Just not *that* woman

Currently, eighteen (18) people have thrown their hats in the ring to run against Trump in 2020. Eighteen. It's sometimes hard to remember just how crowded the field is when the media really only wants to talk about about a few of these candidates: Joe Biden, Beto O'Rourke, Bernie Sanders, and now, Pete Buttigieg. These four men entered the race at different times, yet each has received a similar flood of attention. Biden and Bernie are familiar faces and were among those who people wanted to see run. Beto and Buttigieg are exciting political up-and-comers, who promise to breathe fresh air into Washington. And, of course, they are all white males. By itself, that fact isn't all that surprising. Most politicians are white males. Like the law, the field of politics has been and is still dominated by them. We made progress on that front in 2018, when a record number of women were elected to Congress. However, the top jobs - that of president and vice president - have remained staunchly male, and, at least in this initial coverage, it looks like that will not be changing this cycle.

Hillary Clinton tried her best to change that, and very nearly did. Hillary has always inspired me, and she inspired many of the men and women I was closest to in 2016. Despite that, her campaign was excruciating and frustrating to watch every step of the way due to the sexism of the media, and the general electorate. Apparently, Hillary just isn't likable. She alienates people. She's a war hawk. Her pantsuits. Her emails. And then there was the most irritating line from those who claimed they weren't voting for her: "I'll vote for a woman, just not that woman." The people who were saying that particular line weren't Republicans, who likely weren't trying to vote for a woman, but rather other liberal and independent men and women.

One of the women most cited as one whom the aforementioned group would vote for was Elizabeth Warren. Warren officially entered the 2020 race in January of this year. Despite a good deal of excitement surrounding her announcement, the focus on her has died down in favor of the four men mentioned at the beginning of this blog. Nonetheless, Warren has continued to campaign and release detailed policy plans - my favorite of which has been been her ambitious plan for universal child care. Not only is it a good plan, but it is also one that likely would only be thought of by a woman. Yet, one of the more recent Quinnipiac polls as her well behind Biden, Bernie, and Beto, and tied at 4% with Buttigieg, who entered the race well after she did. Some chalk this up to that whole DNA testing thing. As a person of color, that put me off a little bit too. But, not only did her childcare plan win me over, but I also took care to check any vestiges of internalized misogyny and remember that people, men and women, are imperfect and make mistakes. It isn't fair to dismiss a candidate due to a single judgement error, because everyone makes them.

It has been tough for other female candidates, too. Kamala Harris is polling better than Warren, but still no where near frontrunners Biden and Bernie. Like Warren, Harris' entry into the race was met with excitement. She is a strong woman of color, with a progressive record in Congress. Her background as a prosecutor was no secret, but people dug in anyway, and then came the criticism - as a baby prosecutor she was not progressive enough. I've worked at a public defender's office, I get the general distrust of prosecutors. But, Harris' record here needs to be looked at through an intersectional lens. As a woman of color, she wouldn't have had the power, at the beginning of her career, to have the kind of record and make the kinds of changes progressives want from her. The law is dominated by white males in almost all fields, offices of district attorneys not excluded. As much as Harris likely wanted to keep the needs of her community in mind as a prosecutor, she also needed to ensure that she had a good reputation with her white male bosses. This likely meant she couldn't appear to "go easy" on anyone.

But, in politics and other high-powered positions, women are not allowed to make mistakes or have questionable past opinions or records. The poll referenced above has Joe Biden leading the field with a whopping 29% of people polled. Biden, as much as people loved him as President Obama's Vice President, is not a perfect candidate by any means. One of his biggest flaws is his treatment of women, which has come to light in the past few weeks. Biden's boundary issues with women are well documented in pictures. His actions suggest a pattern rather than an isolated incident. However, he is still in the lead for the nomination, whereas Warren's one mistake may be tanking her chances. The same poll puts Bernie in second place with 19% of the vote, though much ado has been made about his lead in terms of fundraising. But Bernie is not perfect either. He has been dismissive of the concerns of people of color and some of his more rapid supporters are crazy, and he didn't do enough to calm them down. I could run a similar analysis on Beto and Buttigieg, who also have flawed records and are similarly not perfect candidates. People are still more excited about them than Warren or Harris - or at least that is what a quick glance at The New York Times or Twitter would have you believe.

I was hoping that after Trump's election, the double-standard in politics - expecting near perfection from female candidates while forgiving males - would lessen enough to give women a fighting chance at the presidency. It's not like people didn't notice the disparate treatment Hillary received in 2016. We seem to be falling into the same trap again, though. On the progressive side of the aisle, most are just concerned with ensuring that Trump is voted out of office. This is a goal I fully support, and thus I will vote for whoever the democratic candidate ends up being, which may mean voting for another white male. However, we as a society, must do a better job of policing ourselves when it comes to evaluating female candidates in particular. There will never be a perfect candidate - male or female - so evening the playing field necessarily means that we stop holding women to a higher standard. How do we do that? We can start by being truly honest with ourselves about whether we would dismiss our favorite male candidate for the same reason we want to dismiss a female one. If we start making excuses about why it wouldn't take away from the appeal of a man, it's time to start contemplating if internalized sexism is at play.

How gender-neutral bathrooms can solve sexist bathroom inequality

As anyone who has used busy sex-segregated restrooms can attest to, women's restrooms always have long lines while men seem to go in and out with no wait at all. While this isn’t the only issue with gendered bathrooms, it’s probably the most obvious one.

When you think about it, it makes sense that the line for women’s restrooms are longer. Women simply have more to do in the bathroom than men! We have to clean the toilet seat, put a cover on it, pull down pants/skirt/underwear, sit, pee, wipe, and get our clothes back to how they were before. Not to mention deal with our periods! Yet despite all of this, women's bathrooms often have the same number or less toilets as the men's restrooms.

