee and the right-wing American public as she described her inappropriate experiences with Thomas in graphic detail. Clarence Thomas denied all of the accusations made by Hill, claiming that the matter was a “liberal concoction” that was meant to circumvent his appointment to the Supreme Court. To this day, Thomas still denies all of the claims, naming Hill his “most treacherous adversary” in his 2007 autobiography, My Grandfather’s Son (Stolberg).

It is important to note that Anita Hill did not stand alone with such allegations; multiple women requested to testify in front of the Committee as well, but were either dismissed or ignored. Ultimately, Clarence Thomas was confirmed on October 16, 1991, by a 52-48 vote, the smallest margin for any judge on the current Supreme Court.

The televised hearings divided American opinions on the matter: some agreed with the Senate Judiciary Committee, believing that Hill made her claims for publicity and national attention. Others were outraged as they watched her leave the courtroom without justice and found the Committee’s treatment of her degrading and sexist. Some even began to wear pins of solidarity that read “I believe Anita” (Bennett). Despite this polarization, one thing stood clear: the outrage caused by the hearings led to a historic number of women running for and winning political positions the following year, coining 1992 as the “Year of The Woman” (Senate.gov). Furthermore, Anita Hill’s testimony is often credited with raising awareness about gender-based violence and harassment in the workplace and served as an early spark to the ignition of the #MeToo movement.

Anita Hill left her position at The University of Oklahoma in 1996 after facing multiple threats to her personal safety, as well as public calls for her resignation. Two years later, she began working at Brandeis University as a visiting scholar. She later became a professor at the institution in 2015 (Tikkanen). She led a private life after being submerged in chaos following the hearings, often shying away from any article, documentary, interview, or publicity regarding her experience. But that all changed with the emergence of the #MeToo movement, as political tensions began to rise within topics of women’s rights, gender equality, and sexual assault awareness. After changing her career focus onto gender equality, she explained in a New York Times article (cite) how she hoped to help other women “find their voice” just as she did. The 20th anniversary of the hearings inspired her to step back into the public eye with her documentary “Anita” (2014). Since the documentary’s release, Hill has remained vocal in her advocacy for gender equality, as well as on the topic of her testimony. In 2019, she received a call from current President Joe Biden, who was a presidential candidate at the time. During the conversation, he apologized for his behavior during the hearings, but according to Anita Hill, sorry was not enough. Action had to be taken before she would accept any apology. In her own words:

“I will be satisfied when I know that there is real change and real accountability and real purpose” (Adams).

It is clear to see that although Anita Hill’s testimony may not have halted Clarence Thomas’ confirmation, her story led to a rise in awareness regarding issues of gender equality in the U.S. Since then, she has inspired thousands of women to find their voice, vocalize their survivor stories, and even join the male-dominated political field to incite positive change and action. With this in mind, it is even more apparent that Anita Hill’s agenda is far from finished if true change is to be made. It is vital that U.S. citizens remember and learn from her story in order to ensure that future objections will be met with inclusion, acceptance and justice.

References

[1] Blatty, David. “Anita Hill''. Bibliography.com. March 30, 2021. https://www.biography.com/activists/anita-hill

[2] US Government. “Year of the Woman”. Senate.gov. 2023. https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/year_of_the_woman.htm

[3] Pruitt, Sarah. “How Anita Hill’s Testimony Made America Cringe-And Change”. History. February 9, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/anita-hill-confirmation-hearings-impact

[4] Tikkanen, Amy. “Anita Hill”. Britannica. July 18, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anita-Hill

[5] Adams, Biba. “Anita Hill speaks on waiting nearly 30 years for Joe Biden apology”. Yahoo News. September 28, 2021. https://news.yahoo.com/anita-hill-speaks-waiting-nearly-141502687.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZWNvc2lhLm9yZy8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABKi2mOEXd8MihkhCgAlZcLRdRRUCVNSvHkxn-8mJZ0b0kck8yxHp4xHMLXH6q-QlicvY9FW8VnZuXTdMLMIy443wFHdho_PqqfEGzADkF0zxU1cQTARKCywyee9dBPO7QCsIpqScCq2EHCgvoZbj9GkRjDDUbPwKql2N6ncqKoj

[6] Stolberg, Sheryl. Hulse, Carl. “Joe Biden Expresses Regret to Anita Hill, but She Says ‘I’m Sorry’ Is Not Enough”. The New York Times. April 25, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-anita-hill.html?module=inline

[7] Bennett, Jessica. “Anita Hill Has Some Perspective to Offer”. The New York Times. September 25, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/25/books/anita-hill-believing.html

[8] Moon, Jeenah. Bennett, Jessica. “How History Changed Anita Hill”. The New York Times. June 17, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/17/us/anita-hill-women-power.html

[9] Stolberg, Sheryl. “Standing by Her Story”. The New York Times. March 12, 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/204/03/16/movies/anita-hill-is-celebrated-in-the-documentary-anita.html

[10] Bennett, Jessica. “The ‘Click’ Moment: How the Weinstein Scandal Unleashed a Tsunami”. The New York Times. November 5, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/05/us/sexual-harrasment-weinstein-trump.html

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. 

The Political Past and Present of Disability Pride Month

By Emma Quirk, Summer 2023 Power in Place Collaborator

Image from: Wikipedia

Disability Pride Month has been celebrated in the United States each July since 1990. Disabled people make up the largest marginalized group in the U.S., with about 26 percent of the population having a disability. That means about one in four Americans — of all genders, ethnicities, races, and classes — have at least one disability. Despite making up a significant portion of the country, disabled people and their lives, needs, and contributions are often overlooked and ignored. 

