Women and Girls

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The Moral Chasm That Has Opened Up Between Left and Right Is Widening

      by

      There has been a remarkable erosion in public tolerance of “offensive expression about race, gender and religion,” according to Dennis Chong and Morris Levy, political scientists at the University of Southern California, and Jack Citrin, a political scientist at Berkeley.“Tolerance has declined overall,” they add, particularly “for a category of speech that is considered unworthy of First Amendment protection because it violates the goal of equality.”The three authors cite the 2018 promulgation of new guidelines by the American Civil Liberties Union — which was formerly unequivocal in its defense of free speech — as a reflection of the changing views within a large segment of the liberal community. Under the 2018 guidelines, the A.C.L.U. would now consider several factors that might warrant a refusal to take on certain cases:“Our defense of speech may have a greater or lesser harmful impact on the equality and justice work to which we are also committed” depending onthe potential effect on marginalized communities; the extent to which the speech may assist in advancing the goals of white supremacists or others whose views are contrary to our values; and the structural and power inequalities in the community in which the speech will occur.Chong, Citrin and Levy write:Arguments for censoring hate speech have gained ground alongside the strengthening of the principle of equality in American society. The expansion of equal rights for racial and ethnic minorities, women, L.G.B.T.Q., and other groups that have suffered discrimination has caused a re-evaluation of the harms of slurs and other derogatory expressions in professional and social life. The transformation of social attitudes regarding race, gender, and sexuality has fundamentally changed the tenor of debate over speech controversies.Traditionally, they point out,the main counterargument against free speech has been a concern for maintaining social order in the face of threatening movements and ideas, a classic divide between liberal and conservative values. Now, arguments against allowing hate speech in order to promote equality have changed the considerations underlying political tolerance and divided liberals amongst themselves. The repercussions of this value conflict between the respective norms of equality and free expression have rippled far beyond its epicenter in the universities to the forefront of American politics.In an email, Chong wrote that “the tolerance of white liberals has declined significantly since 1980, and tolerance levels are lowest among the youngest age cohorts.” If, he continued, “we add education to the mix, we find that the most pronounced declines over time have occurred among white, college educated liberals, with the youngest age cohorts again having the lowest tolerance levels.”The Chong-Citrin-Levy paper focuses on the concept of harm in shaping public policy and in the growing determination of large swaths of progressives that a paramount goal of public discourse is to avoid inflicting injury, including verbal injury, on marginalized groups. In this context, harm can be understood as injury to physical and mental health occurring “when stress levels are perpetually elevated by living in a constant state of hyper-vigilance.”Proponents of what is known as moral foundations theory — formulated in 2004 by Jonathan Haidt and Craig Joseph — argue that across all cultures “several innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of ‘intuitive ethics.’” The five foundations are care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation.One of the central claims of this theory, as described in “Mapping the Moral Domain” — a 2011 paper by Jesse Graham, Brian A. Nosek, Haidt, Ravi Iyer, Spassena Koleva and Peter H. Ditto — is thatLiberal morality would prioritize harm and fairness over the other three foundations because the “individualizing foundations” of harm and fairness are all that are needed to support the individual-focused contractual approaches to society often used in enlightenment ethics, whereas conservative morality would also incorporate in-group, authority, and purity to a substantial degree (because these ‘binding foundations’ are about binding people together into larger groups and institutions).I asked Julie Wronski, a political scientist at the University of Mississippi, about the role of concerns over ideology and gender in the changing character of liberalism.