In 2015 this issue inadvertently came into the national stage when after a five minute commercial and bathroom break from a Democratic Primary Debate, Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton didn’t make it back to the stage before the debate started again. The image of Hillary’s empty podium with the two male candidates at the ready at their podiums caused a lot of stir in the media. 

In a New York Times article entitled “Finally, an Explanation for Hillary Clinton’s Long Bathroom Break” the world learned that Secretary Clinton had 1 minute and 45 seconds to walk to the bathroom, and 1 minute and 45 seconds to walk back to the stage. That left her only 1 minute 30 seconds to use the bathroom and wash her hands. Any woman, particularly one dressed professionally who is going to be speaking in front of an audience, can tell you that this is an impossible time frame.

Ghent University in Belgium studied the bathroom wait time differentials between men and women’s bathrooms and found that women waited on average 6 minutes and 19 seconds, while men waited just 11 seconds on average. The study found that this differential has two major components.

First, men’s restrooms can accommodate more occupants. This is because urinals take up less physical space than stalls, men’s restrooms can on average accommodate 20 to 30 percent more users than women’s restrooms. While having equal square footage in women’s and men’s restrooms appears equal, the effect is a structural inequality that disadvantages women by forcing them to wait significantly longer than men for the same accommodations.

Second, women spend more time in the restroom for the practical reasons outlined above. Women, on average, take 1.5 to two times as long as men to use the restroom. The study found that if you doubled the number of toilets for women, the wait times between the genders would be equal. However, this requires a huge amount of physical space.

The easiest and most effective solution to the time differential is to make restrooms unisex, also referred to as gender neutral. With gender-neutral restrooms, the wait times for both men and women is equalized to two minutes or less.

Gender-neutral restrooms are a growing trend, particularly at Universities and in California where all single-use restrooms are now required to be gender neutral. The next move – restroom parity in the form of gender-neutral restrooms.

What might the first female American President look like?

Donald Trump’s victory over Hilary Clinton in last year’s American presidential election came as a huge shock to many feminists both in the US and beyond. Like many around the world, I found myself consumed by this fascinating and controversial race. Had Hillary been elected, she would have been the first female President of the US. 

Despite the disappointment that some liberals and feminists felt at the result, it seems to be largely taken for granted among women I meet that there will be a female (liberal or conservative) in the White House someday. This has led me to wonder what kind of future female President would prove a good role model for women both in America and around the world. 

As an Irish person who, before August of this year, had never been to the US, I cannot claim to be an expert in American politics. My perspective therefore is merely that of a respectful “outsider looking in,” and is based on experience and knowledge of my own country, Ireland.

In Ireland we can claim some pedigree when it comes to women Presidents. Two of our last three Presidents have been females, Mary Robinson (1990-97) and Mary McAleese (1997-2011). Of course, unlike America, Ireland is no superpower. Our international profile could never equal that of the US. Irish Government also works differently to here. Our Presidents are more figureheads than politicians, with the political role kept separate and played by the Taoiseach (Prime Minister). This is very different to America where the President combines both the figurehead and political functions. All this makes comparisons between the two offices neither easy nor always reasonable.

Nevertheless, I feel that Ireland’s two past female Presidents merit at least some consideration as good role models for feminists and any future, aspiring American woman President. Both Robinson and McAleese played pivotal roles in transforming Ireland into a more liberal, peaceful and inclusive society. In their own different ways, too, each showed examples of compassion, courage and sincerity that, to my mind, ought to resonate with all women. 

On a personal level, I initially came to admire Robinson because she was the first Head of State of any country to visit my own native West Belfast. This was an area whose people had been devastated by the Irish ‘Troubles’ of the 1960s to mid-90s and which had become deeply embittered by decades-long marginalization and repression. In the teeth of establishment outrage, Robinson went into West Belfast and publicly praised the spirit of its long suffering community. She also, on her visit, met with and shook hands with the community’s then infamous elected representative, Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams. It was a vital and key first step in the Irish peace process.

Likewise, Robinson challenged traditional Irish nationalist shibboleths by becoming the first Irish President both to visit the United Kingdom and to meet, at Buckingham Palace, a British monarch, the present Queen Elizabeth II. On foot of this, she welcomed senior members of the British royal family, most notably the Prince of Wales, to her official residence in Dublin, Áras an Uachtaráin. These were bold moves that dramatically changed the face of existing Anglo-Irish relations.

For me, though, the most compelling example Robinson gave us of a great female Presidential role model came in 1992. She was one of the first world leaders, at that time, to highlight publicly the horrors of famine and genocide in Somalia and Rwanda. After personally visiting, over 3 days, thousands of sick and dying refugees across the region, a visibly tearful and shaken Irish woman President stood before the press cameras and famously declared:- 

“I’m sorry that I cannot be entirely calm speaking to you, because I have such a sense of what the world must take responsibility for.”

Her words and demeanour on this occasion shamed the West into action and led to the first concerted international humanitarian response to the Somalian and Rwandan crises.

Robinson’s successor, Mary McAleese, during her time in office, worked tirelessly to address issues of sectarianism and violence in the north of Ireland through an openly declared policy of “building bridges”. Picking up the mantle of her predecessor, McAleese invited Britain’s Queen Elizabeth to make a first ever state visit to the Republic of Ireland in 2011 – a move that initially discomfited some Irish Republicans but ultimately helped open a new door - not necessarily of agreement - but certainly respect and understanding between them and the British Royal Family. 

Early in her Presidency, McAleese also incurred the wrath of the then powerful, male dominated Catholic hierarchy in Ireland by accepting communion in an Anglican church. Although a devout Catholic herself, McAleese saw the move in the context of Ireland’s long history of religious conflict. For her, respecting and representing Irish people of different religious traditions was a core, and hugely important, responsibility of her office. 