In 1990, the proposed Americans with Disabilities Act — which protects people with disabilities from discrimination — had been stalled in Congress, prompting disability rights advocates to protest at the Capitol and White House. On March 12, the Capitol Crawl, as it is now known, occurred. Members of the Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transit or ADAPT, with about 1000 other protestors watching, began to crawl and climb the steps of the west Capitol entrance in order to visibility demonstrate the inaccessibility that disabled people face in the U.S.. This protest was successful, and the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed into law on July 26, 1990. 

Following this, the first Disability Pride Day was held in Boston, Massachusetts. Since then, other cities have followed suit, and Disability Pride celebrations and parades occur each year. 

In 2016, writer and activist Ann Magill started creating the Disability Pride Flag. As a woman with cerebral palsy and a member of the disability community herself, Magill wanted to create a flag of solidarity, pride, and acceptance. The original flag featured a black background with bright blue, yellow, white, red, and green zigzag stripes. “[I wanted] to represent how disabled people have to maneuver around all the barriers we face. We have to go this way, and then we have to go that way, and then we have to go this way and then we have to go that way. And that’s how we move through the world,” Magill said on an episode of The Accessible Stall podcast. In 2021, she redesigned the flag to be less visually overwhelming, after receiving suggestions from people with migraines, seizures, sensory sensitivities, and other conditions that can be visually triggered. To make the flag more accessible, the updated version features more muted colors and softer lines. 

Each color on the flag depicts an important aspect of the disability community. The charcoal black background represents the mourning of disabled people who have been lost or victimized by ableism-fueled violence. The diagonal band of colors metaphorically “cuts through” barriers that disabled people face; the green stripe signifies sensory disabilities including deafness, blindness, and other sensory conditions; the blue stripe signifies psychiatric disabilities, including depression, anxiety, and other mental disorders, the white stripe signifies invisible or undiagnosed disabilities; the yellow/gold stripe signifies cognitive and intellectual disabilities and other neurodivergence; and the red stripe signifies physical disabilities. These colors are the six standard international flag colors, meant to denote that the disability community exists throughout the world. 

While July has been recognized by some as Disability Pride Month since 1990, in 2022 Congresswoman Betty McCollum a Democrat from Minnesota, Congressman Ken Calvert a Republican from California, Senator Amy Klobuchar a Democrat from Minnesota, and Senator Rob Portman a Republican from Ohio, introduced a bipartisan, bicameral resolution recognizing July as Disability Pride Month, celebrating contributions of disabled Americans, and underscoring the importance of preventing exclusion and discrimination based on ability. “Though Disability Pride has long been celebrated each July within the disability community, it is not yet recognized on the federal level. That's why I am introducing a resolution with Congressman Calvert in the House, alongside Senators Klobuchar and Portman in the Senate, to mark this commemorative month and affirm that people with disabilities are valued and equal members of our communities and our society. Much more work remains to advance the rights of the disability community, stop stigma, and increase accessibility. Establishing Disability Pride Month will not only serve to raise awareness about this movement but will also shine a light on the community's many positive contributions to our nation's rich diversity,” McCollum said. Klobuchar noted that “By designating July as Disability Pride Month, this bipartisan resolution honors the many contributions Americans with disabilities have made to our country and acknowledges the need to continue the fight to address the barriers that Americans with disabilities face.” 

This resolution was in partnership with 20 organizations, led by Gillette Children’s Hospital of St. Paul, Minnesota. These groups wrote a letter on July 5, 2022, urging for the recognition of Disability Pride Month. The letter states that “The ADA was only a starting point, and there remains significant room for progress towards a more equitable and inclusive country for all people living with a disability…There is still much work to be done…[Disability Pride Month] will provide opportunities for participation and education, and spread awareness of disability justice, inclusion, intersectionality, and accessibility and contribute to advocacy for the rights of children and adults who have disabilities as well as help confront ableism and systemic discrimination.” On July 26, Calvert and Klobuchar’s resolution was shared.

While disability justice has come a long way, there is still a lot of work to be done to achieve a truly inclusive society for all people, regardless of ability. Disabled people are underrepresented in positions of leadership, political and otherwise. It is important to listen to disabled people, hear their own experiences and stories directly from them, and fight for equality and equity always. 

References

[1] Devault, Nancy. “Here’s What the Disability Pride Flag Represents.” AmeriDisability. July 11, 2023. https://www.ameridisability.com/heres-what-the-disability-pride-flag-represents/.  

[2] “Disability Pride Month.” The Valuable 500. June 28, 2023. https://www.thevaluable500.com/spotlight/disability-pride-month. 

[2] “Disability Rights Activists Make ‘Capitol Crawl’ for the ADA.” The Zinn Education Project. https://www.zinnedproject.org/news/tdih/capitol-crawl-for-ADA/.  

[3] Gillette Children’s, et al. “Disability Pride Month Support Letter.” July 5, 2022. https://aahd.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/DisabilityPrideMonthResolution-SenKlobucherRepMcCullum-GilletteChildrens-July5-supportletter.pdf. 

[4] “McCollum, Calvert, Klobuchar, Portman, Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Resolution Recognizing Disability Pride Month.” McCollum.House.gov. July 26, 2022. https://mccollum.house.gov/media/press-releases/mccollum-calvert-klobuchar-portman-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-resolution. 

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.