What Will It Take to Make A Woman President?: Conversations About Women, Leadership and Power (69 page)

MS
: You’re totally right. I think there are a lot of confusing, complex elements to all of this. But, all that said—and again, it is hard to talk about this without making generalizations or bumping up against stereotypes—why, aside from an equality or fairness thing, is it important that we do have women in greater positions of leadership or at the table?

SF
: I think that it’s about what a democracy is supposed to be. A democracy is supposed to have elected officials who represent the electorate, represent the population and the citizenry, and presumably in the kinds of numbers that are in the citizenry. So it’s the same for women, for LGBT folks, for communities of color—there needs to be representation that reflects that part of the population, because they can represent that community in a different kind of way. I do think to a certain extent that you focus on the issues that are important to your community, and it’s hard to distinguish between that versus we elect women because they’re the ones who will take care of this. For me, it’s just an equal-representation type of argument.

MS
: There’s been a lot of talk, recently sparked by Sheryl Sandberg’s new book,
Lean In
, about the idea that part of the reason why there aren’t more women in leadership positions—whether it’s in the political sphere or the corporate sphere—is because of the fact that they don’t advocate for themselves. And studies are showing this, too: that women have to be actively pursued and convinced to run for office, or that they may not
stand up for themselves to ask for a raise. Do you think there are psychological, self-imposed components that hold women back, or do you see them more as structural obstacles?

SF
: I think there are certainly both. There are certainly structural obstacles in that we spend a lot of time asking, “How can we elect more women?” Well, we can elect them the same way we elect anyone: by having the power brokers in the parties decide that they want women candidates. So there are those structural concerns and, of course, all of the concerns there are about work-life balance and things like that. But in terms of psychological concerns, I think it’s different than what [Sandberg] is talking about in her piece—and I must admit, I haven’t read a lot of it yet. I think it’s actually something that happens earlier in the life cycle for women. She seems to be talking about what happens after women launch their careers and that they then decide to take a step back, or they don’t lean in, or there’s that type of argument. I think for elected office, it’s that you need to reach young girls, like high school and college girls, to get them to consider this as a real possibility and to grow up imagining that this is something they can do. Because when they’re small, like maybe your daughter’s age when she first started asking about this, they can conceive of it, but they lose that picture of themselves doing it when they start to grapple with picking a career or what it would take to step on that ladder and [experience] that process. And I think that’s where we have to do some training, some cultivation, of their leadership potential. You probably know Running Start—it’s an organization that’s doing training with young girls for that purpose—and I think that’s really important work, because the other part of getting to the presidency is starting your political career relatively young, and early in your career, so that you have time to rise through that process and through the various offices and up the ladder.

MS
: I remember talking to Gloria Steinem about this, that it’s not just about redefining gender stereotypes for women . . . because, like you were saying, we have these perceptions that a woman president would be dealing only with “soft” issues. But on the reverse side, we have these perceptions about boys and men, too, that are very fixed and force them to have that image that has been associated with men, or with masculinity, and now the presidency. Is it also a combination of having to change gender stereotypes in boys and men, too, so that they can be seen as nurturers and caretakers and women can be seen as leaders and authoritative and strong?

SF
: Gender roles and the policing of them hurt all of us. And I think one of the advantageous things that is happening is that the trans movement is opening up that conversation some and showing people who are cisgender and conform more to those categories that there are ways in which men also are limited, as well as women. And it does seem that to be in elected office takes a certain toll on your family life. We have to get to the point where we can imagine, at least for heterosexual couples, a male partner who is focusing a little bit more on the family while the female is in elected office. I hear a lot about Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s family, that she has several children and they refer to [her husband] as Saint Steve, I believe; he takes care of the kids a lot, but she also prioritizes being there for her family. So it’s a little bit different for gay couples, but for straight couples, we have to be able to picture a man in a First Lady role. And we don’t even know what to call that yet.

MS
: First Man? Gentleman? [
laughs]
I’m not sure. I look forward to the day when we have to figure that out! Now, part of this, of course, is getting women to feel confident to speak out for what they believe in, and oftentimes we’ve seen that means that you can come under attack. And there’s nobody who maybe would know that better than you with what you went
through after testifying. First of all, how did it feel to go from being a primarily private person to suddenly being such a public spokesperson and leader? Did you welcome that opportunity, or did it intimidate you? It’s really important to talk about this, because when we do become leaders or pursue political positions, part of it is having that kind of attention and sometimes coming under attack. How did you handle it?

SF
: I think the thing that was the most challenging for me was that it was a very sudden jump, whereas a lot of women who would be in elected office would be working their way up in terms of the level of media attention that they’re dealing with and the level of attack, and that prepares you, and it’s almost training on how to handle that. So I think that’s one distinction. I did hear from so many women who are in public life that they had endured similar types of things—even reporters I talked to, and any of the elected officials. And while it’s really discouraging to know that this is so common for women in the spotlight, it also means that they’re all surviving it. They’re all okay. All these women whom we see playing these roles, they keep going and they can handle it. We have to remind ourselves that that means all the rest of us can, too. If it happens, then we can step up and counter it. The idea that we would let that win—that we would not engage or not run for office or not step out into the spotlight because of fear of that—they’re getting off way too easy if that’s how easily women are defeated and discouraged from engaging, because those types of attacks are pretty small-minded and not a particularly sophisticated strategy for taking on your opponents.