It was a similar sense of duty that impelled McAleese, as President, to call for the complete deconstruction of homophobia in Ireland. In a broadcast from Áras an Uachtaráin (Ireland’s equivalent to an Oval Office) McAleese endorsed the Irish LGBT rights campaign and praised campaigners for working to bring fully to fruition the country’s founding Proclamation that “all the children of the nation shall be cherished equally”. In 2010 she signed into law the state’s first legislation recognising the validity of same sex relationships (civil partnerships). Within 5 years of this, attitudes to LGBT people in Ireland had changed so dramatically that the country, by popular referendum, voted to amend the Irish constitution to allow for same sex marriage. The extent of the shift in Irish social attitudes that McAleese helped bring about is no better testified than by the appointment, just last June, of Ireland's first openly gay Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Leo Varadakar. It is an extraordinary change in a country formerly dominated by the Catholic church.

It seems to me, then, that in order to become a great role model for women in the US and across the world, the first American woman President should consider becoming a transforming President, at least in the spirit of Robinson and McAleese. Ireland is, of course, a tiny country. But perhaps women from even a great country, like the US, who aspire to great political office, like the American President, can sometimes look towards a small country and draw some inspiration? Perhaps too, that first American woman President, when she takes office, might be able to connect, in some way, with the thoughts of Mary Robinson, after she was elected Ireland’s first woman President:-

“I must be a President for all the people, but more than that, I want to be a President for all the people. Because I was elected by men and women of all parties and none, by many with great moral courage, who stepped out from the faded flags of the Civil War and voted for a new Ireland, and above all by the women of Ireland, mná na hÉireann, who instead of rocking the cradle, rocked the system. And who came out massively to make their mark on the ballot paper and on a new Ireland.”

No YOU shut up...

Hillary Clinton has always been a polarizing figure for the left and right. However, since the 2016 presidential contest the ever-present debate between her detractors and supporters seems to emanate loudest from the political left. The anger arises, in part, from passionate Bernie Sanders supporters, who feel Clinton is too centrist and that the Democratic party was biased in its support for Clinton in the primaries. Additionally, a vocal number of disillusioned "party line" Dems resent Clinton for bungling what should have, in theory, been a slam dunk campaign. Both sides criticize her post-election for remaining visible and vocal... "picking at old wounds" wrought by the improbable election of Donald Trump to the presidency.

This debate was reinvigorated with the recent release of Clinton's post-election memoir What Happened (full disclosure: my hardcover copy is being lovingly packaged and shipped through the magic of Amazon Prime as I write this blog post) and her accompanying book tour (full disclosure: I will be attending her Davis, CA event with bells on). Reading commentary on Clinton's book and tour, I found not everyone was thrilled to hear from her. Predictably, traditional and social media were full of criticism. As is typical with criticism of Clinton, the language ranged from condescending, to harsh, to vulgar.

Allow me to present some charming excerpts:

“The best thing she could do is disappear.”

"What’s to be done with Hillary Clinton, the woman who won’t go away?"

"Hillary . . . is a major optimist. That’s great for persistence and mental well-being. She’s ready to keep driving the bus. But it’s not so great for knowing when to quit. That’s where the passengers come in."

"The vibe I'm getting is that Democrats wish someone would just lock her in the basement indefinitely. Not in a cold, damp, dark cellar exactly, but locked in a basement — perhaps one with carpeting and high windows — that she can't climb out of."

"Hey, Hillary Clinton, shut the f--- up and go away already."

Of course, there is significant precedent for shushing women in politics. This certainly isn't Clinton's first rodeo. As Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Maxine Waters can tell you, when you're a powerful woman with something to say, inevitably someone is waiting to interrupt you, talk over you, or just plain tell you to "shut the f--- up." And lord help you if you if you're a woman with an axe to grind...

The ire directed at Clinton largely focuses on her alleged inability to "take responsibility" for the failure of her campaign. Instead, the argument goes, she blames sexism, she blames the media, she blames Jim Comey, she blames Russia, she blames Bernie Sanders. It's not enough that she suffered a humiliating election defeat to a ridiculously unqualified misogynist. It was her fault, and now she must suffer in silent, demure penance for her role in the entire catastrophe.

To borrow a term of art from Clinton's critics, I say, shut the f--- up.

I want Hillary to painstakingly dissect the 2016 presidential election. I want her to turn over every rock and connect every dot. I want her to ruminate. I want her anger. I want her frank opinion. I want to hear from the woman who was in the eye of the storm. I want to heed her warnings, her wisdom, and her advice to women who will follow in her footsteps. I want to know what happened. And you know what? It sounds like Hillary's version of events - involving sexism, terrible media coverage, and a corrupt Trump campaign aided by Russia - is being corroborated by an ever-growing mountain of evidence.

The one year anniversary of Trump's election is around the corner and the fact that he is running the country is ever-maddening. I fear for our nation's most vulnerable citizens on a daily basis: our immigrants who live in the shadow of deportations, our sick and disabled who depend on the ever-threatened ACA for healthcare, and our people of color who are dealing (as they always have) with blatant racism and white supremacy... now with the implicit (and some would argue, explicit) endorsement of the administration. Our public education system is being undermined, our environmental protections are being dismantled, and our system of government and political norms are under constant stress.

I think many reasonable people can agree that our country is facing a crisis. Yet all the while a parade of men within and around the Trump administration continue to bend over backwards to defend the indefensible, embarrass themselves, and practice blatant hypocrisy, only to show up later, unabashed, in the public eye because... you know... the past is the past.

We've got a lot of problems... but you know what doesn't feel like a problem? Hearing from the intelligent, thoughtful, badass woman who should have been president.

How to Respond to this Election - Part I "Everyday Activism"

The results of the 2016 election of Donald Trump had been affecting me for over a week before I found a way to articulate my sentiments about it. “Found a way” is incorrect; my emotions, one day, spilled out of me in a torrent of words that rushed like a river ice-floe. Along with many others in this country, I had been alternating between grief and helplessness, between anger and resentment, between despair and hope for seven days and then, finally, I spoke.

