Women and Politics

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Krystal Ball, a candidate for Congress in Virginia’s 1st district, recently introduced an ad campaign targeting her opponent. The campaign, “On the Road with Rob,” follows Ball as she visits Congressman Rob Wittman’s offices and meets with constituents. More often than not, she finds his district office empty and that Virginians don’t relate to Wittman’s policies.

In response, the Wittman camp released the following statement:

“As cute as our opponent may think she is with a life size cut out of Rob…”

While Wittman’s spokesperson was ostensibly referring to Ball’s videos, and not her appearance, there was clearly an inference about Ball’s physical presence—which has already gained attention in the mainstream media. In essence, Wittman is relying on the stereotype that an attractive woman cannot be an effective leader—rather than addressing the substantive aspects of Ball’s criticisms.

Unfortunately, this behavior is far too common in the modern political world. Last week, a Colorado Senate candidate, Ken Buck, tried to argue that he deserved Coloradans votes over his female opponent:

“Because I do not wear high heels.”

This is not an acceptable reaction in a civilized political debate. The immediate decision for many male candidates when faced with an aggressive female candidate is to turn to a sexist and unfair attack in an attempt to discredit their opponent. If their rival was another man, they would be forced to respond to the actual criticisms—and be held accountable for their weaknesses as a candidate. Instead, female candidates are threatened based on their appearance, wardrobe, and personality, rather than their qualifications.

Indeed, this was also an issue in Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. She was attacked time and again for her physical appearance and marital status, while her conservative opponents failed to acknowledge her outstanding legal credentials. It seems that Kagan’s inherent qualifications have overcome the sexist criticisms leveled at her, and I hope the same will be true for Ball, and all the other fantastic women running this year.

Krystal Ball, a certified public accountant, business owner, mother, and Virginia native, is committed to fiscal responsibility, building a secure nation for her children, and fighting for the interests of Virginia’s 1st district. These issues should be what this campaign is about—and not about Ball’s gender or appearance.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Here at WCF, we believe that everyone needs more women in government. Not only do women benefit from the examples set by powerful female leaders, but fathers, children, environmentalists, Republicans and Democrats have all seen the effects of the collaborative work environment and the new perspectives brought by women in politics.

In yesterday’s Washington Post, David Broder wrote about the introduction of women into political reporting, and the inevitable effect that Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s appointment will have on the Supreme Court:

“I don’t know how having three strong-minded female justices serving simultaneously for the first time will change the world of the Supreme Court. But I will not be surprised if this small society does not change for all its members.”

Indeed, society, D.C., and politics have changed in the few decades in which women have made their movement into the political world. And for the vast majority of Americans, they have changed for the better. Here at WCF, we have a lot of ideas about who needs more women in government, and we’ve put them on buttons to share at Netroots Nation and with the rest of the world.

Who do you think needs more women in government? We’d love to hear your ideas—please share your thoughts with us on Twitter or Facebook. And check out our pictures on Flickr to see the Netroots community sporting our buttons!

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

In a recent attack ad, Carly Fiorina accused Senator Barbara Boxer of being an ineffectual representative, with her name on only three bills in the past 18 years. This prompted Rod Pennington to conclude that virtually all female Senators are essentially:

“Empty pants suits keeping chairs warm and taking orders from their male party leadership.”

I’m trying to figure out which Senate Rod Pennington and Carly Fiorina are watching. In the U.S. Senate, Barbara Boxer is the first female Chairwoman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and simultaneously, Chair of the Select Committee on Ethics, making her the only Senator in charge of two committees at the same time. Also, a quick online search reveals that, in the current Congress alone, Boxer’s name is on over 500 pieces of legislation, including an international effort to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, and an important taxpayer protection amendment to the Wall Street Reform bill.

Despite Pennington’s claim that women take their direction from male power-brokers in the Senate, he seems to have forgotten that, in addition to Boxer, who serves as Chief Deputy Whip, Sens. Patty Murray, Blanche Lincoln and Debbie Stabenow all hold leadership positions. In fact, the 4-to-10 ratio among the majority leadership is actually much higher than the actual percentage of women in the Senate (17%)—showing that these women are excelling in their political careers.

The recent health care reform debate also made it clear why we need women in Congress. Senator Barbara Mikulski, a leading member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, played a key role in ensuring that women received equal treatment in insurance plans.

The Supreme Court’s rejection of Ledbetter shows why having women in Congress—and on the Court—is essential to promoting women’s equality. After Justice Ginsburg’s inspirational dissent, Congress quickly stepped up to remedy our unfair pay systems. Boxer was one of the first to co-sponsor the bill, and was soon followed by Sens. Debbie Stabenow, Olympia Snowe, Patty Murray, Barbara Mikulski, Claire McCaskill, Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell. Although the final bill was not passed until 2009, it seems unlikely that we would have the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act today without the support of these influential women.

