Women in Politics: 100 Years After Suffrage


(gentle music) – It’s a pleasure to be welcoming you to our third State of
Democracy Lecture for the year. I’m Grant Reeher, I’m director of the Campbell
Public Affairs Institute which coordinates these events. On behalf of Syracuse University I would like to acknowledge with respect the Onondaga Nation, Fire keepers of the Haudenosaunee, the indigenous people
on whose ancestral lands Syracuse University now stands. I want to in addition
to welcoming everybody in the audience here, I want to also welcome those
watching us on the live stream, and in particular I
want to give a shout out to our newly admitted masters students in the Maxwell School in particular, our MPA and IR students. So yeah, congratulations. (audience applauds) Congratulations and I hope this
will entice you to join us. Perhaps the most exciting
development I think to come out of the 2018 mid-term elections is the record number of women in Congress. And almost half of the declared presidential candidates are women. These developments are good
things in and of themselves, and are important for our democracy in a number of different ways. And the panel that we’ve assembled for today’s State of Democracy event I think is particularly
well-suited to explore those ways. I’ll say more about the panelists and our format in a moment. But first I have several heartfelt thanks that I want to issue. First I want to thank the dean’s office for supporting the series, and our dean David Van
Slyke is here with us today, his schedule is murderous, so Dave thanks very
much for the being here, we really appreciate it,
very pleased to see you. Technical support, I want to thank the Information and Computing Technology Group, and in particular Tom Fazio. I want to give my thanks as well as always to Kelly
Coleman and Sanjay Ravak, they work in the Campbell
Institute and work very hard to put together these events. I also want to thank my Campbell colleague Shana Gadarian here down near the front, she had the original vision for this panel and worked very hard to help it together. And then finally I want to
make a very special thanks to Norman and Marsha Lee Berkman, whose generous contribution
has made this lecture possible, the Berkman’s have been supporting this lecture series since 2012 with their connection to the
University and to Maxwell goes back much longer than
that, over 60 years in fact, and to our great pleasure today Norman is here with us this afternoon, and he’s joined by his
daughter Cheryl Giding, so Norman and Cheryl could you
stand up and be recognized? (audience applauds) So let me just issue a few
reminders for all of us. First if you haven’t already done so please silence your smart phones. Secondly regarding our format
and the way we’ll proceed, we’ll hear from the panelists
individually to some degree, and then we’ll hear from
all of them in conversation, and then we’ll move to your
questions and brief comments, and when we get to that
portion of the program Please wait for the microphones, the handheld microphones that
we have to be passed to you, so that not only are
you part of our archive, but so the folks listening on the live stream can hear you as well. Remember that when you are done with your brief question or comments
give the microphone back to the person that handed it to you, so that the next person can speak. And then following the talk
we’ll have a reception out in the foyer where there
will be refreshments and we can continue the
conversation that we began in here. So now let me end with a few
brief words about our speakers. First of all starting
us off is Susan Carroll. Dr. Carroll is Professor
of political science and women’s and gender
studies at Rutgers University, she is also a senior scholar at the Center for American Women in Politics at the Eagleton Institute
of Politics at Rutgers. She really is one of
the deans of the study of women in politics and she’s published far too many works on this subject for me to try to list here today. But I would just say most recently, she is the co-author of a new book titled A Seat at the Table, Congress Women’s Perspectives
on Why Their Presence Matters. Perfect timing on that,
so it’s a good job. She’s widely sought after
for expert commentary on women’s participation in politics. She’s been interviewed
for many top tier programs Including All Things Considered, Morning Edition, CNN News and Nightline. So after we hear from Professor Carroll, we’ll get some reactions and comments from two of our regional political leaders reflecting experiences that they have from both sides of the political aisle. New York State Assemblywoman Pam Hunter, and former Onondaga County
executive Joanie Mahoney. Assemblywoman Hunter represents the very diverse 128th district, and she’s held that seat since 2015. Prior to that she served on
the Syracuse City Council. Joanie Mahoney served as
county executive for 10 years, and also had prior service
on Syracuse City Council, and she is currently the chief operating officer at SUNY ESF. Guiding this discussion will be my Campbell colleague
and friend Kristi Anderson. Kristi is the Chapel Family Professor of Citizenship and Democracy Emeritus, and she’s a regular panelist
on WCNY’s Ivory Tower. She too is an elected official, she’s a town counselor for Cazenovia. So having said that, Professor Carroll welcome
to the Maxwell School, and the floor is yours, thank you. (audience applauds) – I just need to get the presentation up. Awesome. Okay. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you. Well I’m delighted to be here today, and I’m delighted to be here
at such a momentous moment for the subject matter
of Women in Politics, as everyone knows this is a
sort of unprecedented moment for those of us who have been following women in
politics for a long time. We have seen the mobilization
at the mass level with the women’s march
and the MeToo movement, and we’ve also seen a record number of women being elected to office, which is a topic that
I’m gonna focus on today. My talk is gonna look at breaking
records and making change. I want to talk first about, presents some of the data and talk about the record numbers
of women elected in 2018. And then I want to speculate a bit, or think a little bit about what kind of changes we might expect in politics as we elect more women, as more of these women come in. And the kinds of things you might look for in their performance. I’m gonna be talking about
Congress most of the time, but I want to say that
in terms of the numbers, there were record numbers of women elected at the state level, record numbers of women who ran for office and were elected at the state
level as well as in Congress. But in Congress this year, a record 127 women, well as of right now, 127 women served in the 116th Congress, and that’s compared with 108 he served before the 2018 elections. 25 of these women serve in the Senate, 102 of these women serve in the house. This graph just represents
the kind of progress in percentage terms for
women in Congress over time. As you can see, if you
go back to the early 60s up through the early 90s, the proportion of women in Congress fluctuated around the 5% mark, or a little less than 5%. Then there was a bump-up, an increase, with the year of the
woman election in 1992. Since then there has been an
incremental increase over time, and as you can see with
the 2018 elections, we went from 20% to 23.7% which is a much bigger increase than we have seen historically. Whoops, just pressed the wrong thing. In terms of the election
of record numbers of women, I just want to make clear
that this was a record year, 2018 was a record year for Democrats but not so much for Republicans. The number of Democratic
women in the US House of Representatives increased by 27, while the number of Republican
women in the U.S. House actually decreased by 10. Democratic women have
outnumbered Republican women for some time now in Congress, but the ratio has not
been nearly as skewed as it is at the moment as a
result of the 2018 elections, Democratic women
outnumber Republican women by a ratio of almost seven to one. In the Senate it’s a different picture, Democratic women did not
increase their number with the 2018 election. There were 17 women before the election, 2018 election, there were 17 women before