It’s interesting because there were certainly difficulties and challenges to deal with when all of this first happened to me—hard, hard things. But the ongoing challenge is more about forcing myself to really engage with the opportunity that I have right now. I suppose it’s a little bit about leaning in or forcing myself into the uncomfortable spaces where I’m not
accustomed to being and I don’t have as many experiences to fall back on, and I try to remind myself on a practically daily basis that this is what’s key to more women being out front and being in some of these public leadership roles—just doing it. And not being so concerned about whether or not we’re already qualified or if we really deserve this attention, or those types of thoughts that I think, unfortunately, socially, women are conditioned to have more often run through our minds. So that’s a challenge that I’m trying to grapple with, not only for my own professional purposes, but because all of us as women have to grapple with that if we’re going to make progress.

MS
: Even before you were put into that position, though, obviously you felt compelled in terms of testifying in front of Congress. What motivated you to speak out in such a public way in the first place? Where do you find the ongoing courage just to speak out on these issues? What drives you?

SF
: You know, I never know how to answer that question. I get that question sometimes: “Where did you find strength?” or something like that. And I have to acknowledge that there are folks who grapple with things that are
far
more difficult than what I’ve grappled with, but I really don’t know. I think we all have the strength to rise to the occasion, and a lot of folks who think they would never be able to handle that would [be able to handle it] if it actually happened to them. But when a situation is ongoing, when you have an opportunity to speak out on these things, when you actually get that national microphone or that media spotlight, then you have the responsibility to make sure you use that opportunity and talk about the things that are really important that we address as a society. If you don’t, you’re not really living up to how important you say those things are. If they’re that critical, then they’re worth fighting for and they’re worth risking some of your skin for. And so I’m hard on myself if
I don’t live up to that kind of responsibility, and that’s part of what I use to keep pushing myself.

MS
: Now that you have perspective, what did the whole incident—in terms of both Rush Limbaugh’s comments and the reaction on both sides—symbolize to you? What good, if any, do you think came out of it? Because, to me, it was a milestone of sorts. What strikes you, looking back on that moment in context now, both in your personal history and, I guess, in our history now?

SF
: You know, I think that some of the positive things were that it gave an opportunity to shine a light on some things that were happening in state legislatures and in Congress around “women’s” issues, women’s reproductive justice, things like that. And that was an opportunity, because not enough of us realized what was happening and realized what was at stake, and so that was powerful. I think it also gave our country an opportunity to have a bit of a national conversation about our media and how we talk about public figures and how we talk about women, and what the impact of that kind of language is. And obviously this happens not just for women, but for communities of color and LGBT communities and immigrant communities. I think it was important for us, at least briefly, to examine how we push people out of the conversation with the language that we use in our media and with these kinds of attacks. And I’m not, unfortunately, optimistic or naive enough to think that that will be the last time, but I think it
did
open a conversation for some people who don’t normally think about those types of concerns. I think that was important. It was a galvanizing moment, which was good. But it’s important that we continue to build on it and that no one came away with the impression that the November 2012 elections took care of all the issues that we were talking about during that election cycle. A lot of those bills have been
reintroduced, and those types of attacks from media just continue, so there has to be an ongoing effort to challenge things like that.

MS
: What was it like speaking at the Democratic National Convention?

SF
: Well, it’s a pretty friendly audience [
laughs]
. It was pretty great, an amazing feeling, to see the visual representation of how many people agreed with this fight and are on the same side. And I was very honored to do it. I really love speaking to crowds, so it was a lot of fun for me.

MS
: We were talking a little about this before—whether our country is moving forward or backward—and I have to admit, I’m sort of in the middle and I can almost be convinced either way. I’m bolstered by the uprising that happened in support of you, and yet that whole election season, between Todd Akin and the attack on Planned Parenthood and everything that was going on, made it hard to know what’s happening. Is there a backlash because women are advancing? Why are we fighting fights that we always thought we had taken care of years ago? How do you view this whole pushback on these issues, and what does it say about where women are in terms of our status in this country?

SF
: Well, I think that there are a couple of things happening. One is that politically we’re seeing the harvest of the work that very conservative movement-builders have been doing for thirty years. Literally, from around the time that I was born, when the Moral Majority’s and Ralph Reed’s efforts began, you’re seeing the harvest of that kind of work. So I think that’s part of the really conservative influence that we have seen happening in our political offices, and obviously the Tea Party had an impact when they came into office, so it’s been a peak, a sudden upswing, in the last few years that is, to me, connected to that long trajectory.

MS
: Are you feeling hopeful, when you’re looking at where we are now, that some kind of shift is happening? Or are you feeling concerned, or is it a mixture of both?

SF
: I think we have the potential for a positive shift right now. Coming out of this past election was a lot of talk, rightfully so, about the groups that decided the presidential election and decided a lot of the down-ticket races, and how this coalition that President Obama had put together during the first campaign—of women, young people, LBGT folks, communities of color, and what I’m hearing described as a pro-equality majority—hung together. We stuck together for a second presidential election in a row. And I think if we can really focus on that and tap into it and pass the kinds of laws that that pro-equality majority wants to see, so that they continue to believe in and invest in these leaders, that will be a turning point. And it will really shift where the center [of] politics is and what is unacceptable for electoral candidates. So we have the potential right now, but I don’t think it’s already accomplished. It’s a project that needs continued attention and development, and that’s why I’m very focused on the 2014 elections, because that has the potential to for us to lose so many of those swing districts. . . . So I’m optimistic, but [it needs] continued attention and work.