Last year, Sen. Boxer was named the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Human Rights, Democracy, and Global Women’s Issues. This is the first subcommittee to ever focus specifically on women’s issues, and I’m certain that Boxer’s many years of service on the Foreign Relations Committee were instrumental in its creation. In response to her appointment, she eloquently stated that:

“Too often, we turn our eyes away as women are persecuted, abused and treated as second-class citizens. But even the most conservative historians have noted that when women are given the freedom to live up to their full potential, society as a whole flourishes. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Congress and with Secretary Clinton to stamp out violence against women in the world.”

This is an observation that many men would never make. Just as it took Justice Ginsburg to point out that our pay systems were unequal, often we need women to be part of the conversation to show what men choose not to see. In his article, Pennington poses the question:

“Could it be political correctness and the desire to have a woman, any woman, in a high office is to blame?”

The women that I’ve come to respect and admire in the U.S. Senate have fought for women’s rights, equal opportunity, and justice for all. I’m very proud to have these 17 women in the U.S. Senate, and hope the rest of America doesn’t share Pennington’s ridiculous and archaic assertions.

This post was submitted by Rebecca Freedholm, WCF Communications Fellow

Yesterday my colleague, Sophie, made a strong argument for why Kagan’s gender is an important factor in her nomination to the Supreme Court—we need more women (especially women as well-qualified as Kagan) on the bench to advance women’s role in government and to protect the rights of all women. She’s absolutely right.

Furthermore, increasing the number of women in prominent judicial positions is bound to enhance “the quality of justice” altogether. As Amy Matsui from the National Women’s Law Center indicates, recent studies reveal women’s presence in the courts can make a crucial difference in the judicial decision-making process.

So when Ronni Berke and Carol Costello from CNN beg the question, “Do female judges rule differently than men,” the answer is a resounding “yes.” Not only are women proven to rule differently than men in a range federal court cases, but also the mere presence of women on the federal bench can influence how male judges vote. Marcia Greenberger made this case yesterday in her testimonial for Kagan:

“One recent study demonstrated that male federal appellate court judges are more likely to see aspects of the law differently, particularly regarding claims of sex discrimination, if a female judge is on the panel. This may be because, as Justice Ginsburg said in a speech last year, ‘Even though a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same decision, there are life experiences a woman has that come from growing up in a woman’s body that men don’t have.’”

Women bring a critical perspective to court, and as Lily Ledbetter emphasized in Kagan’s hearings, “who is on the Supreme Court makes all the difference.” Ledbetter’s case not only confirms that sex discrimination still exists in the workplace, but that female representation on the Supreme Court is vital in ensuring that women’s voices on issues of discrimination are truly heard.

A diverse, gender-balanced Supreme Court is necessary for protecting the rights of all citizens.

“This study brings home how important it is to have a woman’s voice in the judicial decision-making process for courts to arrive at a good decision at the end of the day, and to have justice that serves both men and women. And other studies suggest the more women there are, the more impact they have.”

We need more women on the Supreme Court. Having Elena Kagan on the bench will increase women’s representation in our courts, improve the quality of the judicial decision-making process, and will more effectively serve the American people.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Throughout the first few days of hearings to confirm Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next Supreme Court Justice, the women on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Amy Klobuchar and Dianne Feinstein, have repeatedly brought up Kagan’s gender as a reason to support her nomination.

Eva Rodriguez at the Washington Post asked her readers yesterday whether this was appropriate—or necessary.

“Yes, Kagan was the first woman to serve as dean of Harvard Law School. Yes, she broke the glass ceiling to become the first female solicitor general of the United States. So what? Would anyone on the panel have praised a white, male nominee for being a great role model for young men? I seriously doubt it.”

While I admire Rodriguez’s perspective that women no longer need to fight to get access to the same opportunities as men, I can’t help but think we’re not there yet. As Sen. Feinstein noted during the hearings, recent cases such as Ledbetter prove that women still make less money than men—decades after women began to challenge the status quo.

And women are still seriously underrepresented in government, making up only 17% of Congress. Yes, we have made progress. But that does not mean that women have won the war.

Rodriguez also claimed that Kagan has not received special attention because of her gender as she has risen in political life.

“I was pleased that little attention was paid to the fact that she is a woman when she was nominated as solicitor general and then to the Supreme Court.”

Clearly, Rodriguez wasn’t taking into consideration the sexist attacks on Kagan’s appearance, sexual orientation, and marital status since President Obama announced his selection. Indeed, the question should not be whether male nominees would be described as role models for young men—but whether a man would be questioned about his sexual preferences just because he has chosen not marry.

I think we should all hope—and work to create—the world that Rodriguez described. But we’re just not there yet. Three women on a Court of nine Justices is not equal representation. And the cases heard by the Supreme Court have an enormous impact on the day-to-day lives of American women. Protecting women’s reproductive health choices and fighting for pay equity are not issues that men in government have often prioritized.

So yes, it does matter that Solicitor General Kagan is a woman, because she will set a good example for young women, make one more crack in the glass ceiling, and bring her unique knowledge and experiences to the Court.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

Yesterday marked the beginning of Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s confirmation process to become the next Justice of the Supreme Court. Despite her high office in the U.S. government and extensive legal experience, the fact that Kagan is a progressive woman has attracted a great deal of controversy—leading social conservatives to criticize her lack of judicial experience, appearance, and position on women’s reproductive rights.

