Q: I was a bit surprised by certain sexist attitudes across the media and even in the political establishment that were revealed during the election campaign —- and it seemed to me that I wasn’t the only one. Do you sense there is a new awareness about sexism among women in politics?
Carolyn Maloney: 2008 will go down in history as the year we finally came face to face with the level of stereotyping, sexism and misogyny that still persists in American society. While it was awe-inspiring to see Hillary Clinton as a major party candidate, the number of attacks on her because she was a woman was simply astonishing. It came from every direction – from the hecklers at rallies who held up signssaying “Iron My Shirt” to the netroots who created a website “Make Me A Sandwich and Get Out of the Race.”
The election season was a study in contrasts. Hillary’s historic run for the White House generated great enthusiasm and inspiration, especially among young women. Still, there are enormous hurdles apparent in the extraordinary sexist attitudes and remarks. I thought to myself “Someone ought to write a book” and then I realized, someone already has – My book is called Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated: Why Women’s Lives Aren’t Getting Any Easier–And How We Can Make Real Progress For Ourselves and Our Daughters
In it I debunk the myths about how far women have come and discuss the many areas in which we have a long way to go: in workplace opportunities, family-friendly work policies, pensions and tax policy, violence against women, trafficking, reproductive rights and representation in government, among other things.
To me, the most startling display of sexism came from the media stars who chose to attack Hillary, not for her policies or campaign strategy, but solely on the basis of her gender. Her supporters were called castratos in the eunuch chorus; she was compared to “everyone’s first wife standing outside a probate court”; one commentator said she was scary, castrating and that he involuntarily crossed his legs when she came into the room; another said that when she spoke, men heard “Take out the garbage”; yet another queried whether Americans will want to watch a woman growing older before their eyes on a daily basis. You can go here to see some of these attacks for yourself. It’s so over the top that you almost have to see it to believe it. If that’s what they thought about someone as accomplished, intelligent and gracious as Hillary Clinton, what must they be thinking of us?
Many women, including me, were surprised and disappointed by the attitudes of these commentators. On the other hand, as Hillary Clinton herself has said, she received more votes than any woman in history and put 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling. Her success opens the door for other women to follow her. I hope some of those women who were startled by Hillary’s rejection will seize the opportunity to run for office. We need more good women in public service.
Q: With the obvious necessity for a big stimulus to deal with the economic crisis, there’s a lot of talk about creating green jobs and infrastructure projects. But as Linda Hirshman pointed out in a recent op-ed piece, these jobs will go almost exclusively to men. Are there any initiatives contemplated to ensure that stimulus job creation will be aimed at jobs that affect women as well?
CM: I think the economic stimulus plan will wind up providing a great deal of help to women. First, many women are working in industries that were formerly the province of men and hopefully more women will try to compete for jobs created by the stimulus package. Second, women are disproportionately represented in city and state jobs and would benefit from the portions of the stimulus plan that will provide aid to local government. Third, the plan will likely include help for vulnerable populations – likely including assistance for unemployment assistance, the earned income tax credit, food stamps, child care, among other things. Finally, there is always an indirect benefit when an unemployed member of a family gets a job, even if that person is a man. When one member of a family is unemployed, the entire family suffers.
On Sunday January 11th, the Obama camp released a video addressing this precise issue. In it Chair-designate for the Council of Economic Advisers, Christina Romer, explains the many ways in which women would benefit from the stimulus package. She explains: “The balance of the program, the fact that it does have the investments in education and health care, it does have the state fiscal relief, it does have themiddle class tax cuts. All those pieces are creating jobs in some of the sectors like health care, education and retail trade, where women are a disproportionately large fraction.”
For my part, I definitely want to make sure that women are included in this package. In fact, I am working with my colleagues to try to ensure that the bill will include a diversity requirement, although there is no guarantee that this will make it into the final bill. In any event, I believe that moving forward with long-delayed, ready-to-go infrastructure projects would have long-term impacts from which our entire community will benefit.
Q: Your book makes clear that participation by women electoral politics is essential in order to challenge assumptions and correct many existing imbalances. (In fact, I would argue that it requires not just women, but feminists like yourself) .) Why do you think there are so few women in politics in proportion to their numbers in the population? I find it difficult to wrap my mind around.
CM: In my experience, it is women who fight for women, children and families. Look at the impassioned dissent written by Ruth Bader Ginsberg in the Lily Ledbetter case. Although women are 51% of the population, we have only 17% of the seats in Congress.