Though it was just to my partner Ben, alone in the car, what a relief it was to say:

“I’m despondent to live in a country who has elected a leader that, despite his feeble arguments to the contrary, has indicated that misogyny and sexual assault of women are more than OK with him. I’m terrified that my beloved compatriots from marginalized racial and ethnic groups can now be openly discriminated against and that all our efforts to reform police racism and ethnocentrism may be slowed. I'm sad that queer people might soon struggle to see same-sex partners in the hospital. I'm anxious for the future of our environment. And . . .” There were tears in my eyes now, “Last Tuesday I woke up believing that a woman could ascend to the highest position of power in this county. On Wednesday, I found, to my disbelief, that she can’t. Not yet. And perhaps she never will in my lifetime. I feel like women will be second-class citizens for much longer than I expected.”

I couldn't believe my own words, but there they were sitting between us as we speed around the curve of the 101 North into the Mission district of San Francisco. When we got to the Mission, I looked around at the brilliant multi-faceted community of that neighborhood. I thought of all the aspects of humanity that I love there. My thoughts went something like:

LGBTQIA folks of the Mission remind me that love and relationships can reach beyond prosaic boundaries. Thinking about them, I hear the opinions of Trump nominees like Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions echoing around my head. Rich cultural traditions bring amazing art, food, spirituality, and diverse thinking to the Mission. My stomach turns when I think of the sheer panic that many immigrants will now live in. The variety of race, skin tone, ethnicity, and background in collaboration makes the Mission a space of kinship and appreciation across differing experience. I am filled with anguish about the highly racist environment our president-elect seems to be vivifying. According to recent scholarship, American Latinas (the Mission is a highly Latino and Chicano community) have "rapidly surfaced as prominent contributors to the educational, economic, and cultural wellbeing of not only their own ethnicity, but of American society and the consumer marketplace." Despite the dynamic, impressive contributions that Latinas make to my world every day, all I can think of is how to respond to the devastation those women must feel.

Ben and I sat at dinner in sullen silence that night in the Mission, depressed about our nation.We'd chosen a lovely little restaurant to eat at, but we could only stare out at the vibrant neighborhood that we love, which suddenly felt under siege.

Over the next few days, I had the luck to be researching for a Mediation paper. The research largely focused on the work-arounds, negotiations, and maneuvers women have used to navigate the age-old imbalance of power in a "man's world". In my research, I discovered Professor James C. Scott, a political scientist who argues that everyday forms of resistance "are an integral part of the small arsenal of relatively powerless groups." He gives examples such as "foot-dragging, dissimulations, false compliance, feigned ignorance, desertion" and more that can act as potent negotiating tactics for those out of power.

I loved this idea! While I cannot deny Donald Trump's impending presidency because it's happening whether I like it or not, suddenly, I realized I could respond to it. I could respect our government, but at the same time, I could find my own "everyday forms of resistance" in keeping with a long female tradition of doing so. I was heartened to see that Jill Filipovic in Esquire, Matt Taylor in Vice, Jaya Saxena in the Daily Dot, and staff at Seattle's The Stranger have all been publishing hope along similar lines.

So, I intend to use this blog post and my subsequent post to recommend some ways that those of us who feel powerless, who feel overwhelmed --who believe in our government, but not in the hatred and small-mindedness that it seems to be sanctioning-- can react and respond.

Part I "Everyday Activism"

Here is a small list of the #smallacts that have gained traction. Perhaps our small acts can make meaningful, loving, large ripples.

1. Consider donating to Planned Parenthood in Mike Pence's name, as 50,000 people have done.
2. Learn how to talk to children about hate speech, as this new Equal Justice Society guide recommends.
3. If you live in California, consider volunteering/being an ally at one of the UC's AB540 offices, such as the Undocumented Student Center here at UC Davis.
4. Contact your senators to oppose Trump nominations and appointments of people who have disgraceful civil rights records (for example).
5. Support mayors who intend to keep their cities Sanctuary Cities.
6. Keep apprised of Trump's intention to scale back environmental regulation, and perhaps volunteer with orgs like the American Lung Association to raise awareness about clean air.
7. Remember that women all over the world are being oppressed, and may struggle with much greater persecution than people of female gender here in the US. Consider supporting women's rights in Rwanda, in Nigeria, in Bangladesh, and all over the world.

These are just small things, but they have helped me keep my chin up. I hope they help you too.

Stay tuned for Part II "Get Legal" !

Empowerment in Protecting the Male Ego

To be male means to be strong and powerful. To be male means to be hard-working and in control. To be male means to be needed by women.

Men generally consider that women require a male presence in their lives for various reasons. That they need men in their everyday life to carry out the menial tasks that they, as females, couldn’t possibly undertake. For instance, men earn a living in the public sphere to provide for their wives at home caring for their children and cleaning their houses. Women should not strive to work outside the home. Should they do such a thing, the male species would be at a loss. What purpose would men serve then?

Upon consideration of this I began to realise the power women truly have over men. By the definition of the word, a man will only feel superior to a woman if he believes he is better and more capable than she is. Therefore, when women break this stereotype, the man is insecure in himself and unsure of what his role is. In this sense, women have a lot of power. We have the power to allow men to feel needed, even when they may not be.

In an episode of ‘That 70s Show’ that I recently came across, a seventeen-year-old girl is scolded by her mother for not allowing her boyfriend to feel like the “man” in the relationship. She goes on to explain that, while making your own abilities seem lesser for the benefit of the man seems anti-feminist, it is, in itself, an act of feminism. Allowing one’s self to appear weaker and more fragile in front of a man is a means by which one can gain a great deal of control. While he believes you require his strength and/or varying abilities, you are, in fact, permitting him to feel this way. The power is in the hands of the woman to determine the outcome of the situation. In this way, the man believes he has a great deal of power. In reality, however, any power he believes he might have, has  been granted to him by the woman. In this way it can, just as easily, be taken away.