the election, 17 women after. Republican women actually have increased their numbers by two, one as a result of the election, and one as a result of
the appointment of McSally to replace John McCain in the U.S. Senate. Women of color also broke records in this election in Congress. We have a record 43 women of color now serving in the US
House of Representatives, and you can see most
of them are Democrats. In fact almost all of them
except for one are Democrats. All except for one. And we also another historic
aspect of this election, or historic aspect with
regard to women of color, is that we saw the election
of the first two Muslim women, in the first two Native American women ever elected to Congress. Now that the 2018 election is over, were turning our attention to the 2020 presidential election. And already we have six women who have declared as candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2020, this is a lot more that
we’ve ever had before, which is I think never really
more than one per party. So we have four senators, one member of the US
House of Representatives, and one woman who is an
author and spiritual adviser. So it’s gonna be very interesting to watch that this year unfold. So what difference does it make to have these new women come in to Congress, the increasing numbers of women? I’m gonna try to speculate
a little bit about this based on research that we have done at the Center for
American Women in Politics Resulting in this recently published book, A Seat at the Table
with my two colleagues, that I co-authored with my two colleagues, Kelly Dittmar and Kira Sanbonmatsu. And this research was actually based on in-person interviews with congresswomen, with 83 congresswomen who
served in the 114th Congress during the last two years
of the Obama administration. This is almost, well a
little over actually, three fourths of the women
who served in that Congress, and the average interview
lasted 32 minutes. I want to talk about in terms
of the topic of making change and how they might bring
record numbers of women coming into Congress
might bring about change, the kind of changes we might expect. There are three that I particularly want to highlight from our research. The first is that the women in Congress tell us that they have different public policy perspectives than the men, they bring different
public policy perspectives. The second is that they do the business of Congress differently, that they go about the
legislative business in Congress in a different kind of way, which we characterize as perhaps having a distinctive work style. And the third is that
they serve as role models for other women trying to encourage them to get involved in politics as well. And I want to talk about each
of these three items in turn. First of all making change
through policy impact. Almost all the women we talk to talked about the fact that they see women as having different life
experiences than men have. And that they think that these
different life experiences give them different perspectives which they bring to the
business of Congress. To legislation they consider, to any work they do
within the institution. And Senator Jeanne Shaheen
from New Hampshire told us, women’s life experiences
are different from men’s, they’re not better, they’re not worse, but they’re different. It’s important for us to have people who have these experiences at the table so we can talk about those, and we can respond to the challenges that half the population
in this country face. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from
the great state of New York, said we are all very different, we all have different
priorities, different interests, different areas of expertise, but there does seem to be a commonality that we do care about our families, we care about our communities. There is an interest in
protecting the most vulnerable, and so there is a common ground there, and a lot of our legislation
gets built from there. There are two things about this comment by Kirsten Gillibrand
that I want to highlight and talk about for a second. The first is when she says we all do care about our families. What we heard over and
over from these women is that the experience
that they think is perhaps the most important one that they bring that leads them to be distinctive, is their roles as
caregivers in the family. They talk a lot about being moms, and what being a mom brings to the table. And they also talked about
their caregiving roles in the community and work
outside the family as well. Also important is the
statement where she talks about the interest in
protecting the most vulnerable. One of the things that we heard over and over from a lot of the women, is that they really feel
that they are in Congress, that they’re there, one of the responsibilities
while they’re there, is to look out for people who otherwise are not represented within
the halls of Congress. To be I guess you would call
it, a voice for the voiceless. To represent people whether they be economically disadvantaged, whether they be disabled, whether they be gay, lesbian,
bisexual, transgender. Whether they be in some
cases with Republican women, they talked about children a lot, and in some cases with some
of the Republican women, they talked about representing the unborn in this kind of context. We also asked the African, not just the African-American
women, but the women of color, if they had an agenda which was different from their white women colleagues, and they kind of pushed back
at us on this question a bit, and said they not so much
had a different agenda, is they had a more expansive agenda, and so different
perspectives to bring to bear in the work in Congress
than the white women did. So Barbara Lee reflects this comment, she says, “Okay, so we have our agenda “which is very similar to all women, “but then on top of that we
have the unique perspectives “that we bring coming from the
African-American experience.” I want to talk about one example a policy example where women made some change in the 114th Congress, and this is probably my favorite example from this particular session of Congress. Not much happened in the 114th Congress because of partisan
gridlock on the big issues, the ones that got all the
big headlines in the media. But there were a lot of smaller,
less sensational perhaps, less media worthy stories, stories that didn’t get the
big, at least the big headlines. That happened, and legislation that passed
regarding these things. And one of these had
to do with these women who were Air Force service
pilots back in World War II. And basically they had been able to have their remains buried
in Arlington Cemetery, But Arlington Cemetery is overseen by the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the Army realized that they were running out of space to bury people in Arlington Cemetery, and so he ruled, he made an executive
decision that these women who served as service
pilots in World War II could no longer be buried there, the remains could no
longer be buried there. Well, representative, she was the representative
then, now she’s in the Senate, but representative Martha
McSally got word of this, heard about this, and Martha McSally was the first female fighter
pilot in the Air Force to fly in combat, and she was quite
outraged at this decision, and she approached her
colleagues in the Senate, Joanie Ernst, who was not a fighter pilot, but who was a veteran, who
had been in the military. And together they got together and they sponsored legislation in Congress to overturn this decision by
the Secretary of the Army. They were successful in doing so, they enlisted some of their
Democratic women colleagues to help in this effort, and in a bipartisan effort they were able to get legislation passed, so that the remains of
these women service pilots, there aren’t a lot of them left, but the ones who are left can now have their remains buried
in Arlington Cemetery. Okay, in terms of the second
way that we might look for women to make a difference in Congress I want to talk about their work style, and what these women we
interviewed in the 114th Congress had to say about the
work style of the women. And in interview after interview, almost every woman we interviewed, at one point or another in the interview said something related to the fact That they felt that women