In my book, Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated, I talk about the 30% solution – sociologists say that once the percentage of women members of a legislature reaches 30%, women’s issues begin to be addressed. Twenty four countries have reached this critical mass. The United States isn’t anywhere near it. The 111th Congress which has just convened includes 75 women in the House and 17 women in the Senate, or 17% of Congress. That’s a record high – in the 110th Congress, women constituted 16% of the members. At the current rate of 1% every 2 years, it will be 2034 before the United States reaches the magic 30% number. Small wonder, then, that Congress hasn’t passed any new bills to improve family/work balance since the Family and Medical Leave Act back in 1993. It’s a lot easier to diagnose the problem than to answer the question of why more women do not enter the political world. I hope that Hillary’s historic run will prompt other women to step forward and run.
Q: I keep hearing “Blue Dogs this and Blue Dogs that” in the press, but I wonder how you think the Progressive Caucus will work in the House with its larger membership and a clear mandate for change? Is there any hope of a similar level of organization and public relations as what we see with these other groups?
CM: There are many caucuses and many coalitions that work on particular issues. The Blue Dogs are one and the Progressive Caucus is another, but there are many others and some of them are extremely effective and share progressive ideals – I personally have done a lot of work with the Congressional Caucus on Women’s Issues. We have worked together to pass a wide range of bills. In fact, two of the first bills we voted on in the House in the 111th Congress that just began are bills the Women’s Caucus supported — the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Paycheck Fairness Act, both of which make it more difficult to discriminate against women in pay.
Q: In terms of the new economic initiatives, what do you think are the chances of passing the credit card bill of rights and the cram down legislation? Those seem to be to be obvious political (and substantive) winners to me and yet the press reports indicate they are not necessarily going to make it. What’s the problem?
CM: As the Author of the Credit Cardholder’s Bill of Rights, I will continue to push for its passage and I believe we will be successful. We have made great headway to date with winning overwhelming passage in the House of Representatives last year and with the Federal Reserve announcing that they will bar many of these unfair and deceptive practices starting next year. As for the cram down legislation, which would allow bankruptcy judges rework the mortgages of distressed homeowners, I believe there is growing momentum to get it done. Just this week there was a major breakthrough with Citigroup announcing announcing that they will now support the legislation with certain changes..
Q: The Democratic Party has made much of its outreach to social conservatives in recent cycles. Inclusive rhetoric about faith aside, do you believe that one party can accommodate those who sincerely believe abortion and gay marriage are crimes with those who believe they are fundamental matters of civil rights and civil liberties? If you do, what kind of compromises do you believe are possible to make that happen?
CM: The Democratic Party has always been a broad umbrella. We do not always agree, and that’s probably a good thing. It allows us to form a broader coalition and work effectively together. The Democratic Party has been clear on its support for abortion rights and gay marriage. If people have different opinions on those issues but still choose to vote Democratic, it’s because the Democratic Party stands for much more – they may be Democrats because of economic issues, or the party’s tradition of providing a social safety net, or they may prefer our record of competence in running the government.
The Democratic Party will always support reproductive rights, civil rights and gay rights. Nonetheless, social conservatives who believe in helping the poor, expanding health care and preserving Social Security and Medicare are right to vote as Democrats even if they do not join us on every issue.
Q: Finally, you’ve been endorsed by major women’s groups in New York to fill Hillary Clinton’s senate seat and after reading your book, it seemed to me that you would be an excellent choice. If that doesn’t happen, can we expect to see you run for higher office in the future?
CM: I am honored by their support, and yours. I have been endorsed by, among others, the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee, National Foundation for Women Legislators, Inc., Business and Professional Women’s BPW/PAC, Feminist Majority Political Action Committee and the National Women’s Political Caucus. As for the future, one never knows what opportunities may come.
I sincerely appreciate Congresswoman Maloney taking the time to answer these questions during this busy and eventful time and hope that she will continue to interact with the netroots on these issues. I think we need more of this perspective.
There is a lot of chatter in the New York press that Kennedy should be chosen because of her close relationship to Obama (with the implication that he bears some animosity toward New Yorkers who supported their Senator for president in the primaries.) I think that’s utter nonsense. Clinton is about to become one of Obama’s most important cabinet members and, say what you will about him, he has proven time and again that he doesn’t bear grudges (sometimes to a fault, in my view.) And in any case, with what they’ve been through in Illinois, I don’t think they are touching this senate appointment with a ten foot pole.
Carolyn Maloney would be a huge asset in the Senate, an unabashed progressive feminist with a ton of experience navigating the treacherous shoals of the beltway. New Yorkers would be well represented and so would women throughout the country. She’s earned it.
.