“I think we need to move beyond a simple ‘gender gap’ story to better understand how conceptualizations of womanhood impact politics,” she replied. “The first way is to think about the gender gap as a ‘feminist gap.’”From this perspective, Wronski continued, men can hold feminist values and women can be anti-feminist, noting that “the attitudes people have about gender roles in society have a bigger impact on political outcomes than simple male/female identification.”Wronski cited a paper, “Partisan Sorting and the Feminist Gap in American Politics” by Leonie Huddy and Johanna Willmann, which argues that feminism “can be distinguished from political ideology when construed as support for women’s political advancement, the equalization of male and female power, the removal of barriers that impede women’s success, and a strengthening of women’s autonomy.” Huddy and Willmann noted that in a “2015 national survey, 60 percent of women and 33 percent of men considered themselves a feminist.”There are substantial differences, however, in how feminist women and men align politically, according to their analysis:We expect women’s feminist loyalty and antipathy to play a greater role in shaping their partisanship than feminist affinity among men because feminist and anti-feminist identities have greater personal relevance for women than men, elicit stronger emotions, and will be more central to women’s political outlook.The authors created a feminism scale based on the respondent’s identification with feminism, their support for female politicians, perception of sex discrimination and gender resentment. Based on survey data from the 2012 and 2016 elections, they found thatMen scored significantly lower than women in both years (men: .55 in 2012, .46 in 2016; women: .60 in 2012, .54 in 2016). Nonetheless, men and women also overlap considerably in their support and opposition to feminism.Personality characteristics play a key role, they found: “Openness to experience consistently boosts feminism.” A predilection for authoritarianism, in contrast, “consistently lowers support for feminism” while “agreeableness promotes feminism,” although its effects are strongest “among white respondents.”So too do demographic differences: “Religiously observant men and women are less supportive of feminism than their nonobservant counterparts. Well-educated respondents, especially well-educated women, are more supportive of feminism.” Single white women are “more supportive of feminism than women living with a partner.”Getty ImagesFeminism, in addition, is strongly correlated with opposition to “traditional morality” — defined by disagreement with such statements as “we should be more tolerant of people who live according to their own moral standards” and agreement with such assertions as “the newer lifestyles are contributing to a breakdown in our society.” The correlation grew from minus .41 in 2012 to minus .53 in 2016.During this century, the power of feminism to signal partisanship has steadily increased for men and even more so for women, Huddy and Willman found: “In 2004, a strong feminist woman had a .32 chance of being a strong Democrat. This increased slightly to .35 in 2008 and then increased more substantially to .45 in 2012 and .56 in 2016.” In 2004 and 2008, “there was a .21 chance that a strong feminist male was also a strong Democrat. That increased slightly to .25 in 2012 and more dramatically to .42 in 2016.”In an email, Huddy elaborated on the partisan significance of feminist commitments:It is important to remember that women can be Democrats or Republicans, but feminists are concentrated in the Democratic Party. Appealing to an ethic of care may not attract Republican women if it conflicts with their religious views concerning the family or opposition to expanded government spending. Sending a signal to feminists that the Democratic Party is behind them shores up one of their major constituencies.In a 2018 paper, “Effect of Ideological Identification on the Endorsement of Moral Values Depends on the Target Group,” Jan G. Voelkel, a sociologist at Stanford, and Mark J. Brandt, a professor of psychology at Michigan State, argue that moral foundations theory that places liberals and conservatives in separate camps needs to be modified.Voelkel and Brandt maintain that “ideological differences in moral foundations” are not necessarily the result of differences in moral values per se, but can also be driven by “ingroup-versus-outgroup categorizations.” The authors call this second process “political group conflict hypothesis.”This hypothesis, Voelkel and Brandt contend,has its roots in research that emphasizes that people’s thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors are strongly influenced by the ideological groups they identify with and is consistent with work suggesting that people’s ideological identifications function like a group identification. According to this view, liberals and conservatives may selectively and flexibly endorse moral values depending on the target group of the moral act.Voelkel and Brandt cite as an example the moral foundation of fairness:The strong version of the moral divide account predicts that liberals should be more likely to endorse the fairness foundation no matter the target group. The political group conflict account makes a different prediction: Liberals will condemn unfair treatment of liberal groups and groups stereotyped as liberal more than conservatives. However, conservatives will condemn unfair treatment of conservative groups and groups stereotyped as conservative more than liberals. Such a finding would suggest that the fairness foundation is not unique to liberals, as both groups care about fairness for their own political in-groups.The surveys the authors conducted show thatConsistent with the political group conflict hypothesis, we found that the effect of ideological identification depended on whether moral acts involved