were different than men in the way that they
approached their work, that they were motivated differently, that they were more results oriented and less concerned about
getting credit for the work or getting media headlines. Kirsten Gillibrand again said, “We are often less concerned with credit, “less concerned with partisan politics, “less concerned with
ideology and more focused “on how you get something
done in solving a problem.” Similarly Senator Tammy
Baldwin from Wisconsin said, “More women go into politics
to get something done, “to solve a problem to
fix something that men do. “Very few of my female
colleagues got into politics “because they just wanted
to be a US Senator, “we are not there for
the power of politics.” So these women really
see them as more oriented than men are towards problem-solving in their work in Congress. They also see themselves many
of them as more collaborative in the way they go about their work. This is reflected by a statement by Senator Susan Collins who says, “I think women tend to
be more collaborative, “but I want to dispel the notion “that somehow we think alike “or that we share the
same political views. “Just as the men in the Senate span “the ideological spectrum so do the women. “But I do believe the style “of the women senators
is more collaborative.” Well does more collaborative mean that they’re more bipartisan? That’s an interesting question I think. And while some of the women did not think women were more
bipartisan than men were, that the two genders were equally likely to try to work across the aisle, or to not try to work across the aisle. A majority of the women actually argued that in fact women were more
bipartisan in their approach, more likely to work across the aisle. And these two pictures reflect a couple of reasons why
that might be the case, because of the relationships
that they form. The first picture there is
the women’s softball team, Congressional softball team. Now, you probably know
that the men in Congress, because of the shooting, that the men in Congress
play an annual softball game to raise money for charity, and the men in Congress play the Republicans versus the Democrats, it’s a partisan game for them. The women in Congress also play a softball game to
raise money for charity, but the women all play on the same team. They play against the women in the press, women in the media. And so what happens then
is they get together, they practice together, they
play this game together, they built relationships, they get to know people who are on the other side of the aisle. And in this picture they’re
both Republicans and Democrats, and this forges relationships which can then be used
when it comes to policy, when they’re thinking about policy and looking for somebody across the aisle to maybe co-sponsor policy with them. The other picture is a picture
of women in the Senate, and you can see at the center of that picture, Barbara Mikulski, who truly was the Dean
of women in the Senate. She recently retired, but she served there long before the other women who have come in, and as the other women came in. When she first came into Congress I think there was one other woman. And as other women came into Congress, she organized these dinners Where she got all the women in the Senate, women in the Senate
together for these dinners. And these were not dinners
where they hashed out policy, or talked about policy
difference or legislation, rather these were the kinds of dinners you might have with your
buddies, with your friends, where they would share
stories about their lives and talk about their families, and probably gripe about
their colleagues, who knows. But what this did was it, even though these were not
policy focused dinners, they brought women together in a way that they got to know each other to build relationships, and some of these relationships in fact did result in over time, have resulted in
cosponsorship of legislation or working on different
legislative items together. I just want to give one quick example from the Congress we studied
of women working together across partisan lines. This is a picture of Representative Marsha
Blackburn from Tennessee, who is now in the Senate, has
been elected to the Senate. She is one of the most
conservative women in Congress, and Carolyn Maloney from
New York, here in New York, who is one of the more
liberal women in Congress, and they got together
to sponsor legislation to set up a commission to study setting up on the national mall, or near the national mall, establishing a National
women’s history Museum, and they were successful in getting this legislation through Congress, the commission was set up, it reported back its findings, we still don’t have a National
women’s history Museum, but if we do someday have one, there’s legislation pending. If we do some day have one
it will be and a large part due to the efforts of these two women. And finally, the final third way that I want to talk about women making change is through their role as role models. These women talked over and
over in these interviews about how they wanted to, they took every opportunity
to reach out to, to go and talk to, reach out to women outside of politics, to encourage them to
become involved in politics and think about running for office. Representative Jackie
Walorski from Indiana said, “I think there should be more women “on both sides of the aisle, “every chance I have, “whether I’m speaking
to girls in high school, “or civic groups speaking to women, moms, “I’m always talking about the need “for more women to get involved.” And I would say that, I would point out that
the way she talks about encouraging women on
both sides of the aisles, this was true of these women, the women who are Democrats
want more Republican women there as well as more Democratic women, and the Republican women want
more Democratic women there, as well as Republican women, because they know when
their party is out of power, they want women there who
have access to leadership, or be in leadership on the other side and bring the gender-related
perspectives to bear. And also they reach out to girls, they feel it’s important
to reach out to girls to serve as role models for them. Joyce Beattie from Ohio here says, “Having more women of color in
Congress makes a difference, “when little African-American girls “can dream that they too
can serve in Congress.” And finally this quote from
representative Donna Edwards, who brings a couple of
the different things from this talk together when she says, “When women are really part “of the discussion and
the decision-making, “our voices are distinct, “but we’re just not to scale, “there’s just not enough of us, period.” And I just want to end
my comments by saying that even though we had record numbers of women elected to Congress in 2018, women are still only one fourth
of the members of Congress, we are still nowhere close to parity, so there is still a
lot of work to be done, and I hope you all will join me and helping to continue the work and move us closer to parity, thank you. (audience applauds) – Okay, now what happens? First I assume I get to thank
Sue, that’s the first thing. And just let me put in a plug for the Center for
American Women in Politics, which she has been involved
with for years and years. Definitely if you want to know anything about women in politics in the US, just type C A W P in your search engine, and you will get to CAWP, the Center for American Women in Politics and they have just
amazing amounts of stuff about women in politics. They also do another wonderful
part of their mission is to train women, both in
New Jersey and more generally, young women, but all
women, to run for office and to help them figure
out how to do that. So it’s a great place. And it can be very useful. So what I would like to do
is to use Joanie and Pam to figure out the extent to
which they have experienced some of the things that
Sue is talking about, or whether some of the findings
that Sue and her colleagues have over the years come up with, and other people studying this too, seem to resonate or seem to hold true. So a couple of these have to
do with the questions I had have to do with how women are
