Marianne Schnall has some thoughts.
by Candace Mittel
Macey Hensley is as adorable as they come—a bright-eyed and chipper five-year-old girl. Wearing a pale yellow button-down tucked into dark bell-bottom jeans, she sits eagerly on the edge of her sofa-chair across from a clearly entertained Ellen DeGeneres. Macey’s outfit and attitude alike have maturity far beyond that of your typical kindergartener. Macey is on the show (which aired February 16) because she’s a United States President enthusiast; she knows not only every president in order, but all kinds of quirky facts about our nation’s leaders as well. “Ooh!” she exclaims, “by the end of Washington’s presidency, he only had one real tooth left!” and “They called his [Rutherford B Hays] wife ‘Lemonade Lucy’ ‘cause she never served alcohol at the White House!” Ellen and the crowd are loving it. As impressive as Macey’s presidential knowledge is, especially at such a young age, the real standout fact is Macey’s life ambition. “What do you want to do when you grow up?” Ellen asks and without a pause, the little girl’s face lights, her mouth widens: “Become president!” The audience cheers and roars.
But when I think of Macey growing up, when I imagine her as a budding teen in 10 years, I worry. “You can’t be what you can’t see.” I first learned this motto, a Dr. Marian Write Edelman quote, from the 2011 Sundance Film Festival documentary Miss Representation. This adage also emerges in many of the interviews in Marianne Schnall’s 2013 book, What Will It Take To Make A Woman President. Schnall’s motivation for the book came when her eight-year-old daughter asked a distressing question: “Why haven’t we ever had a woman president?” Searching for answers, Schnall interviewed some of the United States’ most influential politicians, public officials, thought leaders, artists and activists—including Sheryl Sandberg, Maya Angelou, Gloria Steinem, Nancy Pelosi, Nicholas Kristof, Melissa Etheridge, and more. I had the great pleasure of speaking with Schnall over the phone about her insights and most meaningful takeaways from her book.
First and foremost, Schnall told me that one of the most important benefits of having a woman president “is visual, for young girls, to see a woman reach that milestone, and know that they could aspire to whatever they wanted to be, including the highest office in the land.” That’s why, regardless of personal politics, we should all be genuinely excited for 2016. Suspicions of Hillary Clinton’s presidential candidacy have been brewing for a long time, but it wasn’t until recently that they were (essentially) confirmed by Clinton herself. During a talk at the Watermark Lead On conference in Silicon Valley on February 24, just a week after Macey Hensley’s debut on the Ellen Show, Clinton spoke in hypothetical terms about her presidential aspirations, women’s issues being at the core of her (theoretical) platform.
The impact of electing Hillary Clinton (or perhaps Elizabeth Warren, or any other highly qualified woman in Washington who could one day run for president) would not only be felt at home; it would influence the entire world. “Internationally, that same symbolism would be important—and for our political system to begin to represent the electorate it claims to serve—it’s not just a matter of diversity, but of a reflective democracy,” Schnall told me. Moreover, electing a woman president would presumably pave the way for more women in a range of political roles where they are currently lacking:
In 2013, women comprised 20% of US Senators; 17.8% of Members of the US House of Representatives; 10% of State Governors; 22.4% of Statewide Elected Officials; 23.7% of State Legislators; and 12% of Mayors of the 100 Largest Cities.
The figures are undoubtedly disheartening, but just how damaging are they? In Schnall’s book, Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader of the House of Representatives and former Speaker of the House, explains how critical it is to get more women to the table: “It’s about equality, but it’s not just about equality. And the reason it’s necessary to have more voices is because that strengthens the debate and it strengthens the decisions. It isn’t that women coming in are better than men; they’re different from men. And I always say the beauty is in the mix. To have diversity of opinion in the debate strengthens the outcome and you get a better result.” In our conversation, Schnall added that when politicians are discussing issues like abortion, reproductive choices, contraceptive insurance, equal pay and paid maternity leave, women need to be present for these debates because the outcome fundamentally affects their own experiences.