liberal or conservative groups. Consistent with the moral divide hypothesis, we found the pattern identified by MFT (liberals score higher on the individualizing foundations and conservatives score higher on the binding foundations) in the moderate target condition.Put another way:We find evidence that both processes may play a part. On one hand, we provide strong evidence that conservatives endorse the binding foundations more than liberals. On the other hand, we have shown that political group conflicts substantively contribute to the relationship between ideological identification and the endorsement of moral values.The debate over moral values and political conflict has engaged new contributors.Richard Hanania, president of the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology and a former research fellow at Columbia’s Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies, argues thatWomen are having more of a role to play in intellectual life, so we’re moving toward female norms regarding things like tradeoffs between feelings and the search for truth. If these trends started to reverse, we could call it a “masculinization” of the culture I suppose. The male/female divide is not synonymous with right/left, as a previous generation’s leftism was much more masculine, think gender relations in communist countries or the organized labor movement in the U.S. at its peak.The role of gender in politics has been further complicated by a controversial and counterintuitive finding set forth in “The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Education” by Gijsbert Stoet and David C. Geary, professors of psychology at Essex University and the University of Missouri.The authors propose that:paradoxically, countries with lower levels of gender equality had relatively more women among STEM graduates than did more gender equal countries. This is a paradox, because gender-equal countries are those that give girls and women more educational and empowerment opportunities, and generally promote girls’ and women’s engagement in STEM fields.Assuming for the moment that this gender equality paradox is real, how does it affect politics and polarization in the United States?In an email, Mohammad Atari, a graduate student in psychology at the University of Southern California and lead author of “Sex differences in moral judgments across 67 countries,” noted that “some would argue that in more gender-egalitarian societies men and women are more free to express their values regardless of external pressures to fit a predefined gender role,” suggesting an easing of tensions.Pivoting from gender to race, however, the nonpartisan Democracy Fund’s Voter Study Group this month issued “Racing Apart: Partisan Shifts on Racial Attitudes Over the Last Decade.” The study showed thatDemocrats’ and independents’ attitudes on identity-related topics diverged significantly from Republicans’ between 2011 and 2020 — including their attitudes on racial inequality, police, the Black Lives Matter movement, immigration, and Muslims. Most of this divergence derives from shifts among Democrats, who have grown much more liberal over this period.The murder of George Floyd produced a burst of racial empathy, Robert Griffin, Mayesha Quasem, John Sides and Michael Tesler wrote, but they note that poll data suggests “this shift in attitudes was largely temporary. Weekly surveys from the Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape project show that any aggregate changes had mostly evaporated by January 2021.”Additional evidence suggests that partisan hostility between Democrats and Republicans is steadily worsening. In their August 2021 paper, “Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization,” Levi Boxell and Matthew Gentzkow, both economists at Stanford University, and Jesse M. Shapiro, a professor of political economy at Brown, wrote:In 1978, according to our calculations, the average partisan rated in-party members 27.4 points higher than out-party members on a “feeling thermometer” ranging from 0 to 100. In 2020 the difference was 56.3, implying an increase of 1.08 standard deviations.Their conclusion is that over the past four decades, “the United States experienced the most rapid growth in affective polarization among the 12 O.E.C.D. countries we consider” — the other 11 are France, Sweden, Germany, Britain, Norway, Denmark, Australia, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland.In other words, whether we evaluate the current conflict-ridden political climate in terms of moral foundations theory, feminism or the political group conflict hypothesis, the trends are not favorable, especially if the outcome of the 2024 presidential election is close.If the continuing anger, resentment and denial among Republicans in the aftermath of the 2020 presidential contest is a precursor of the next election, current trends, in combination with the politicization of election administration by Republican state legislatures, suggest that the loser in 2024, Republican or Democrat, will not take defeat lying down.The forces fracturing the political system are clearly stronger than the forces pushing for consensus.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      End the Secrecy. Open Up Adoption Records.