different from men basically. And the most recent book
that Sue talked about was based on member of
Congress’s own perceptions, members of the recent Congress and women. But there is research,
mostly by you folks, based on state legislatures, women and men in state legislatures over longer periods of time, you’ve got a bigger in there. And some of the findings there are that, and this is a more objective
look at it I guess, are that women state legislators as compared to male state legislators are more collaborative, and I don’t think it’s only bipartisanship that’s being talked about, I think they’re more likely
to work with other people, they’re more likely to
co-sponsored legislation, and more likely not to go it alone in various political ways. That’s one difference. A second difference I believe, and you can correct me
if I misremembering this, is that women legislators got more joy out of
working with constituents, tended to reach out to
constituents more often, said that constituency work was a more important part of their job. And thirdly, which I really like, and it seemed like a reasonable metric, women are more persistent. That is measured by the
fact that they tended to reintroduce their
bills that didn’t work the first time more than men did. So I’d be interested Joanie and Pam how you react to those
claims about differences. And these are not all men
are this way, all women are, but there is somewhat of a difference. – I’m gonna defer to
the assemblywoman first. – Thank you, it’s a pleasure to be here. It’s interesting hearing about women being more collaborative. I think especially at the
state level in the assembly, and just representing in Central New York, you have to understand the demographics a little bit different then maybe you would see on
a grander scale in Congress. And in Central New York, we are always talking
about more women and first, and I’m the only woman that represents at the state level in Central New York. The only black female
actually to represent at the state level in Central New York, and the only woman veteran actually in the whole state legislature. And so there is a way in which when you’re already
walking into a, your first, you’re going in there with
your sleeves rolled up, ready to say we’re gonna try to get as much done as possible, and knowing that the voice
that you are speaking from, and the people that you are speaking for, and maybe the people who look like me, it’s few and far between
especially in Central New York. And just to geographically
look at that a little bit. Outside of New York City, there are only three, not including Long Island, there are only three people of color that represent outside of New
York City and Long Island. And that’s myself and
Crystal Peoples-Stokes who is now our Majority Leader in the Rochester area. So I think it brings a unique perspective. So I think when you’re
talking about collaboration you’re collaborating with people who obviously are different than you, maybe diverse different, the demographic is different. Obviously they’re talking about people who maybe are in a place
that is much larger, and don’t necessarily have the same issues that we have here. So you have to be open-minded, because at the end of the
day when we’re representing, it’s all what we are trying to bring back to the resources to the
people that I represent. And sometimes obviously
that takes a lot of effort. I just wanted to talk a little bit about some of the uniqueness that our women, and maybe this doesn’t go
directly to the conversation. But I just wanted to say that we are a great group of women
in the State Assembly, and we have a lot of women
in the State Assembly, more than we have in the state Senate. We bring different perspectives, even the other women of color who represent at the state level, it’s kind of unique. But all of us are having conversations, we talk about childcare as economic development opportunities. Who is thinking of childcare as an economic development opportunity. But those are the things
that women bring back. So I definitely agree with her points, but I think it’s definitely more expansive in a geography like Central New York. – Okay thank you, and I want to make sure that
we thank our host Grant, and thank the Dean for making the Campbell Institute possible. Because especially on the local level, I’ve said it to you many
times over the years, being able to have conversations rather than just a two minute sound bite, it’s good for the
community, it’s good for us, it’s good for local
government, so thank you. I can relate to all of what you said, and I don’t know how much time there is, but I’ll highlight a couple, and I just want to start out by saying that I came into politics
myself in the late 90s, and I didn’t run for county
executive until 2007, and I have apologized
many times since then, because I really thought that we were past a lot of the issues that women were dealing with in politics, I thought the generation ahead of us had really paved the
way and made things better, and my experience I just hadn’t collided with the right people to realize that that battle still continues. But I think that it can be solved, so collaboration, yes, I think it has to do with busyness, and as you said results oriented. We just don’t have a time for a lot of the games that people play, and none of the women that I worked with, and there’s a couple here in the room from the Onondaga County Legislature, we are not there for any reason other than to accomplish something. And there’s a lot of other people there in the category of men, that the whole thing
seems like a game to them, it’s a social club, and
just scoring points, and making sure the
other team doesn’t get. We didn’t always agree on things, but we didn’t disagree simply because it was the wrong team or whatever. You know what I mean? So I do think it’s collaborative, I don’t know if it’s
necessarily our personalities or a factor of our busyness. We are there to get something done, and we have way too much
going on in our lives, and I think data will bear out the fact that our days are busier still, so that might be a factor to it. I think that the
gerrymandering is a big factor, because there are so many races that are decided before election day that there is no rewarding, camaraderie and collaboration, and I think we look
past it, but it’s real. And if you’re gonna have
to pass a purity test in a primarily in your
district and it is red or blue, then you’re not gonna be rewarded for finding ways to work across
the aisle with each other. So I think that could go a long way toward making
the situation better. But then the other thing is, another big part of this is what you said about just the parity. We need more women, it will
solve a lot of the issues. Men really stick together, and they don’t always seem like it, but when it comes down to it, there is a certain stick-to-itivness, that if there is
something really important that they don’t want you to break into, they can kind of coalesce. There was something I was
gonna say on that specifically, but now I lost it, but if it
comes back I will interrupt. Oh no, I know what I was gonna say. It’s still true, even
people with good intentions, we’re not even talking about, like, there’s bad guys, but then there’s really good guys who I’ll be in meetings with that will be talking about promotion, because I had a job where we
had to hire a lot of people, and you’ll still hear
from really good people, that person is difficult, they’re inevitably talking about a woman, or that person is, they
tell it like it is, and strong leader, and they’re inevitably
talking about a man. We’ve heard it a thousand times, but it’s still true to this day. Just by virtue of having
more women in the room, it will make it better. – One thing that that reminds me of is this notion of a critical mass. And I want to ask Sue, I know that people have actually
tried to figure that out, whether it’s in a corporation
or a leadership group, certainly in legislatures, there is a point at
which women seize power, and it’s not 51% necessarily, it can be a smaller portion, but it somehow that you feel supported. So thinking about that, I completely understand
what you’re saying, but you’re saying it about a
body which is primarily male. Right?