This issue can be seen quite clearly in Trump’s very questionable campaign for presidency. It is very obvious that much of his strategy, to improve his own image, involves the insulting of others, no one more so than his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Trump attacks not only all of womankind but, specifically, Mrs. Clinton. In an attempt to make her look like an incapable candidate, he couldn’t help but attack her appearance.

“She doesn't have the look. She doesn't have the stamina”.

The attack serves to claim that Clinton is much too weak to serve as the President of the United States. He uses her ill health as a means of belittling her in front of the nation, portraying her as frail and old.

“She doesn't have the strength and she doesn't have the energy to be president”.

Could it be possible, however, for Clinton to draw a sense of power from this? Trump uses her supposed fragility to reinstate his masculinity and protective power but, if this is a candidate who relies on the shortcomings of his opponent’s well-being to further his own position, what legitimate strength does he have? It makes me wonder about the tactics Trump would adopt were he running against a man. It is an example of how a strong female highlights his insecurities. It is to be acknowledged that women can draw a sense of empowerment from this knowledge.

This hilarious JustBoobs sketch deals with the fragility of the male ego in a very satirical way. The women in this video address the many ways in which women should be careful about damaging men’s confidence. It comically describes the many ways in which women are expected to put themselves down to protect the feelings of a man. The conception that a man is required by females is ironic given man’s greater need for women. I feel it is a very positive way to view the many ways in which males have a tendency to try and put women down. Whether or not the woman is willing to act on this control, it is empowering in itself to know that one has the power to make a man feel almost entirely obsolete.  In this way, to be female is to be needed by men. 

If a woman finds sanctuary in her work, does that make her less real?

A friend of mine read a recent blog post that I wrote about Hillary Clinton, and emailed me her passionate support of my viewpoint. It seemed an innocuous and pleasing email, until I realized that my friend endures an injustice that I hadn't often considered. My friend, let's call her M, was particularly taken with a New York Times article cited in the blog post called Why Is Clinton Disliked?. This article, penned by David Brooks, essentially determines that Hillary's overwhelming issue is that she isn't intimate enough to the public because she is a workaholic.

Brooks goes on to say that for people who are "consumed by their professional activities," the "professional role comes to dominate the personality and encroaches on the normal intimacies of the soul." This comment made me wonder, are men frequently expected to engage in "intimacies of the soul" in our society? I think not. Brooks is thus likely criticizing women "workaholics" in particular, as opposed to workaholics in general.

The idea of this article deeply troubled M. She is extraordinarily career-oriented, and she was particularly bothered by the ending of the Brooks article: "Even successful lives need these sanctuaries — in order to be a real person instead of just a productive one. It appears that we don’t really trust candidates who do not show us theirs." To this, M responded: "Which begs the question: what if a person finds sanctuary in their work? Does this make them less 'real'?" She was worried, in particular, if it made her less real. I'm worried it might make me less real, too.

This worry led me to dig into a question that I thought feminism and our great nation had answered long ago: what do we think of passionately working (er . . .'workaholic') women? What I found was horrifying. I found a Huffington Post article  called 10 Things Nobody Tells You About Being A Single, Career-Oriented Woman in Your Twenties, whose main gist was to discourage women from being career-oriented in their twenties, because, "you’ll wake up one day without having a husband or kids, which is not what you wanted." This article also contained this gem:

6. Men who you meet socially will not necessarily love your success (they may even be intimidated by it). 

Remember the bell curve? Well, you’re toward one end of it. And there’s a good chance that a lot of people who you meet socially won’t be on the same end of that bell curve as you. Suddenly, you’re either at work with your equally-achieving, married male colleagues or you’re out at the bar dancing to 2 Chainz. Not great.

To be fair, the author of the above article had recently been dumped for being 'career-oriented.' However, I couldn't believe her words. I thought that she must be the only person on the internet following so heartily in Phyllis Schlafly's footsteps, but of course not. While British media messages encourage women to 'get fertile,' here in the US, Penelope Trunk encourages you to find a partner fast. Here, a working mother loses custody of her children to their father, unemployed for years, who she had "begged to get a job" to help support the family. This is apparently very common.

But what are women to do in a world where they are seen as less reliable, or less hire-able because of the assumption that they are less invested in work than men? And how are women to rebound when they're also seen as breaking the rules if they do put in the extra hours, succeed, ask for higher pay, or promote themselves?

It seems a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation to me. So what can M., who loves her work, is captivated by it, who finds her work a sanctuary, do? What can I do?

I think the best we can do, as women, is to find encouragement and power in a variety of places, and continue to do what feels the most right for our own lives. One of the places both M. and I find solace is in the professors we admire. These are professionals on the forefront of the fight for disability rights, women's rights, privacy rights, and more, and they still fight for their work-life balances-- whatever that means to them. Sometimes life can be work and work can be life and that's OK, too. One admirable professor, Thomas Joo, says this about the study of law:

The lawyer learns to speak the language of the law, and in that language, he or she not only speaks the law, but also speaks about the law. Or, to put it another way, the difference between law and zoology is that zoologists do not train to become elephants. Nor do elephants bother studying zoology. But legal education requires learning both to think like a lawyer and to critically analyze that method of thinking—in other words, to become both elephant and zoologist.

Professional women must do this, too. We must learn both to think like "the ideal worker" who excels in systems built to embrace men, and we also must learn to critically analyze that method of thinking. We must resist the pressure of patriarchal work environments and look with a critical eye at their legacies. Yet we must still try to live our own ideal of success and fulfillment in the patriarchal system as it is, despite being shamed or seen as "less real." What other choice do we have than to be both the elephant and the zoologist?