      by

      More from our inbox:Facebook MisinformationErasing Older Women at the Art Institute of ChicagoA Conversation With VotersSam Anthony, left, with his birth father, Craig Nelson, at Mr. Anthony’s home in Falls Church, Va., in August.Debra Steidel WallTo the Editor:Re “With DNA and Friend’s Help, a Dying Son Finds His Father” (front page, Oct. 10):If we continue to keep the process of finding one’s birth family and opening birth records as difficult as possible, as with Sam Anthony, profiled in your article, we are preventing valuable family connections that should be a basic human right.Adoptees are often completely cut off from our birth families the second our adoption papers are finalized. If it weren’t for DNA testing I would never have discovered that two half-siblings of mine had been adopted into a different family a few states away.Adoptees should not have to go to great lengths to reconnect with their birth family. But, unfortunately, the complicated and often expensive process of DNA testing and hiring private investigators is often the only way to find biological relatives.When birth records are sealed, adoptees suffer in order to uphold an archaic standard that was meant to shroud adoptions in secrecy to prevent shame. We live in a different era now and, like Sam, deserve a right to our records.Melissa Guida-RichardsMilford, Pa.The writer is the author of “What White Parents Should Know About Transracial Adoption.”To the Editor:This is the latest article in The Times exposing the egregious practice of denying adoptees the truth about their beginnings and hiding the babies’ fate from their birth parents.Steve Inskeep’s March 28 essay, “I Was Denied My Birth Story,” revealed his fury about not knowing “the story of how I came to live on this earth. Strangers hid part of me from myself.”Lisa Belkin reviewed Gabrielle Glaser’s book “American Baby” (Book Review, Jan. 24), another tragic tale about when adoptions are closed.How many tragic tales do we have to hear to understand that birth parents, adoptive families and adoptees need to know one another? How many children must lie awake at night wondering why they were given away? How many adoptees do not know their genetic history?The solution is easy — open adoption in which birth parents and adoptive families choose each other and stay in touch through social media, texts, photos and visits.With Ancestry.com and 23andMe closed adoptions do not remain closed. Why not avoid the emotional pain by sharing the truth from the beginning?Nancy KorsWalnut Creek, Calif.The writer is an adoption facilitator.Facebook Misinformation  Illustration by Mel Haasch; Photograph by Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Misinformation Tripped Alarms Inside Facebook” (front page, Oct. 24):New disclosures that point to a disconnect between self-serving public statements of Facebook executives and the internal expressions of concern of lower-level employees surrounding the 2020 election paint a picture of a company policy that enables and protects misinformation.These revelations, especially those involving the Jan. 6 insurrection, suggest that management overlooks or even accepts incendiary content in its pursuit of profits — a practice that is often out of sync with the conscience of its employees and is at odds with the best interests of the public.Taken together with the recent testimony of the whistle-blower Frances Haugen, who detailed to Congress a corporate culture that places profits ahead of its users’ mental health, this new documentation clearly strengthens the case for congressional oversight and public awareness.Facebook’s reach and influence are so vast that its apparent unwillingness to filter misinformation exceeds the bounds of free speech, harming its users and putting democracy at risk. The company has had a good run, but the days of its free ride maybe numbered.Roger HirschbergSouth Burlington, Vt.Erasing Older Women at the Art Institute of Chicago  Art Institute of ChicagoTo the Editor:Re “Museum Ousts Volunteers in Diversity Push. Uproar Ensues.” (news article, Oct. 22):Alas, the invisible old woman! While your article on the Art Institute of Chicago’s decision to end the volunteer careers of 82 docents focused on the controversy over the racial makeup of the docents, it neglected to really deal with the overt age discrimination that such otherwise worthwhile pushes for greater diversity promote.Not all docents are older or female, but they tend to be. Largely, they can volunteer with such expertise and loyalty because after long careers and/or raising