After 227 years and 44 male presidents, girls could grow up seeing that a woman could be president. But is that the only way electing a woman president would matter?
On a day that should have been a crowning achievement for Hillary Clinton, a significant amount of attention went to Bernie Sanders. And so the question remains: Was this sexism at work?
Amidst the history being made by women in politics at all levels of office over the past 45 years, there have been some quite sturdy walls that women have come up against.
I look forward to the day when a professionally accomplished, female public servant can give an exhilarating and convincing presidential endorsement speech on behalf of another highly qualified female candidate and not have the speech be overshadowed by predictable themes of maternalism.
At the DNC, we are witnessing the sheer power of motherhood itself as a potent and powerful vehicle for social change.
Of 105 speakers, 29–or 28 percent–were women; 76–or 72 percent–were men.
Donald Trump’s selection of Indiana Governor Mike Pence for VP has observers puzzling through the similarities and differences between the candidates. There’s one unexpected and oddly ironic commonality that the two men share: menstruation.
For women in politics, motherhood is too often used as an indicator of compassion and concern for the future. These are laudable qualities, but motherhood is not a necessary condition for inhabiting them—and when we assume that it is, everybody loses.
Among the top goals for Hillary Clinton’s first 100 days is to “tap women to make up half of her cabinet.”
Perhaps celebrating our differences and coming together through the democratic process in the interest of self-government is a revolutionary act, but it’s also deeply American.