This tactic of changing the system from within it might just work, too. Perhaps, with innovations like "Worker Coops" and "Results-Only Work Environments" (ROWE was developed by two women), the woman who finds sanctuary in her work may be the wave of the future. Go M., go! Keep your nose in your appellate briefs and books and articles. Publish as much as you can. I believe in you. In my eyes, you are the best kind of real.

Breaking the glass ceiling; is this enough?

The term "glass ceiling" is used to describe the transparent barrier that prevents women and other minorities from climbing up the corporate ladder in the workplace. When Hillary Clinton was elected as the first female candidate for a major political party, her first words at the National Democratic Convention were:

I can't believe we just put the biggest crack in the glass ceiling yet.

Despite this historical achievement, the media have continued to base their commentary on superficial aspects of this campaign, sometimes writing solely about Hillary Clinton's hair. An article in the New York Daily News suggested that Clinton presents a good presidential look because of her "perfect highlights" on the cover of her new book.

Have any other news broadcasters published a similar article commenting on Donald Trump's hair? My research suggests not (despite the fact that his hair raises far more questions than Hillary Clinton's and in my opinion demands further explanation.) Nor was there an equivalent article written during the publication of Barack Obama's book before he was elected.

These observations beg the question: in the eyes of the media, when will women's achievements ever be enough? It scares me to think that in future generations, those for which this "glass ceiling" is deemed nothing more than a historical metaphor, successful women will still be required, on top of everything else, to meet superficial expectations for their looks.

If I have a daughter in later life, I imagine her coming to me at a young age, innocence and determination in her eyes as she confidently tells me she would like to become the head of government when she grows up. What would my reply be? "That is wonderful honey, but even after you have successfully come through your education, built a credible political reputation and gained the trust and respect of the nation, you must then prove your candidate worthiness by having well groomed hair and exuding an overall 'presidential look'."

This dual-standard for women to not only prove themselves professionally but to also satisfy certain expectations for their demeanor and looks is manifested in pop culture. It is hyper-sexualised in the showbiz and entertainment industries. This conceivably adds an additional tier to the glass ceiling, a further requirement in order to be deemed 'the ultimate woman'.

The roast of Justin Bieber was the third most watched ever for Comedy Central. Undoubtedly, the vast majority of these viewers were adolescents, mainly young girls. The roasting panel featured Martha Stewart who was praised afterwards for her dry and vulgar jokes. In her conclusion, the lifestyle personality advised the rebellious heart-throb to search for an influential, powerful woman to marry. She described this ideal future spouse as:

...a player in the boardroom and a freak in the bedroom. 

Pop-icon Usher released a hit song in which he expresses longing for a woman who is:

...a lady in the streets and a freak in the sheets.

This can be contrasted with self-proclaimed feminist Lilly Allen's lyrics:

If I told you about my sex life, you'd call me a slut but boys are talkin' bout their b****** and no one's making a fuss. 

In the eyes of the media, a woman who excels in the public sphere must also encompass the male's ideal in the private sphere. We are told that on top of other facets such as intelligence, relatability, humour, kindness and determination, women must also look good and have sex appeal. When I graduate from college and pursue a career practicing law, I hope that I will be evaluated on my hard work and quality of service to clients, not on my hairstyle.

Sexism; A Thing of Subtlety?

It has only recently come to my attention that, while painfully present in today’s society, sexism has become a very subtle thing. I look at advertising and the media and lack outrage. It was only when watching excerpts from ‘MissRepresentation’ in class this week that I realised, while I am fully aware of the inappropriate way in which women are portrayed by the media, I have a tendency to ignore it. I have become so used to the hyper-sexualisation of females that I now barely recognise the underlying current behind it. I was brought up watching women be exposed this way to a point that I subconsciously accept it. 

In the aftermath of Thursday’s class, I spent a lot of time considering just how affected by the media we really are. Essentially, it is everywhere. The average adult spends 20 hours a week online. What is even worse than this statistic is that the impressionable teenagers of our generation, are spending an average of 27 hours online every week. During this time, they are being exposed to images that are unrealistic portrayals of the female body. Websites such as Facebook and Instagram are forums for people to display themselves, to show the world the best physical version of themselves. Many take these as opportunities to distort themselves and their natural appearance with the intention of gaining “likes” and “followers”. The concern for people using these sites is rarely the substance of their post and, often, the popularity it will help them achieve.

Moreover, the media is also feeding women and girls a false notion that their highest priority is to look like the best version of themselves. Amy Schumer recently highlighted this issue on her Instagram page. She posted a photo in which a magazine aimed at women was placed next to a magazine aimed toward men. The cover of the male-oriented magazine contained the headline “Explore Your Future” while the female cover stories were much more superficial, for example, “Your Dream Hair”. This shocked and outraged me. How is such blatant sexism on display? After further consideration, I realised that I witness such things on a very regular basis and never find myself noticing or caring about them. Sexism has become a thing so normal to me that I am basically unaware of its existence in the media until someone else draws my attention to it. 

The thing that struck me most by the documentary, however, was not just the way in which women are scrutinised but the extent to which it occurs. Watching and learning about the comparisons and contrasts made between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin made me very concerned about the criticism we, as women, are bound to face. Regardless of their appearance and whether or not it was considered attractive, they were being scrutinised based on how they looked. Clinton, a dignified woman with plenty of experience and qualification, was being regarded as old and haggard. While Palin, on the other hand, a young mother who was considered to be very beautiful looking had, due to her good-looks, difficulty being taken seriously. It seems to me that, by this standard, women can never win. Either you are criticised for not looking the right way or you are criticised for looking the right way but that, in turn, meaning you couldn’t possibly be regarded in a sincere way.

It scares me that these comments are made so frequently. Everyday new stories emerge in the media and new photos are posted online, all accentuating the “perfect” way to look. In the lead up to summer everyone is so worried about getting that “perfect bikini body” and all the tabloids are trying to guarantee women the quickest and easiest route to getting there. But men don’t wear bikinis. Where is the pressure for men to get the “perfect swimming-trunks body”? We see these messages and allow them to influence us without ever really noticing that they do. I see coverage of the presidential election and accept the media’s perception of Hillary Clinton because she is a woman, without ever paying homage to the fact that a man in the same position would never be regarded from such an angle.  I worry that somewhere down the line we grew so accustomed to sexism that it is now almost acceptable. 

Hillary as mediator: why the job of POTUS might suit her more than you think . . .

For several months now, I’ve been wanting to love Hillary. She’s already my candidate because of the lesser-of-two-evils-condition of this election, but I’ve felt very conflicted. I don’t resonate with her as a person, but I get instantaneous tears in my eyes when I watch her enter a stage. That woman, right there, that person of my gender, could be our next president. I want this so badly I get a lump in my throat typing it.

. . . But I’m still not able to connect with Hillary. And I’m not alone. I decided to do some soul-searching (and more research) into what makes Hillary less accessible than other politicians, though she is a powerhouse of a lawmaker. Once you look into her approval ratings, what you see is that the nation approves of Hillary more when she’s working in a job than when she’s trying to garner their approval in a campaign. This is strange, but you start to see the pattern all over the place: she frequently delivers stilted, 'shrill' speeches, but when she was a Senator, she amended 67 bills in eight years and served on five senate committees. As Secretary of State, she brought Iran to the negotiating table, improved US-Cuba relations, increased exports to China, and more. These are no small feats, and people liked her while she was accomplishing them. So where is the disconnect between her success and her, well . . . popularity?

The thing that makes Hillary less accessible has a name. In his illuminating article Understanding Hillary: Why the Clinton America Sees Isn’t the Clinton Colleagues Know, Ezra Klein calls this “the Gap:”

There is the Hillary Clinton I watch on the nightly news and that I read described in the press. She is careful, calculated, cautious. Her speeches can sound like executive summaries from a committee report, the product of too many authors, too many voices, and too much fear of offense. . . And then there is the Hillary Clinton described to me by people who have worked with her, people I admire, people who understand Washington in ways I never will.

I now see exactly what Klein sees in Hillary. What’s more, I have come to see that the Gap is why I think she will make an incredible President.

As this is legal blog, I’d like to frame things from a lawyering prospective. Clinton is an attorney, as are over half of past presidents. It thus seems fitting to apply the profession to her demeanor. I feel there are really three types of lawyers. There are (1) the orating-suave-extroverted types, (2) the attention-to-detail-introverted-sharp-witted types, and (3) the mediating-community-organizing-consensus-building types. Most lawyer-politicians fit entirely into category (1), or are sometimes a mix between (1) and (2) (read: Bernie Sanders). The category (1) lawyers are the ones that have the most success with campaigning: they are affable, charming, and thrilled to hear themselves speak. However, Hillary is right between lawyers (2) and (3), she has nearly none of the natural orator in her. She, in contrast to nearly all of her peers, is a listener. Though she was a litigator in the past, I think that Hillary’s personality makes her more of a perfect mediator.

She embodies all the qualities of a great mediator (learned in my Mediation course with Steven Rosenberg, here at UC Davis). First, she’s an incredibly active listener embarking on “listening tours” to kick off her last two campaigns and is inclined to use what she hears (e.g. ‘card-table time’ wherein she re-reads all her notes from listening and develops policy). Second, her work-style is collaborative and consensus building. Though this is sometimes to her detriment, it gains her great loyalty and gives her a large network of people from whom she can ask favors and ideas. Third, she is flexible, and fourth she is creative in developing thoughtful initiatives like this one. Finally, Hillary is persistent. It doesn’t take much to see that she has been working toward higher political office -perhaps even toward this very race- since possibly the mid-eighties.

To my mind, these qualities make her a perfect fit for the presidential office. Indeed, Matthew Yglesias is in accord in his Vox article Hillary Clinton is bad at speeches for the exact reasons she'd be a good president:

The very qualities that tend to make Clinton bad at speechwriting — a penchant for the least-common-denominator and a passion for making sure no small thing is forgotten — are qualities that are extremely relevant to effective leadership in a political system that’s built to favor transactional relationships over big ideas.

I’m interested in a president who listens, who is consensus building, who is flexible and creative, and who remains persistent despite the great quantity of hate coming her way. I'm enthused by what I now know about Hillary's style of leadership. It is worth noting that all of these Mediator qualities are also seen as traditional female qualities (female leadership strengths tend to be undervalued, BTW; also see an unpacking of the complicated concept of female ‘traits’ in Judith Baer’s book Our Lives Before the Law: Constructing a Feminist Jurisprudence). However, great Mediator traits aren't solely ascribable to females, in fact there are more males in the Alternative Dispute Resolution professions in the US than there are females.

I am thus not persuaded that it’s simply Hillary’s femaleness that informs this mediation-type leadership style; women have been shown to take all kinds of approaches to accomplish mediated results. I think Hillary has simply discovered the method of governance that works for her. I am inspired by that method.

Now that I'm learning about mediation, I'm likely to favor it over the exorbitant cost of litigation. I’m similarly inclined, based on similar learning, to favor a mediating president over a fighter who may cost the country a lot in the long-run.

I am now overwhelmingly on board with scores of other women who support Hillary. I’ll sing that fight song with you every time, Ms. Clinton. There’s that darn lump in my throat again.

Breaking the Mold of Gender Stereotypes

A natural gender distinction exists in society. Children are taught from a young age that their clothes are labelled. Blue is for boys. Pink is for girls. The entertainment industry has taken this distinction to new extremes.