Sound familiar? The eminently qualified Sonia Sotomayor was questioned about her experience as well. But in fact, many of the most famous and well-respected Justices were not judges before being appointed to the Court. Senator Dianne Feinstein defended Kagan by reminding the Senate Judiciary Committee that:

“The Roberts court is the first to be comprised entirely of former federal Court of Appeals judges.”

On Monday, through thinly veiled compliments about her academic expertise, social conservatives on the Committee hinted at the type of issues they will try to use to block her nomination. One of the major criticisms leveled at Kagan involved her history of involvement with political issues—AKA, Judicial Activism.

But let’s remember how social conservatives approved countless politically-minded judges while President Bush was in charge of the nominations—but now that progressives have an opportunity to simply maintain the balance of the Court—activism is considered a major issue. As Senator Chuck Schumer eloquently put it:

“Judicial activism now has a new guise—activism to pull our country to the right.”

And one of the issues that the right is most ardently concerned with is that of a woman’s right to make her own health choices. In fact, there were anti-choice protesters outside of Kagan’s hearings yesterday—and conservative Senators frequently alluded to their fear that Kagan would uphold Roe v. Wade.

But despite their supposed fear of judicial activism, these anti-choice politicians would most likely celebrate the active upheaval of the 30 years of jurisprudence that is a woman’s right to choose.

That is precisely why it’s so important that we have another woman on the Court. As Kagan said yesterday:

“I owe a debt of gratitude to two other living Justices. Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg paved the way for me and so many other women in my generation. Their pioneering lives have created boundless possibilities for women in the law.”

Their careers have also created opportunities for all American women. By standing up for the values that allow women to freely pursue careers and achieve equality, Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg have significantly affected countless women’s lives. Cases such as Ledbetter have proven that having women on the Court does matter, because their experiences and perspectives are different from the six male Justices.

With any luck, Kagan will soon be approved as the next woman who will fight for women’s equality and inspire others to follow in her path. Senator John Kerry described Kagan’s bipartisanship and equanimity, saying that Kagan is:

“The type of judge you would want if you weren’t sure what side you wanted to win.”

As we saw with Sotomayor, the hearings only heat up as we go along. But yesterday, Sen. Sessions called for more candor in the confirmation process—here at WCF, we agree. While Kagan herself has shown her commitment to thorough and open hearings, let’s hope that the Senators will do the same—these hearings should be about Kagan’s qualifications—and nothing else.

This post was submitted by Sophie Shulman, WCF Communications Fellow

With Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings set to start next week, the media has been buzzing about potential areas of weakness, conflict, and utilizing the sexist language that seems to be the accepted discourse around women in politics.

Surprisingly, previously rejected Supreme Court nominee, Robert Bork, has entered into the conversation. Bork, who was also serving as Solicitor General when he was nominated, faced one of the most controversial confirmation processes in U.S. history, and was ultimately rejected by the Senate because of his adamantly anti-choice stance.

And now it appears that Bork would like to make Kagan’s confirmation process just as contentious. Now working with the Americans United for Life to oppose Kagan, Bork claimed that:

“The one thing the republicans would gain by making an issue of the Kagan hearings is a little integrity for future battles…[they would lose] their reputation for rolling over any time a woman or a liberal is nominated.”

Clearly, anti-choice conservatives are determined to focus Kagan’s confirmation on the most controversial issue as possible. While Kagan has made clear her position on women’s reproductive health choices and maintaining the legal precedent set in Roe v. Wade, getting more women on the Supreme Court should not be isolated to a single issue.

Not only does Kagan have years of experience as U.S. Solicitor General, Dean of Harvard Law, and as a law clerk for Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall, there are also numerous documents released from her time in the Clinton White House—displaying her views and expertise on several topics.

I would hope that someone like Robert Bork—who endured a humiliating confirmation process despite his numerous qualifications—would not want to subject another talented candidate to the same experience. Indeed, Kagan herself has complimented Bork for his openness during his confirmation:

“Not since Bork has any nominee candidly discussed, or felt a need to discuss, his or her views and philosophy.”

Instead, Bork and his fellow social conservatives seem determined to keep another “woman” or “liberal” off the Supreme Court—at all costs. Despite this, the sitting members of the Court seem not to mind that Kagan has worked in politics, and in fact, even conservative members have come out on her side. Justice Scalia, one of the most right-wing members of the Court, recently said:

“. . . I am happy to see that this latest nominee is not a federal judge – and not a judge at all.”

Justices Kennedy and Stevens have also expressed their admiration for the Solicitor General. Considering these numerous endorsements by sitting members, a former President, and several previous Solicitors General, among others, it will be remarkable if the anti-choice, anti-woman movement succeeds in derailing her nomination. However, we can almost expect that they will turn the confirmation process into a misogynistic circus.

Already this year we’ve seen many examples of extraordinary women rejected by the Old Boys’ Club—and we don’t want to see that happen to Elena Kagan. The Supreme Court needs more women—and it needs more Justices who will fight for a woman’s right to make her own reproductive health choices.

Sexism has no place in politics or Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Get ready to stand up for Kagan as she starts her hearings on Monday!