– Right. – And how many more women
would you have had to have before a switch was switched where it wouldn’t have happened? – [Joanie] Well I would say there needs to be at least one woman in every room. At least. We’re not even there yet. But I will defer to Sue
for what the answer is. – [Kristi] Isn’t it 30%
or something like that? – I don’t think there is really a number. – [Kristi] I know, but make it up. – A lot of research has looked at this, and a lot of scholars have moved away from the notion of
critical mass I think, because it seems to vary so
much depending on the context. But it’s clear there still
are a lot of situations where I would say may be two. Having two. There still are committees in Congress, subcommittees in Congress, where there’s only one
woman on the subcommittee, or at least there was in
the Congress we studied. Maybe it’s a little better now. So it helps to at least
have a couple there. And obviously just for the support. Because there is a lot of research that isn’t by political
scientists that shows, and all women have experienced this, where the woman in the
room makes a comment, makes a suggestion, and then everybody ignores it and goes on, and then five minutes later a
man makes the same suggestion, and everybody says, oh
wow, that’s a great idea. And the virtue of having
another woman there, is the woman can then
be the second person, and say I agree with what Joan or Molly or whoever over here said,
and call attention to it. So I think it’s very
important to have certainly move beyond the token status. – Another question I have
for Pam and Joanie is about the role model effect, and getting women to run for office. The good research here talks
about how women in general don’t feel, or less likely to feel that they’re qualified to run for office than a comparable man. So you may have looked at this stuff, it’s Jennifer Fox and Richard Lawless, and they interviewed a
whole bunch of people that were in the career paths, like lawyers and business people who would run for office typically. And they asked them a number of questions, but one of them was, have you
ever thought about politics, and do you think you are qualified. And the results are that there’s a big difference between men and women, men and women who are equally qualified Are very differently thinking about whether they might
have a political career, and whether they’re qualified. And women also get much
less as they’re growing up. Suggestions by parents or others that this might be a career for them. So what can be done by people like you all who are role models
to stop that process, to switch that, to make it equally as possible for young women to think about
political careers as men, and that women realize
that they can, should, can enjoy being in politics? – I think the times actually have changed. You know we were making
mention in the presentation that there is definitely more women who have run than ever before, but if you look at even locally. I’m proud to say in Onondaga County within our own Democratic
committee structure, we have more women running
for County Legislature now that we have ever had before. And I think a lot of it,
especially the past couple of years have come from the MeToo movement, a lot of it has come from seeing people who actually look like you who are in your community that they say oh, I can do that as well. If you see on the national stage, I think definitely with President Obama, you saw somebody who
was a person of color, I can do this, if he can do it then other people can do things too. You obviously saw the women who were running for president, you have Kamala Harris up there, I think that younger people
now know that they can do it. Not think that may be
somebody along the way may tap me on the shoulder. I think what really needs to be focused on is that people who are
at a socio economic level they think even having a stable
house is out of their reach that something like being an elected official is
something they can do, and it’s definitely incumbent upon myself and all the others to lift them up, because that’s something that
they absolutely need to feel, that they can do it, they can. I think that there is this notion that you have to be a lawyer, or you have to be a bank president, or you have to be a, whatever it is that people think that somebody’s job was
supposed to have been. But we have seen that you can
be a waitress or a bartender, or could have been
owning a not-for-profit, or home entrepreneur, or a housewife, and say, you know I feel
like I want to serve today, because I have something to
contribute to the community. (audience applauds) – I don’t think politics, I don’t think that we are unique in the area of things that
men think they’re better at, so we’re talking about
the political arena, but there’s a lot of barriers
built in along the way. I think the way boys and
girls are raised generally, you’ll see that lack of
confidence in a lot of areas including politics. But in politics I think
it can be made better if we can get to that
critical mass, whatever is. If we can get to the point where the tone and tenor of
the conversation changes, or that we are hearing about
people accomplishing things, I think it will open the
floodgates for women, I think you have to have women in there, get that results oriented focus. But I think a lot of the women that I personally associate with, it’s not that they don’t feel qualified, it’s just that they’re
just not interested. What you read about happening in Washington is not appealing, do you really want to go. We are only given one life, and do you really want
to spend it that way. And I really think that’s kept a lot of women out of the fight, unfortunately, but I think as more get in, if we see that the tone and tenor changes, if we see the collaborative behavior you think it will bear
out if we get more women, the things that you said
will change with more women I think if that was
portrayed in the media, and women saw that that
is the kind of place where you can make positive change, and you can really
affect your neighborhood, I think you’ll see more women get in. – I think you’re right. But I also want to talk a little bit, you’re talking about higher level office, and people might be turned off by what’s happening in Washington, or can’t imagine themselves. But I deal with every day is a much lower level of political offices, and I’m wondering first Sue, if COP has data about
2018, or these years now, as producing more women
at local levels of office? – You know we are not able to
track local levels of office because for a variety of reasons, there are so many of them
across all the states. – [Kristi] You could get a big grant and get somebody to do that. – Gigantic. But they also hold elections
at different times, they’re not standardized, so what happens is, the minute you count them it’s changed, so we do keep tabs on women
who are mayors in big cities, but we’ve given up on the notion that you can try to track, I wish somebody would, but it’s probably not gonna be us. Trying to track people at the local level. – One of the things
that happened after 2016 was this resistance movement, starting with the women’s march and so on, which was powered not entirely, but largely by women I think. Looking through my local lens, one of the things that’s done is to push a lot more women into
Democratic party politics and into running potentially
for local office, and into paying more
attention to local county Central New York politics. And I don’t think that’s something, I know that a couple of scholars, (mumbles) and Laura Putnam
are writing things about this, I don’t know how data biased it is, but I really am looking forward to seeing some of those
outcomes as we move forward, because I think that this experience of the last couple of years has maybe started to overcome some of the things that you’re
talking about Joanie, that I couldn’t get involved, yes I can with all my friends, and we’re going to Seneca
Falls and we’re marching, and then the next thing to do is we are voting this
person out of office, or that person into
office and the next thing, I might run for office. – I’ve seen a lot more what
I would call regular people getting involved because
of the 2016 experience. I think that Billy Bush
tape that people heard, it was just so, it doesn’t matter what
your political bent is, that was just so incredibly offensive that it fired a lot of people up. – Are we to the time, what are we doing? (woman mumbles off microphone) Let’s see if I had any particular. I just wanted to say one thing to Sue, which is not a criticism, but I like the women’s softball team, and you are attributing
collaborative-ness to women, because they weren’t playing
Republicans versus Democrats, but isn’t it the case that there just wasn’t enough of them to play? – Yes, I get your point unfortunately. – So we might like and
accept them to have so many. Whatever. – They still will play the same way. – They still will play against
the press, okay that’s fine. I guess I put it to you two, do you have anything that
we haven’t talked about that you’d like to mention or bring up before we throw it to the audience? – Well I’m interested
in everyone’s questions, but I would just say that my wish would be that people pay attention. And that they make informed
decisions when they go to vote, and get involved. I can’t tell you how many