Schnall and I continued circling back to the idea that this is not an issue exclusive to the presidency; this is an issue about women in all types of leadership positions. “Girls’ natural leadership abilities are often not valued or encouraged by the people in their lives or our culture. That needs to change—and everyone has a role to play in that—parents, educators, and the media,” Schnall emphasized. In Schnall’s book, Anita Hill, attorney and professor of social policy, law and women’s studies at Brandeis University, speaks to our society’s confused vision of leadership: “I think we’ve had, and we continued to have, this skewed concept of what leadership looks like. Leadership in our minds, unfortunately, has a gender and the gender is male. We see that not only in politics; we see it also in just about every kind of business and different aspects of our lives, even in environments where you are presumed to be very liberal and open to change. And there are all kinds of cultural factors. . . . I think we can’t discount the role of culture in shaping our concept of what women can do.”
As Hill claims, women are underrepresented in many of our country’s most distinguished leadership positions, from the White House to Hollywood: 37 women have served as US governors compared to 2,319 men; no woman has every been featured on our country’s paper currency (note: support the movement to put women’s face on paper currency); women hold only three percent of “clout positions” in the mainstream media (telecommunications, entertainment, publishing, and advertising); women own only 5.8 percent of all television stations and six percent of radio stations. In 2012, women comprised 18 percent of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films. A mere 4.8 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women—should I go on?
The numbers can make you dizzy, and I have a lot of “whys” and “hows” clouding my head. To understand it all, it helps to review the beginning of things: childhood. In the documentary Miss Representation, Dr. Caroline Heldman, Associate Professor of Politics at Occidental College, describes revealing data about how political ambitions, at a formative age, become gendered: “Little boys and little girls, in equal numbers, when they’re seven years old, want to be president of the United States when they grow up, but then you ask the same questions when they’re 15… and you see this massive gap emerging.” Who or what is to blame for the change? Schnall commented: “There have been studies, such as the one by Carol Gilligan while at Harvard, that show that at the age of 11 and 12, girls start to lose touch with their authentic voices and begin to be much more dominated by outside influences, such as peer pressure, the disempowering messages hurled at them by the media, and to silence their voices in order to please or be liked.”
In 2013, The American University’s School of Public Affairs published a policy report, “Girls Just Wanna Not Run,” that offered “five factors that hinder young women’s political ambition.” As outlined verbatim in the report:
1. Young men are more likely than young women to be socialized by their parents to think about politics as a career path.
2. From their school experiences to their peer associations to their media habits, young women tend to be exposed to less political information and discussion than do young men.
3. Young men are more likely than young women to have played organized sports and care about winning.
4. Young women are less likely than young men to receive encouragement to run for office—from anyone.
5. Young women are less likely than young men to think they will be qualified to run for office, even once they are established in their careers.
The report concludes with general suggestions, based on their collected data and findings, to increase the number of women involved in politics. For one, the home is particularly important. Parents need to encourage and support their daughters’ political ambitions and careers because “although young women are less likely than young men ever to have considered running for office, they are just as likely as men to respond positively to encouragement to run.” The next crucial factor is organized sports, which, according to the report, encourage a kind of “competitive spirit” that fuels political ambition as well, so urging more young women to play sports at an early age might lead more young women to consider a career in politics.
Lastly, since female college students are less involved than male college students in politics—from political science classes to political student groups—more effort on college campuses is needed. The report concludes: “Exposing young women to female candidates and elected officials and providing examples of how pursuing electoral office can bring about societal change cannot be underestimated in closing the gap. These activities can also go a long way in combating women’s tendency to self-assess as unqualified to run for office.”
