This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/opinion/campaign-stops/go-ahead-play-the-woman-card.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Go Ahead, Play the Woman Card Go Ahead, Play the Woman Card
(1 day later)
FOR all his purported business acumen, it seems the woman card may not be as valuable as Donald J. Trump thinks: In Maryland on Tuesday, Representative Chris Van Hollen beat Representative Donna Edwards in the Democratic primary race for the Senate seat to be vacated by Barbara Mikulski.FOR all his purported business acumen, it seems the woman card may not be as valuable as Donald J. Trump thinks: In Maryland on Tuesday, Representative Chris Van Hollen beat Representative Donna Edwards in the Democratic primary race for the Senate seat to be vacated by Barbara Mikulski.
In her concession speech, Ms. Edwards railed against the hypocrisy of a party that relies on black female votes but has sent only one black woman to the Senate. “What I want to know from my Democratic Party is, when will the voices of people of color, when will the voices of women, when will the voices of labor, when will the voices of black women, when will our voices be effective, legitimate equal leaders in a big-tent party?” she asked.In her concession speech, Ms. Edwards railed against the hypocrisy of a party that relies on black female votes but has sent only one black woman to the Senate. “What I want to know from my Democratic Party is, when will the voices of people of color, when will the voices of women, when will the voices of labor, when will the voices of black women, when will our voices be effective, legitimate equal leaders in a big-tent party?” she asked.
If Ms. Edwards had gone on to win in November, she would have been the first black woman in the Senate in more than 15 years.If Ms. Edwards had gone on to win in November, she would have been the first black woman in the Senate in more than 15 years.
She raises a crucial question, and one that Democrats, even as they come closer to nominating Hillary Clinton, have been bad at answering. Democrats and liberals generally agree that representation matters. This is the party that supports affirmative action, that champions diversity, that pays lip service to getting more women and minorities represented in public office. But does representation matter over other factors?She raises a crucial question, and one that Democrats, even as they come closer to nominating Hillary Clinton, have been bad at answering. Democrats and liberals generally agree that representation matters. This is the party that supports affirmative action, that champions diversity, that pays lip service to getting more women and minorities represented in public office. But does representation matter over other factors?
For emphasizing her life story, Ms. Edwards was accused of “playing the race card.” According to Mr. Trump, Hillary Clinton is playing “the woman card,” ostensibly by being a woman herself. The implication: In a country that has never had a female president and where it was a record for women to secure 20 out of 100 Senate seats, womanhood confers some sort of unearned advantage.For emphasizing her life story, Ms. Edwards was accused of “playing the race card.” According to Mr. Trump, Hillary Clinton is playing “the woman card,” ostensibly by being a woman herself. The implication: In a country that has never had a female president and where it was a record for women to secure 20 out of 100 Senate seats, womanhood confers some sort of unearned advantage.
The idea that politicians should reflect the diversity of their constituents is not just about representation for representation’s sake. There is evidence that female politicians are more effective than male ones, bringing more money to their home districts and getting more co-sponsorship for their legislation. Politicians’ personal experiences and their lens on life also influence their legislative priorities and electoral strategy.The idea that politicians should reflect the diversity of their constituents is not just about representation for representation’s sake. There is evidence that female politicians are more effective than male ones, bringing more money to their home districts and getting more co-sponsorship for their legislation. Politicians’ personal experiences and their lens on life also influence their legislative priorities and electoral strategy.
A female candidate, for example, may be less inclined to enthusiastically accept an endorsement from a convicted rapist, as Mr. Trump did last week. Or a female legislator may be more likely to see contraception access as an economic and health issue rather than a moral one.A female candidate, for example, may be less inclined to enthusiastically accept an endorsement from a convicted rapist, as Mr. Trump did last week. Or a female legislator may be more likely to see contraception access as an economic and health issue rather than a moral one.
A more diverse class of elected officials is crucial in effectively representing the Democrats’ voter base. But it’s also about changing the norms that keep women and minorities out of power in the first place.A more diverse class of elected officials is crucial in effectively representing the Democrats’ voter base. But it’s also about changing the norms that keep women and minorities out of power in the first place.