times I’ve spoken to groups, and I’ve listened to complaints
about the way things are, and I said well, I have this impression
that you’re all home with a glass of wine on your patio
talking about how bad it is, but get in, get in, and I personally am willing to help. I think that there’s
just a simple mechanics of how you get your name on the ballot that keeps a lot of people out. But call on me, I’m happy to help, because I think the more
people that we get involved the better that we will all be. I don’t know if you have anything? – I just wanted to say, I think that the way the whole political government
structure was set up, it wasn’t set up for us
women, it wasn’t set up. I mean just having the notion that the meetings are scheduled
in the middle of the day, who has time to go to a meeting
in the middle of the day? If you are a part-time legislator, just say on the county, or
even in the city council, in the City of Syracuse, not even thinking about the
state legislature or Congress. You have to be self-employed, you have to have an
employer that would say yes, you can work in the middle of
the day, maybe be a lawyer. So it’s not conducive for working women, obviously as we are sitting
here talking about women, to say, yes I can be that too, if knowing that the structure was not set up for working women, or women because you were
home taking care of the kids, you didn’t have time to come home and leave to go for a meeting
in the middle of the day. And I think those kinds of institutional, the way that it was founded, if we could change that
it would definitely get more people would be
interested and participating. If you’re gonna choose something that doesn’t pay
necessarily a living wage, and say I’m gonna stop
everything I’m gonna do, because I need to come to this meeting once every other Wednesday
or Monday or what not, compared to I do want to be
a part of what’s going on, how can I do that, and unless they do it in the
evening, I can’t participate, and I think that the
structure needs to change. – Can I just add to that and say I totally agree with what Pam is saying, but when I did throw my hat in the ring and said that I wanted to run, I was met with, well how could you possibly
do that, you have little kids. And we don’t do that to men, we don’t ask them who’s gonna
take care of their kids. So I agree with Pam that we
need to change the structure, but I also think that
that plays into the whole we can’t do it because we
have other obligations. – Well thank you very much. (audience applauds) – So we’re gonna open
it up for questions now, we have two microphones, so if you have a question raise your hand. Okay I’ve got one down
here and then one up here. So we’ll go second. So please just wait
till the microphone gets to you to ask a question, thank you. – [Woman] So I want to
ask Carroll I think first and then the others. Don’t you think that the
reason why there’s more women that ran this time is that
they had a protagonist, they had a cause? – Yes. – [Woman] And I think
it goes to what Gillian was saying as well, they really had, they couldn’t
say I can’t do this any more. Because when you had the
Obama administration, when people were looking for
people that look like them, and they wanted to get out and help, but they needed a cause, and MeToo as part of that same thing too. – I agree with that. One of the findings of research on women in politics is that, and one of the things that
we’ve seen over the years at the Center for American
Women in Politics, is we’ve dealt with political
women across the country and the stories they tell
is that they tend to get involved in politics
because of their passion around an issue. There is something that motivates them. It can be as small as
needing to have a stop sign on the corner so their kids aren’t in danger when walking to school, or it can be something like what we saw with the presidential election in the election of
something that you strongly, adamantly disagree with
for different reasons. So there are lots of
different motivations, but for women at least it
seems like the motivation is usually has to do with something I would call a passion. Often around an issue, but it’s certainly in
this case was motivated by the election of a presidential candidate. – Versus men, who were motivated by what? – More by personal ambition. You know one of the, Anna Eshew, I’m paraphrasing her,
from California said, that basically women come to Congress because they want to change things, they want to solve problems, men more often come to Congress because they want to be somebody. – [Woman] You don’t have to
go to Congress to see that. – Well I’m just saying, I’m
sort of misstating the quote. – No, but I know exactly what you mean, we want to do it, they want to be it. – And this links I think to the fact that you were talking about
the Lawless and Fox research, where women have less political ambition. That doesn’t mean they
won’t run for office, they may have less political ambition, because political ambition is personal, it’s about wanting to advance yourself in a position or up the
hierarchy or whatever. But those women, and
this is what we argue, Kira Sanbonmatsu and I
argued in our earlier book called Poised to Run, which looked at the factors
that affect recruitment. Women basically they are poised to run, there just has to be
something to get them to run. So it’s not just about ambition, it’s like if the passion grounds them, if something happens, if someone talks to them
and encourages them, it is true that women need more encouragement to run for office, they need to be encouraged more often. And they do see themselves
as less qualified, even when they’re more qualified. And they’ll have all kinds of
credentials to run for office, and yet they’re not sure
if they’re quite ready, which is why the
encouragement is so important. But there are a lot of women out there who can run for office, so I don’t think you have to sit and wait for a political ambition to happen. I think it just takes
something to encouragement, and it takes and or passion around a cause or an issue. – I would only add to that, that discouragement can be a motivator. – [Susan] Oh yeah that’s true. – I got my job as a result
of a temper tantrum. (audience laughs) You get told all the reasons
why you shouldn’t do it, that can be a motivator also. – We had a question up here, and then move the microphone
down here, thank you. – Yeah, so my question is for the panel. And picking up from both Mrs Mahoney, and Mrs Hunter mentioned
about the conversation, and how do we change the
dynamics of the conversation to make it more interesting
for the next generation there’s a disconnect in terms of politics and the interest and why
should they get involved. I mean, my daughter here
who is in high school, and how do we get them to that point of where it is an interesting conversation Enough for them to cross
that barrier to get involved? – You know we would probably both agree, electing an independent and Ben Walsh as the Mayor of the city of Syracuse is a giant step forward. Because a lot of the partisan politics are what turn people off, but when people see they can
get elected outside of that two party system, I think it sends a message to maybe what I keep
calling regular people, those of us who didn’t throw our hats in the ring are regular people. But I think that voting for
the person and not the party, and being able to put some
independent voices in there might make the conversation
more interesting for people like your daughter. – If I can add something, there’s an article in
the Washington Post today by two political scientists, who found that, they interviewed
adolescent girls and boys in 2016 and 2018 I think, one of the things they
asked was do you think. Did you read this, any of you read this? Yeah, it’s kind of, do you think things are going
in the country the right way, or are you really pissed off about it. And the people who were upset about it, particularly the girls, the young high school aged girls, if they were Democrats they
were really likely to say I’m gonna get involved. So in this case, having this issue, which is what you mentioned too, or this feeling that
things were going wrong and they needed to jump in there, has particularly mobilized that group, or potentially is mobilizing
that group of people. So not that you want bad things to happen to mobilize people necessarily, but it seems to be happening. – I guess I would bring it down to just even more
grassroots personal level. I’ve talked to lots of young people, I’m driven to talk with them because the decisions I make on an everyday basis is for them, it’s not for me, it’s for the future, and so when I talk to young people, I say, is clean air important to you, is clean water important to you. Is student loan debt important to you. Is owning a home important to you, and if any of those things are important well we make those decisions, we create laws that impact the future. And so if there be ever an issue, maybe it doesn’t have to be an overall, I want to be involved, it could be a specific, I want to make sure we have
clean air in the future. And that’s a reason to jump in, and sometimes it goes
through advocacy first, and then political office, and it doesn’t have to be in that way. But I go right to the issues, what is important to you, is
education important to you? Is the environment important to you? Because something is