When it comes to adult women and political ambitions, a new, but familiar, set of setbacks and factors are at play. One that is particularly potent, yet again, is the media. The media’s portrayal of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, the “bitch” and the “ditz,” in 2008 was enough to turn any thinking woman away from politics. The Washington Post wrote about Clinton’s cleavage; The New York Times about “Mrs. Clinton’s cackle.” Tucker Carlson, of Fox News, memorably said: “Every time I hear Hillary Clinton speak, I involuntarily cross my legs.” One Salon columnist said Palin was a “Christian Stepford wife in a ‘sexy librarian’ costume” serving as a “hardcore pornographic centerfold spread.” There was nasty name-calling. Another Salon columnist called Palin a “dominatrix” and a “pinup queen,” and described her “babaliciousness.” Clinton was a “she-devil” according to MSNBC host Chris Matthews; Glenn Beck called her “the stereotypical bitch.” Right after Palin’s resignation announcement, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez suggested that it could be because Palin is pregnant again.
Schnall told me that many of the women she spoke with in her book knew of qualified, talented women who would not run for office, let alone for president, precisely because of how hostile the media can be when it comes to judging women in politics. Actress Jane Fonda, who co-founded the Women’s Media Center in 2005, says in Schnall’s book: “If female candidates are covered in the context of how they look and what their hair is like and how they’re dressed as opposed to how the male candidates are referred to, this has an impact on women and girls.” Marianne Williamson, New York Times best-selling author and a past candidate for US Representative, told Schnall: “We stand as good a chance as a man to win a political race, but women don’t want to run at the same rate as men do. . . . What stops us is fear.”
Schnall elaborated on the portrayal of women in the media: “Many people in my book talked about that difficult conundrum for strong, confident, ambitious women being perceived in a negative light or as ‘unlikeable’ – we have to call out those comments or the media when we see or hear that happen.”
People are starting to call it out. Last year, Lean In released a “Ban Bossy” video and movement (#banbossy) which features the infamous Beyoncé line: “I’m not bossy. I’m the boss.” The video features not only Beyoncé, but also other influential woman in our country like former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and actress/comedian Jane Lynch. And many more celebrities are catching on as well. This recent Buzzfeed article, a compilation of 31 different instances of celebrities standing up to sexist questions in the media, will give you not only a cathartic laugh, but also hope for the future.
I also asked Schnall about the future. I told her the story of Macey Hensley on the Ellen Show last month, and how I was worried about her. I asked Marianne, “In 40 years, when this girl is running for president, will the fact that Macey is a woman even be a big deal?” Perhaps we won’t even blink an eye about it. Marianne shared with me the following: “Yes, I do think a reality close to that is possible, but I also don’t want to take it for granted either…But the trend appears to be in the right direction, and part of that is the reframing that equality is not a ‘women’s issue’—it is a human issue—and men are realizing this and becoming important allies.” As Hillary Clinton first declared at the U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995: “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights.”
Hillary Clinton is just one woman, and it will take more than one woman to create a world that is more equal. And yet, Clinton is one very critical woman. Since there aren’t many women in high-level government positions, the ones that make it, like Clinton, end up being responsible for representing their gender much more so than men in those same high-profile positions. As I mentioned earlier, regardless of politics, we should be very excited for Clinton in 2016. We should admire Clinton’s perseverance, her steadfastness not only in women’s rights, but her determination to push forward despite the unnecessary cruelty hurled at her from the media.
Last week, at the Emily’s List 30th Anniversary Conference, Clinton asked her audience of Democratic women: “Don’t you someday want to see a woman President of the United States?” Someday might just be right around the corner.
[hr style=”striped”]
Candace Mittel is a recent graduate of Northwestern University where she studied Mathematics, Jewish Studies and Creative Writing Nonfiction (and no, they are not connected, but she’s open to suggestions). She currently lives in Chicago and teaches/encourages students to love math. Candace enjoys listening/singing to the Les Mis soundtrack and eating a superbly ripe avocado or mango. Read more of her feature work for The Riveter here and see more of her writing on her website Jerusalem Medley.