The totality of the popular Nintendo game ‘Super Mario Bros.’ depicts brave Mario on his dangerous quest to find and rescue Princess Peach, the misfortunate beauty who is being held hostage in evil Bowser’s castle. 

In the James Bond franchise, the secret agent with rippling pectoral muscles is famous for his one-night stands and chauvinistic attitude towards the women around him. A common thread weaves these, and most other popular phenomenon’s together- the woman is always the inferior character, the ‘damsel in distress’. 

While some progression has been made in the entertainment industry with heroines like Katniss Everdeen and Hermoine Granger, it is clear that we must see stronger growth before our children can experience a non-gender discriminatory society.

The upcoming US presidential election magnifies the above and depicts this discrimination on the real-life world stage. While I can appreciate that having a women candidate is remarkable, I find it upsetting that this gender classification has been the vocal point of the campaign.

In my home country of Ireland, woman have featured heavily in politics for many years. Two of the previous three presidents of Ireland have been women. While the Chief Justice of Ireland, Susan Denham, is the first female to hold this position, women are commonly seen in other judicial roles such as Supreme Court Justices (three in total) and High Court Justices (ten in total). 

The political leaders of any nation should be a fair depiction of all that nation represents. They should view their country as a cohesive whole, and give respect to their distinctive traditions, language and political beliefs.

Before a nation identifies under any of these categories, we can describe its citizens in the most basic of terms: ALL inhabitants of that particular state. Fundamental to this explanation is the equal composition of men and women. 

Of the 2010 USA Census population, 157.0 million were female (50.8 percent) while 151.8 million were male (49.2 percent). A female-led government should therefore not be painted as such a shock factor for this upcoming election. 

Perhaps I take for granted how lucky I am to have been raised in a country where gender-balanced leadership is not an elusive concept. I hope the citizens of America realise their duty to move towards change and to work towards discontinuing the permeation of the above pop-culture gender stereotypes in the real world.

If we stop defining each other by what we are not, and start defining ourselves by who we are, we can all be a lot freer  Emma Watson

Hillary’s Trump Card: The Woman’s Card

This was a few weeks ago, but it still makes me laugh. The presumptive Republican candidate for President (*shudders*), Donald Trump, recently made headlines when he stated that the only reason Hillary was succeeding was because she was playing the “woman’s card” and that if she were not a woman she would only be getting 5% of the vote.

The complete nonsense of the premise behind his statement has been broken down in many places, but I’d like to focus this piece on the power of humor.

One of my favorite WaPo bloggers, Alexandra Petri, won the internet in my opinion with her excellent piece Play the ‘woman card’ and reap these ‘rewards’!. I don’t even feel like I can quote from the article because every single line is so good. I’ll wait here while you go read it before continuing.

Within hours (minutes?) of Trump’s statement, #womancard was trending on Twitter:

And it still is, weeks later:

Women across the country have united against Trump’s outright sexism and misogyny and have proudly proclaimed their support for Hillary (see also #imwithher). A Kickstarter campaign for a deck of cards with famous women has raised almost $120,000. Hillary’s campaign is selling an “Official Woman Card.”

While the Bernie Bros’ #HillaryDropOut and #NeverHillary campaigns are a frustrating distraction (see here for an excellent take-down of the privilege inherent in the #NeverHillary camp), the overall tone on Twitter and elsewhere has made me proud and happy to be a part of the Internet generation. For once, a social media campaign by women, on behalf of women, has succeeded. The key, I think, has been humor. I hope that the success of the #womancard campaign inspires Hillary and Democrats to continue working the meme-scape into November. Because the only way to fight Trump (and win the youth vote) might just be to point and laugh at the absurdity.

Steak or salad: food is just another tool of the patriarchy

Growing up, whenever something delicious touched my mouth, my grandma would look at me and say “a minute on your lips, forever on your hips.”

Her message was clear: don’t get fat. Her words exemplified the message I internalized every time I fueled my body. Girls and women in America are subliminally, and sometimes openly encouraged to eat fewer calories, be dainty, and indulge sparingly (because life is hard).

A few weeks ago, while campaigning in New York, Hillary Clinton stopped for some ice cream. While chowing down on her sundae (Pictures seem to indicate she ordered both chocolate and vanilla. Undoubtedly, a politically calculated move), a male reporter asked her how many calories were in her ice cream. Clinton, along with the crowd, erupted in a chorus of boos. The Internet properly responded posing the question: If it had been a male candidate, would he have been asked that same question? Almost certainly not.

Marketing manipulates our eating habits, and our eating expectations. Foods marketed towards women generally have low-calorie or low-fat labels (which are usually pink or purple). Advertisements encourage the female consumers to “indulge.” Where marketing suggests that men loveburgers and steak, it tells us women favor yogurt and quiche. 

In a recent episode of Modern Family,  a female character, Claire, struggled to adjust to her new business position as a company executive. In an effort to prove she was just as powerful as her manly predecessor, she ordered steak and scotch at lunch. After a summer of associate lunches, and then this episode of Modern Family, I started wondering if “manly” food is associated with power?

Men can fire up the grill and indulge in steak anytime they want. Yet women have strict societal limits on when it’s okay to indulge. Women can indulge when they need to. And even when women are permitted to indulge, we must indulge in certain foods: most notably chocolate. Chocolate is society’s treat of choice for women.

Women are expected to eat chocolate and pints of ice cream as a coping mechanism formenstruation, stress and break ups. And even women indulging, we must be careful not to overindulge. Cadbury recently released a new chocolate bar for women, Crispello. The chocolate comes packaged in three re-sealable sections so women can eat part of the bar in one sitting, and save the rest for later. 

Women eat less in the company of men. Studies tell us this isn’t just about our physiques, but also how we are perceived when we indulge.

Women worry about that they eat, how much they eat, and what people think of them while they’re eating. When Hillary Clinton defiantly stuck her spoon in that sundae, she was defying billions of marketing dollars telling her she should resist.