One of the most stubborn barriers to getting women into positions of power, whether in the workplace or on Capitol Hill, is that authority, competence and power are perceived to be male qualities. Just being named John instead of Jennifer makes potential employers view you as more competent. A similar dynamic appears to exist for African-Americans: Research on typically white or African-American names and hiring has shown that employers view Emily or Greg more favorably than Lakisha or Jamal.One of the most stubborn barriers to getting women into positions of power, whether in the workplace or on Capitol Hill, is that authority, competence and power are perceived to be male qualities. Just being named John instead of Jennifer makes potential employers view you as more competent. A similar dynamic appears to exist for African-Americans: Research on typically white or African-American names and hiring has shown that employers view Emily or Greg more favorably than Lakisha or Jamal.
In Maryland, there were plenty of reasons voters, and much of the Democratic establishment, supported Mr. Van Hollen. He is pro-choice and a reliable progressive who demonstrated significant skill in getting things done in a notoriously do-nothing Congress. Many found him more likable than Ms. Edwards, who was routinely cast as difficult and self-serving (one challenge for successful women: The more authoritative they are, they less they’re liked and the more they’re perceived as out for themselves). In Maryland, there were plenty of reasons voters, and much of the Democratic establishment, supported Mr. Van Hollen. He is pro-choice and a reliable progressive who demonstrated significant skill in getting things done in a notoriously do-nothing Congress. Many found him more likable than Ms. Edwards, who was routinely cast as difficult and self-serving (one challenge for successful women: The more authoritative they are, the less they’re liked and the more they’re perceived as out for themselves).
Mr. Van Hollen was also the presumed natural successor to Ms. Mikulski’s seat in the Senate (one benefit for white men: It is easier to fit in naturally when you look like the majority of the current personnel). There are always reasons a woman is good, but not as good as a man: In the John/Jennifer employment study, potential employers always had a gender-neutral justification for picking John over Jennifer, it was just that when John had more education and Jennifer more experience, employers wanted more education; when John had more experience and Jennifer more education, they wanted more experience.Mr. Van Hollen was also the presumed natural successor to Ms. Mikulski’s seat in the Senate (one benefit for white men: It is easier to fit in naturally when you look like the majority of the current personnel). There are always reasons a woman is good, but not as good as a man: In the John/Jennifer employment study, potential employers always had a gender-neutral justification for picking John over Jennifer, it was just that when John had more education and Jennifer more experience, employers wanted more education; when John had more experience and Jennifer more education, they wanted more experience.
Fighting these pervasive, subconscious prejudices requires not only being aware of them, but also changing the archetypes of power. The only way to do that is to put more women, and especially more minority women, in positions of influence and authority, so that influence and authority become normal instead of noteworthy.Fighting these pervasive, subconscious prejudices requires not only being aware of them, but also changing the archetypes of power. The only way to do that is to put more women, and especially more minority women, in positions of influence and authority, so that influence and authority become normal instead of noteworthy.
Issues should override identity, but we can’t pretend that representative leadership doesn’t matter. Black women, Ms. Edwards said last week, have long been “standing on the outside propping up the Democratic Party.” Whether they’re invited to the leadership table, she said, “is the 21st century question.” The problem is that the very preconceptions we could fight by putting women and minorities in power are the same ones keeping them out of it.Issues should override identity, but we can’t pretend that representative leadership doesn’t matter. Black women, Ms. Edwards said last week, have long been “standing on the outside propping up the Democratic Party.” Whether they’re invited to the leadership table, she said, “is the 21st century question.” The problem is that the very preconceptions we could fight by putting women and minorities in power are the same ones keeping them out of it.
We can’t change longstanding assumptions about what a leader looks like unless we change what leaders look like. That means a party dedicated to diversity must champion politicians who aren’t white men — even if there’s a white man who is equally qualified, or the obvious choice.We can’t change longstanding assumptions about what a leader looks like unless we change what leaders look like. That means a party dedicated to diversity must champion politicians who aren’t white men — even if there’s a white man who is equally qualified, or the obvious choice.
Right now, “the woman card” and “the race card” are broadly seen as cynical tactics. Democrats should make them central components of a winning hand.Right now, “the woman card” and “the race card” are broadly seen as cynical tactics. Democrats should make them central components of a winning hand.