important to everyone, is technology important to you. Do you want to make sure we have the most up-to-date technology possible, well we make those decisions. So I think having young people know that we are making decisions for you, if you don’t like the decisions
that we are making for you, you better get involved now, because you’re the next
generation, it’s for you. – [Susan] Good point. – [Woman] So my question is how unique the 2018 elections were. Maybe the same pattern will
repeat itself for 2020. But clearly there is this
anger that women feel, so part of that is this
Billy Bush tape effect, or Trump effect, or how
you might just call it. Because there is some structural issues, and I think Joanie Mahoney mentioned this. Women generally are less
interested in politics, so we find this not only in the US, we find the same effect in
other advanced democracies, but they elect more women, because this also just ties into another thing that you just mentioned, that the primaries reward extreme people, and you tie this together to say that women are put off by
this sort of extreme thing. So there is data that suggest that women don’t like extreme things, but the uniqueness of
2018 election was that women became the extreme position. Right? In a sense for Democrats, a female candidate was more untrustworthy, because there’s also the MeToo movement, all the things are happening, and suddenly there’s a situation
where you go to primaries, a woman, you can believe this woman to be a stronger more extreme
voice against the status quo, and I think that’s why we’re just seeing a lot more female
presidential candidates too. So my question is, how long will this effect last, while the structural aspects of the American politics are not changing, so I just want to hear
you comment on this. – Well I thought that
was a great question, but I will defer to the experts over here. – [Sam] I was afraid of that. – Are there cycles that we should be? – Well I think it’s too early to tell, I just don’t know the
answer to the question. Because it may well be that we are experiencing a sea change, and that these women have now gone in, and they’ll motivate other women, and things will keep building. On the other hand, we may just go back. So I’m hoping that at a
minimum this is a new normal, that we’ve got more women in office now, so our baseline has gone up, and we are at least able
to maintain that baseline and build on it moving forward. We are probably not gonna
have something like, something quite as
motivating as what we saw following the 2016 election, and you’re right about all the structural
problems that still remain, I mean none of that has changed, so that’s all in the background. But to me the verdict is just out, we’ll just have to stay
tuned, we will see. – Although I would say that
some of the structural things may change with more
resistance to gerrymandering, which is what you are arguing. And trying to create better districts, and to encourage people to vote
rather than suppress voting and so on and so forth, so that’s an optimistic. – I’d just like to add, it’s interesting, because since the election in November, and switching my hat
because I am the chair of the Democratic Party
in Onondaga County. And I have seen, and its anecdotal, I’m not a statistician, but I have seen just even
the drop in social media has gone down since after, we got the house, we can take a breath, because people have been fighting
for like an year and 1/2, and so I feel like that there is a way in which people are like, okay, let me just get a
little room to breathe here, and that is slightly concerning, because obviously we have local elections this year in 2019, where we have a huge amount
of women who are running, and we need to be cognizant of that. But we’re not focusing on today and now, and issues that relate to people locally, who’s gonna be the next president? We’re already talking about 2020, when we have things
that are related to now. So it’s a little concerning. I was with a consultant earlier today, and I asked, just what happened
in that public advocate race that happened in New York City, obviously they had a public
advocate race in New York City, what was the voter turnout? Well super special election, we’re talking about a city
that has nine million people, 10 million people, 8%. – [Susan] That is concerning. – A question over here. – I’ll just confess that I am a man in local politics before I ask a question. – We’ll allow it. – But Joanie made a reference
to being in the fight, and as a man, I mean politics is a fight, at the end of the day even
for these local positions, there is the political part
of it can turn into a fight, and one person wins and one person loses, and there can be like, anyway my question, that part
seems the most uncomfortable. As a man who has recruited
female candidates and the part that seems most
uncomfortable is the fight, so when is the first time you politically got punched in the face, how did you react, when was the first time you politically threw a punch, and what did you do? – That is a very good question,
and I have experts here. I don’t know, Travis
ran my campaign in 2005, I don’t think I took punches and threw punches very much in that. I would say that, look at
him, he’s like, yes you do. (audience laughs) The one that stands out to
me really was the 2007 race, when I said that I was interested in running for County executive. That was really the big thing that I did that was so horrible was express interest in
perhaps pursuing this. And it was just a really fierce
negative response to that. And I don’t think that I’ve ever, I don’t know that I was
really punched in the face, but I also don’t think it ever ended, I just sort of think that
that was my new normal. But I would also say that I
was guilty of the same thing. But for me it was when I lost my patience with people needing to not, like if you need to edit the facts to get people on your side, then you really need to consider what you’re doing for a
living here, you know? If you’re straight with people,
give them all the facts, if you’re confident in the
position that you’re taking, then you should want everybody
to know what you know And believe that they will
come around to where you are. But when you find yourself in a battle, and it happened for me here locally, that side of things, and now I’m getting way into the weeds for people who don’t pay attention. But it was like we were fighting against, we just wanted the facts, and at some point I feel
like I started punching. And it was just like,
I just had had enough of the gamesmanship. But it is a battle, it doesn’t really need to be though. I kind of got a vibe from you when he said that about a fight, it doesn’t really probably
need to be a fight, but inevitably. – There are fight aspects
with competition always, but yes, you can make that less
important a part of things. – Since you downplay the fight aspect, just okay, I want to
get elected and I’m not, there are way more men who are like, oh I will not crazy spent
time away from my family, so women will say, I don’t know what my experience
with that element of it, like demonstrate the full
commitment to this job is probably worse than
the job you already have. – Yeah, I knocked on 4000 doors, and people thought I was crazy, but I kind of was crazy, I really wanted to. – [Woman] We have a question over there. – [Woman] Thank you all
for being here today, so my question goes back to
the 2020 candidates so far, and the women that we are seeing, Amy Clove announcing her
candidacy a few weeks ago, and the media attacks
that came afterwards, the media publicity about
her being an aggressive boss. So my question is really– – She’s difficult. – Difficult, so my question is, how far do women candidates
still have to come in the media realm in
terms of their temperament, and what role does that play in them getting into
office in the first place? – I think it’s a lot quite frankly, and while we love the media, I feel like they do a
disservice quite frankly. I think we have seen in several instances just in the past week where we jumped to conclusions when we
just hear a snippet. And unfortunately people listen
to 30 seconds worth of news, And they jump on and post
on Instagram and Facebook, and this person said something, and we are very hesitant to
look at all of the facts. And now she has to come out and have all of her staffers say, no, she’s a great person, and you shouldn’t have to do that. I think we are too quick to
rush to judgment quite frankly, and we do get judged. I could say the universal we, but I could say personally people, you’re being too aggressive, you’re being too sensitive, you’re being too dramatic, you’re being too, this this this. And if I would say that about a man, oh, they would never be like that. Well they’re absolutely,
they’re worse in some cases. Quite frankly, but I
think that we need to hold the media accountable
relative to things like that, because it’s unfair, because then already that’s the narrative that we have already had that narrative out there in the universe That there is already an issue, and she’s already, you’re
being spicy with her staff, but how is she gonna be with
the rest of the universe, and that’s not fair, it’s just not fair, and we should push back on that. – [Wendy] Yeah, I agree. She ate salad with a come,
