For more than 200 years, our Democratic and Republican presidential nominees have been men. Hillary Clinton recently became the first female politician in history to break that pattern.
While some would like to latch onto Clinton’s nomination as a sign that sexism in politics is over, we are so far away from actual gender parity in government. Yes, we have Jill Stein helming the Green Party ticket. Yes, New Hampshire elected an all-female delegation back in 2012. (It’s since gotten a male representative.)
Still, at the same time, 80 percent of Congress is male, while only half of the U.S. population is. Our numbers were actually better 20 years ago. Not to mention, some states — Mississippi, Delaware and Vermont — still have never even elected a female representative.
Furthermore, the United States lags behind countries including Afghanistan and Pakistan in terms of gender representation in government.
We can point at individual leaders to deny the inequality. Sadly, they are atypical. We should start questioning how we treat men as default leaders, and women as exceptions.
Vox recently wrote a story on why so few women are in Congress. Economist Hannah Hartmann told the reporter that at the current rate we’re going, the U.S. will take 100 more years to get an equal share of women in Congress.
The reasons why our seemingly progressive country is slow to change are complicated.
First of all, as Vox notes, women are less likely to run for office, and even when they do, they are 15 times more likely than their male counterparts to be providing childcare at the same time.
Name recognition of established candidates also plays a role. According to Vox, 89 percent of House members run for reelection, and nearly all of those incumbents win their elections.
When most of them happen to be men who serve an average of 10 years in office, no wonder women struggle to break in. A total of 14 states have all-male delegations, in fact.
When New Hampshire elected an all-female delegation four years ago, news networks lauded the state as a “matriarchy,” playing into the novelty that electing a majority of women actually is.
The New York Times attributed its historical inclusion of women in politics to several factors. First, The New York Times accredits the size of the state House, which is the largest in the United States with 400 members.
The high number of seats provides women more of a chance to hold office and use that to “springboard” into a representative position.
The Times also pointed to New Hampshire’s meager salary for its representatives, which is the second lowest of all states at $100k a year.
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen attributed the state’s apparent acceptance of female leadership to less tangible factors.
“It really speaks to voters in New Hampshire and their ability to make decisions regardless of gender,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, as quoted on NPR.
Meanwhile, women in 2016 still struggle. Sadly, not much has changed.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy