Thanks to Herman Cain, Anita Hill is back in the news - and it couldn't come at a better time.
For many American women, Anita Hill's testimony before the all-white, all male, largely dismissive Senate Judiciary committee touched a political nerve. In response the following year, women ran for public office in record numbers. Five women won seats in the U.S. Senate, including one incumbent; 24 new women entered the House of Representatives. The press labeled it "the year of the woman." A logjam had been broken.
Or so it seemed.
Twenty years later, 1992 remains the high water mark for American women's gains in national elections. In fact, women's progress since then has been glacial. Over the intervening decades, and despite women comprising the majority of voters, the percentage of women has grown from 7 to 17 percent in the U.S. Senate and from 11 to 17 percent in the House of Representatives. Collectively, women have never reached 25 percent of state legislators. No surprise then that the U.S. ranks 69th in the world for gender parity in elected office.
As we head into the 2012 elections, there are signs that another gender-driven prairie fire may be igniting. A close look suggests the Thomas-Hill hearings may have poured gas and struck a match, but it was opportunity and preparation, disenchantment with the status quo and an accumulation of small indignities that fueled women's victories in 1992. The parallels between 1992 and 2012 seem almost too pat, but the conclusion is unmistakable: if ever there was a year to run, this is it.
Opportunity: Redistricting, Reapportionment and a Presidential election
Once every 20 years, the post-reapportionment and redistricting election coincides with a presidential election. Redistricting creates open state legislative districts that are easier to win than unseating an incumbent. Reapportionment moves congressional seats, adding and subtracting seats from states, often prompting retirements. The presidential election mobilizes "occasional" voters who are more open to newcomer, "non-traditional" candidates. The combination produces more opportunity for women than in any other election year.
Preparation: Women moving up and moving over
Scholars analyzing the 1992 "year of the woman" define preparation as an increased number of women in lower elected offices ready to move up. In 1990, 1,273 women served in state legislatures and 47 in statewide offices; in 2010, 1,809 women were legislators and 71women held statewide office.
In 2011, the national network of organizations dedicated to electing women has joined forces -- within and across states --to identify accomplished women candidates in winnable districts for Congress and state legislatures.
Disenchantment, small indignities: bad economy, bad decisions, bad boys
A lingering economic downturn in 1991 made re-election a challenge for incumbents. In 2011 high unemployment, a continuing mortgage crisis and bitter anti-corporate sentiment evidenced by Occupy Wall Street mobilizations across the country suggest that incumbents may face similar voter resistance next year. According to an ABC Washington Post poll, 63 percent of voters are looking for someone new to represent them in Congress.
Prior to the 1992 elections, the Supreme Court decided two abortion cases that curtailed Roe v. Wade and raised concern among women. Both in the 1989 Webster decision and in 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court rolled back protections many thought guaranteed by Roe.
Almost 20 years later, the Supreme Court again set off another alarm among women. In Ledbetter v. Goodyear (2007) and in Dukes v. Walmart (2011), the Supreme Court limited a woman's right to sue her employer for wage and promotion discrimination, respectively. The fact that the female justices dissented in whole or in part in both cases underscores the gender divide.
In 1991, the House banking scandal exposed a clubby and protective House of Representatives. Some members lost their seats while others managed to squeak back in.
Even before the recent charges levelled at Cain, a steady parade of men in high office has trooped across the public stage, heads hung low, to apologize for behaving badly. From simply sophomoric to seriously narcissistic, their behavior is disappointing and demoralizing. What offends is not the sex, real or simulated, but the idea that a country so beset by woes, so in need of mature leadership, must contend with this.
It would be unfortunate, given all these factors and the result in 1992, if women did not flood the field of candidates and compete to have a greater say in the direction of the country. More and more studies from business and social sciences report that gender balanced committees and teams are more productive and effective at achieving their goals from problem solving to investment returns.
Reports now routinely identify the difference that women make in office -- from introducing more bills than their male counterparts in Congress to bringing more resources home to their districts. Women institute transparent procedures, expand the scope of policy discussions by infusing family realities, and build broader coalitions, often across party lines in order to succeed.
That's why, recapturing the emotion triggered in 1992 by Anita Hill, we're reminding women across the country: Don't get mad, get elected!
Follow Mary Hughes on Twitter: www.twitter.com/The2012Project
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
These women bear no resemblance to the wonderful things that come to mind when I think of women, and the rich legacy of women who serve. I do not understand what is up with most of them, or their appeal. They are a step back for all humanity, and rarely show interest in women's issues, other than to take part in dismantling progress.
Did you notice the glee the female presidential contender took to bellowing her support of torture and waterboarding? That is representative of that class, and we are better off without it.
If you are talking about Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, I'm with you. And I'm with you on wondering what is up with all these anti-woman women. But surely the first sentence of your comment was a mistake! (And if it wasn't, you are a misogynist, and not deserving of being a community moderator).
But thank goodness for enlightened, thoughtful, analytical women with heart who are doing a good job of leading. We can think of women in both political parties who fit that description, despite the fact that they all have detractors: Hillary Clinton, Kathleen Sebelius, Maria Cantwell, Ann Richardson Bailey, Olympia Snowe, etc. Now the key is selecting high-quality people from the get-go, so we don't suffer the negative effects of their incompetence.
Irregardless of our difference of opinion, I found one paragraph that was so true and so well done that I have to give you a virtual round of applause because it resonates. It can easily translate from politics to school teachers who are involved with kids. And it sweeps across all genders.
"Even before the recent charges levelled at Cain, a steady parade of men in high office has trooped across the public stage, heads hung low, to apologize for behaving badly. From simply sophomoric to seriously narcissistic, their behavior is disappointing and demoralizing. What offends is not the sex, real or simulated, but the idea that a country so beset by woes, so in need of mature leadership, must contend with this."
Well said.
2. Hill agreed to take a polygraph test which found that her statements were true.
3. After interviewing a number of women who alleged that Thomas had frequently subjected them to sexually explicit remarks, Wall Street Journal reporters Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson wrote a book which concluded that Thomas had lied during his confirmation process.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Hill#Clarence_Thomas_controversy
Professor Hill was a true pioneer in our modern history, someone who was willing to endure great pain, humiliation, and denigration to bring an inhumane social/political problem out into the open: sexual harrassment. She put the word on the map of general consciousness, at great price to herself and her family. But women of our nation, and caring, conscientious men as well, should at this point in our history be thanking her, not still doubting her. And let's finish the job and terminate sexual harrassment once and for all in all places of human enterprise: jobs, schools, church, etc.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/krystal-ball-responds-to-photos-dont-let-them-shame-women-candidates/
http://www.mediaite.com/online/krystal-ball-tells-megyn-kelly-theres-a-double-standard/
Maybe they don't have the stomach for it.
Maybe they prefer to pulls the strings of corruption from behind the scenes so hubby goes to jail instead of them.
Most likely is that none of this matters.
Why is the Left SO OBSESSED with "identity politics" and "representation"?
I think this is good though. If a woman wishes a job or education, she shouldnt be told no solely based on her gender. It should be the same with men.
How about atheists and agnostics?
How about gays?
I don't mean to detract from the struggles women have in this society, but not ALL women are equally lacking in privilege and opportunity... and there are plenty of people who struggle.