What Will It Take to Make A Woman President?: Conversations About Women, Leadership and Power (68 page)

IRL
: Oh, and I think we’re going to do better with that issue, as well. Before, I was the only one for a little while, but we have Richard Hanna of New York and he’s terrific, Nan Hayworth, unfortunately she lost, but she was also from New York—so it seems like the northeast is a little more willing to accept, “Oh, there are people that aren’t exactly like me; I think that they’re going to be all right. They’re not out to kill me!” Then we have Charlie Dent from Pennsylvania, who’s a great member, and he’s with us
on all of these issues. So I wouldn’t say that’s a bandwagon [
laughs]
—I mean, I can count them on one hand and have fingers left over: it’s Richard Hanna, Charlie Dent, and me. But there are many other members who, although not co-sponsors of any of these bills, I think will be willing to vote with us if we get an opportunity to get these bills to the floor and to vote. Except the problem is that our Republican primaries are really brutal. And I know that my position on these issues will get me a Republican primary this time around, so I’ll have a tough primary and then I’ll have a tough general. But that’s the price you pay for your principles. So that’s all right; it’s not a problem. But the problem for a lot of our members is that if they vote a certain way, then they get a primary.

And what’s happening in Congress lately is that you have very few swing districts. Now you have very Democratic districts and very Republican districts and not too many swing districts like mine, where I’m always up there as a target, thinking that they can beat me. They’re never able to, but I have to fight hard every time for it. And so there are not too many swing issues, either, so people think, “Well, is it worth it for me to vote what I think is right, when I know that this will get me a primary opponent?” And that’s a problem—that’s why we never seem to get anywhere with these social issues.

MS
: Part of this book is also about trying to appeal to women in order to develop their leadership abilities, to trust their instincts, to have confidence and courage. Were you always this way? How did you develop your own inner leader to speak up for what you believe is right?

IRL
: You know, I think it comes from experience. I wouldn’t say that I was like this from the very first—but it gives you courage once you’ve been there awhile, and if you think, you know, the worst that can happen to me is I lose an election. Boy, if that’s the worst that can happen to me, I have
a blessed life. And it no longer is a frightening thought for me that if I vote a certain way, I could lose an election. I don’t want to lose an election, but I’ve come to realize, you vote your principles, you vote your voice and let the chips fall where they may. And may you find that at the end of day, the people are more understanding and more forgiving than you think they are. They might not like every vote that you take—I’m not saying that my district loves every vote I take—but they see you as an honest person who’s not in this to enrich herself and not in it for any greater glory than representing her district and trying to explain what goes on in Congress and how you voted. That’s why I do radio shows. And a responsibility I have is to explain to my constituents why I vote a certain way. And as long as you’re in touch with the public and the people see you as an honest person, I don’t see why people would vote against you, even if they did not like your vote in favor of gay rights or a vote in favor of pro-life or whatever you’re thinking. You owe them an explanation, and you can’t vote exactly the way your district wants 100 percent of the time, because that would be a very unexciting district that you represent. I have a very varied district of people who think from one edge of the spectrum to the other. I represent Little Havana, very conservative and Hialeah, very conservative, to other areas that aren’t as conservative, the University of Miami, for example. I mean, every area is different and people understand. You’re not going to vote with them 100 percent of the time.

MS
: It’s hard to imagine that not too long ago women didn’t even have the right to vote, which is a mind-blowing thing to think about . . .

IRL
: Unbelievable! Did you know that there were members of Congress before then, because the state allowed them to vote, and so Jeannette Rankin—she was the first member of Congress [elected in 1916, four years before the Nineteenth Amendment was passed]. And there were a bunch of
them elected before women were allowed to vote [
laughs]
. It’s kind of odd that they were serving there.

MS
: That’s very bizarre. I’m trying to get a sense of where we are at this moment in time. I’ve heard different assessments, some very optimistic, some very discouraged, and some feel like we’ve stagnated. In terms of the status of women here in the U.S. and around the world, where do you think we are today?

IRL
: Oh, it’s a great time. It’s a wonderful time to be a female thinking about running for office, because there are so many opportunities, and you just have to be brazen and throw your hat in the ring and say, “Okay, I’m going to do this no matter what,” and you’re going to get further than you think, and people are going to be way more understanding than you think. So I think that many times we hold ourselves back and the people are way ahead of us. And it’s a great time. It’s not a bad time at all to be a woman interested in political life. I think the sky’s the limit. I know for sure. What do I know about the future? I would bet—I would be very surprised if both political parties did not have, either at the top or as the running mate, a woman for this next presidential election. I would be very, very surprised. This election was such an earth shaker for our party to understand how behind the times we were. And it sent Shockwaves through our party, because we all expected Mitt Romney to do well, and he didn’t, and we’ve had to reexamine. And thank goodness we have leaders who understand that this was not a fluke election. This is what’s going to be happening every time. They’re going to slap us, and we’ve got to wake up. I think this was a wake-up call and our party is going to be the same party—we’re not changing our values, but we’re going to understand that there are other people out there who don’t look like us and talk like us and think like us, and we represent them, as well.