how could we elect anyone. – The media is a big part of the problem. They love it if we start fighting, they just love it, they
pour gasoline on it, and it’s not helpful. – [Wendy] Sarah? – [Sarah] Yeah I was wondering if one of the barriers for women running is the increased cost of campaigns– – Raising money. – [Sarah] Raising money,
I mean I personally, just the idea of calling people
and asking them for money just is really not attractive, and I don’t know if that’s
gendered or not, but I wonder. And it also makes me think about, something Margarita said, is when women do get some power, it feels like one of the goals should be to change some of those rules, so that they no longer serve
as such barriers going forward, so that our agenda should include policies that start to change those structures, otherwise we are just spinning our wheels, and we go up and down, and is just based on who is the crazy man in the White House. I don’t want that to be the
reason why there’s more women is because there is a crazy
person in the White House, because hopefully there won’t always be a crazy person in the White House. – I think that’s a really good point, because I don’t really know
that it’s on the agendas of this new freshman class of women to change things like gerrymandering and the structure. – Sure, the Democrats, and public financing potentially. – I think one of the things, obviously as a person
who has to raise money, it’s almost like you have
to switch your hat around and get yourself together
as you pick up the phone, and you get ready to make that call, it’s like, what are you raising money for. And a reporter asked me one day, what is all this money for, what do you need all this money for? Well those nice glossy postcards
that come to your house, they cost a lot of money, and those wonderful commercials
everyone sees on TV, those are super expensive, they’re like Super Bowl price commercials. And it’s unfortunate, because that’s how modern
day campaigns are now, its literature, email box every other day, and I walked straight
from my mailbox right to the recycling bin, and it doesn’t even get to the house. And that’s exact, thousands
of dollars that it costs. But I find that for the folks who can’t raise may be as much as others, and we’ve seen that especially in the Westchester County exec race, where the Republican
had a million and a half more dollars than the Democrat, it was boots on the
ground that won that race, and I think that foot power, if you’re not wearing your shoes out, if you’re not exhausted by the
time you go home every night then you’re not working hard enough. I think quite honestly that you can come back from that costly, things like TV and print
if you have a mechanism to get out there and knock on a bunch of doors and see
as many people as possible. – Alright, we have two more questions, we’re gonna start over there,
and then we’ll end with you. – [Woman] Hello. What advice would you have
for women going into politics, or even just the workforce that is unique to any advice that you would have for men going into the
workforce or politics? – You want to start? – You’re asking what advice would we have that would
be unique for women, and not the advice we would give men? Be nice, comb your hair, wear a dress. (laughs) That is tough, what advice would I give? Well first of all my advice would be to please get involved in politics, and I would say it’s not all bad. We’ve been focusing on some of the issues, but there’s something really rewarding about being out in your community and somebody saying they
are having some issue with something that is
bureaucratic and a morass, and you can solve it for them. We, I’m sure Pam and I
and others in this room have been approached by people whose family members are suffering from the opioid addiction. You’re in a position to
actually help people, and it is really rewarding, so I would encourage people to do it. But as far as women,
just stand your ground, and encourage your
friends to get involved. There are a lot of good guys in the world, and even some of the good guys, and I have a couple of
them that I’m thinking of, but they just don’t have the
same perspective that we have, so there’s real value in
having women’s voices. – I would say, and universally I guess I would tell anybody this, but for women candidates I would say you need to
read and be prepared, because there have been many
times I’ve been in the room and people would say to me, gosh you really know what
you’re talking about. I’m like, the information is
right there in front of you, and most people won’t read the information that’s presented to them. And I would say that is right there, you’ll be at the top of
the list if you read. What you need is out there for you. Sometimes feel uncomfortable,
women feel uncomfortable, well you don’t know enough. But let me tell you in a room if you read and you be prepared, and you’re sitting there in a committee and people are flipping through
and they don’t really know, and you start asking questions, and all of a sudden they are
sitting up with the ties, they’re adjusting, it’s like wait a minute, she is asking real legitimate questions. Be prepared. – [Susan] Good advice,
good advice, good advice. (audience applauds) – How many women who are
involved in community action. I’m a community activist myself, and a lot of people who
want to get things done are working on climate
change or local education, and issues like that. But I think there are two obstacles to running for office for many women, one of them we finally
touched down, raising money. Women who want to solve problems don’t necessarily want to
go out and raise money, that’s a distraction. The second one I think
is social or cultural. Men are ambitious, women are pushy. It’s a perception in our society, and a lot of women who
may want to solve problems don’t necessarily want to get
into politics for that reason. So I wondered about your experience, especially about the
social and cultural aspect of being a woman running for office? – You are the town councilor,
do you want to answer? – I would say that you need
to make it a team effort, and you need to have people who are, I never, well, it’s not real expensive to run for town board in Cazenovia, but the first time that
a bunch of us did it, it with several people, and we had the backing of other people. So I never felt like it was
just me asking money for me, it was us trying to get enough money for this little campaign. So it’s having a team of people. At the national level, women are now equally able
to raise funds as men. For democratic women, Emily’s list has been
particularly important, and I think that’s true right? – [Susan] Yeah, a state equalizer. – That women have ceased
to have a disadvantage if they are running for
Congress, just taken as a whole. – [Woman] We are not
trained in self-promotion. – That’s absolutely correct, yes. (woman mumbles off microphone) No, I think that’s right. – I agree, and if you asked me 20 years ago would I like to read articles in the paper that I’m pushy to use your word, no. But it does come with the territory, and I agree with you that it’s probably a barrier for a lot of people, but there is a lot about being involved, and as Pam said, do you want clean water, do you want clean air, education. There’s something really
rewarding about having a voice. So you kind of have to take the good with the bad until things change. – This is something that I’ve actually learned from my students, which is embrace the
pejorative in a sense. So would I say, yes. So get yourself a bunch of T-shirts that say pushy broad for
Congress, or whatever. (audience laughs) I mean that’s what the
younger folks would do. And just don’t let them
use it against you, take it in and re-value it. – [Woman] What’s the
alternative of working on community issues without any problems. – It’s a very important law, you need the inside and
you need the outside, and women can be much more
effective on the inside if they have people on the
outside who are holding them accountable and
pushing them to do things. And people on the outside
can’t really bring about change without people on the inside, you need allies across that barrier on the inside and the outside. – You said something,
I just wanted to say, you had said something about culturally, and I think just to add, I have been several times, and I think that goes by stereotypes, where you’re just being
an angry black woman. Well I am angry, and I’ve got a lot of
things to be angry about. And it’s like, if that
makes you uncomfortable, that means there’s something
for us to talk about, and I think that that always leaves room. If you’re not comfortable
with me being angry and black, then that’s a whole
different other problem. So I think you have to
embrace that scenario type. But I definitely thank you for your service in the community, because there are far
more community activists, and citizens who have their boots on the ground who are helping, and you lift me up, you lift us up. Because without the
work that you’re doing, and a lot of the other
advocates that are doing, you’re the ones who were
knocking on our doors and saying, don’t forget about this, you remind us of what’s
important, so thank you. – [Woman] We can make
a difference locally. – You do all the time, thank you. – Wonderful. I’m gonna ask everyone to continue these wonderful conversations
at our reception, and join me in thanking our panelists. (audience applauds)