MS
: I have two young daughters and I see all of the influences that there are preying on girls. What advice or words of wisdom would you have for girls today, not just in terms of running for political office, but just seeing themselves as leaders and change agents?

IRL
: One of the things that frightens me is social media and the bullying that goes on in schools. It’s just terrible. So I worry about things happening to kids with bullying and pictures posted online—things that did not happen, obviously, when I was going through school. There are all kinds of pressures now and new tools to intimidate kids into conformity. So I hope that they always have good teachers and wonderful parents and a great community that encourages diversity and for them to find their own voice and to not conform and express themselves in the way that they feel free to do. I just worry about the
crushing
pressures of society. And I think in that respect, I don’t think we’ve moved too far from the fifties. I think there’s just a big push to conform. Maybe it’s not in all the cities, but in many of the schools that I go to it’s tough for kids who stand out. It still is tough for them. I think that’s more of the norm, where they feel intimidated and life is hard for them. So I want life to be good for all kids. They deserve for schools to be a safe place. And teachers need to do a better job and principals and staff and everybody. The community needs to work together to make
all
of our communities better places.

SANDRA FLUKE

“I think one of the big challenges we have in how we talk about electing women to office, generally
—
and the ramifications of it are one of the reasons why it’s harder to elect a female president—is that we talk about how if we elect women, they’ll govern differently. I know there’s research about this as well, but I think it’s problematic messaging to be using. . . . It has that impact on how we see women, because we’re categorizing them as different by our language, and [saying] that we should elect them to focus on those “women’s” issues, which, it seems to me, automatically implies that they’re not necessarily the right people to focus on military issues or economics or national security, things like that. And those are the types of issues that we tend to sometimes associate more with the presidency, at least that the electorate does, so I think that’s problematic.”

L
OS
A
NGELES ATTORNEY
Sandra Fluke has devoted her career to public-interest advocacy, serving on numerous social-justice advocacy coalitions, ranging from economic justice to gay rights. Fluke cofounded the New York Statewide Coalition for Fair Access to Family Court, which, after a twenty-year stalemate, successfully lobbied for legislation allowing LGBTQ, teen, and other victims of intimate-partner violence to access civil orders of protection. She has been recognized for her extensive pro bono
representation of victims of domestic violence and human trafficking and for her human-rights advocacy efforts in Kenya.

Fluke came to national attention in February 2012, when congressional Republicans prohibited her from testifying, instead hearing from a panel of only men, on a question of women’s health. She then testified before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on the importance of women’s own private insurance covering contraception. Commenting on Fluke’s statements at that hearing, Rush Limbaugh sparked national outrage when he called her a “slut” and a “prostitute” on his radio show. Despite ongoing personal attacks, Fluke continues speak out for social justice across news outlets and addressed the Democratic National Convention. She served as a surrogate for the president in his reelection campaign and helped elect more than a dozen progressive candidates to Congress. Continuing her public advocacy, she currently speaks to audiences across the country, in addition to doing her legislative policy work. Her work has been honored by the American Federation of Teachers, the American Constitution Society, the National Association of Women Lawyers, the National Partnership for Women and Families, Planned Parenthood, and the Women’s Campaign Fund, among others.
Women’s eNews
bestowed Fluke with the title Truth-Teller to the Powerful on its 2013 list of 21 Leaders for the 21st Century.

MARIANNE SCHNALL
: Why do you think we have not yet had a woman president?

SANDRA FLUKE
: I think part of the problem is that we don’t have enough women in Congress and as governors and farther down in the pipeline.
We’re close . . . but there’s such a long list of reasons why there are barriers to elected office.

MS
: Do you feel that we are ready to elect a woman president? Do you think that our consciousness is at that point where you can envision it being possible?

SF
: Yes, I think so. It will be interesting to see whether the country is able to take that step and is willing to take that step, after having President Obama in office—whether they’re up for two record-breaking series of elections in a row or if they swing back in a conservative direction as a sort of backlash or something like that. The fact that President Obama was reelected is a good sign that the country is able to keep going in that direction.

I think one of the big challenges we have in how we talk about electing women to office, generally—and the ramifications of it are one of the reasons why it’s harder to elect a female president—is that we talk about how if we elect women, they’ll govern differently. I know there’s research about this as well, but I think it’s problematic messaging to be using. Because, for one thing, when we say that women will compromise more or women will be more collaborative, they’ll get more done in legislatures and they’ll focus on issues that women care about, they’ll focus on early childhood education and violence against women—and all these types of things—it lets all of our male legislators off the hook, which is problematic to start with. And it has that impact on how we see women, because we’re categorizing them as different by our language, and [saying] that we should elect them to focus on those “women’s” issues, which, it seems to me, automatically implies that they’re not necessarily the right people to focus on military issues or economics or national security, things like that. And those are the types of issues that we tend to sometimes associate more with
the presidency, at least that the electorate does, so I think that’s problematic. We pigeonhole what women in elected office are there to do and how they will do that in ways that might help get them elected in the short term but long-term make it seem less likely that they are presidential, that they are those types of figures.