families, many finally have the time to turn to volunteering in their communities. Yet the museum — along with much of our society — invalidates these older women, erasing their presence.Dee BaerWilmington, Del.The writer is a senior guide at the Delaware Art Museum.A Conversation With Voters  Aaron Nesheim for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “The Anti-Robocall: Listening to Voters Talk” (news article, Oct. 21):This wonderful article identifies a way to improve the minimal communication that currently prevails among those holding different opinions regarding values and public policy.As psychologists and spiritual teachers have long observed, deep, nonjudgmental listening to others with diverse perspectives can increase compassion for one another and perhaps lead to compromise solutions to the serious problems afflicting our nation and the world.Would that our Congress might take heed and schedule such listening sessions about the national issues too often discussed secretly that leave the public uninformed. Broadcasting honest dialogues that state positions and not just attacks on the other side on TV and the internet would manifest a concern for an informed citizenry.Bruce KerievskyMonroe Township, N.J. More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Decoding Kyrsten Sinema’s Style

      by

      Sometimes a dress is just a dress. Sometimes it’s a strategy.Senator Kyrsten Sinema may have been in Europe recently on a fund-raising trip and out of reach of the activists who have dogged her footsteps, frustrated with her obstruction of President Biden’s social spending bill. But despite the fact her office has been keeping her itinerary under wraps, were those protesters able to follow her overseas, there’s a good chance they would be able to find her.Not just because of her political theater. Ever since she was first elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2005, Ms. Sinema has always stood out in a crowd. And as Ms. Sinema’s legislative demands take center stage (along with those of Senator Joe Manchin, the other Biden Bill holdout) her history of idiosyncratic outfits has taken on a new cast.As Tammy Haddad, former MSNBC political director and co-founder of the White House Correspondents Weekend Insider, said of the senator, “If the other members of Congress had paid any attention to her clothing at all they would have known she wasn’t going to just follow the party line.”The senior senator from Arizona — the first woman to represent Arizona in the Senate, the first Democrat elected to that body from that state since 1995, and the first openly bisexual senator — has never hidden her identity as a maverick. In fact, she’s advertised it. Pretty much every day.Indeed, it was back in 2013, when she was first elected to the House of Representatives, that Elle crowned Ms. Sinema “America’s Most Colorful Congresswoman.” Since she joined the Senate, she has merely been further embracing that term. Often literally.Notice was served at her swearing-in on Jan. 3, 2019, when Ms. Sinema seemed to be channeling Marilyn Monroe in platinum blond curls, a white sleeveless pearl-trimmed top, rose-print pencil skirt and stiletto heels: She was never going to revert to pantsuit-wearing banality.Senator Sinema leaves the Senate reception room at the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump in 2020, her cape sweeping behind.Alyssa Schukar for The New York TimesInstead, she swept in as a white-cape-dressed crusader for Donald Trump’s first impeachment trial, in January 2020. Modeled a variety of Easter-egg colored wigs — lavender, pink, green — to demonstrate, her spokeswoman Hannah Hurley told The Arizona Republic in May of last year, a commitment to “social distancing in accordance with best practices, including from salons.” (Ms. Hurley specified the wig cost $12.99.) Sported pompom earrings, a variety of animal prints, neoprene, and assorted thigh-high boots. And presided over the Senate on Feb. 23 of this year while wearing a hot pink sweater with the words “Dangerous Creature” on the front, prompting Mitt Romney to tell her she was “breaking the internet.”Her reply: “Good.”To dismiss that as a stunt rather than a foreshadowing is to give Ms. Sinema less credit than she is due. “She’s saying, ‘I can wear what I want and say what I think is important and I’m going to have a lot of impact doing it,’” Ms. Haddad said. “She is unencumbered by the norms of the institution.”Lauren A. Rothman, an image and style accountability coach in Washington who has been working with members of Congress for 20 years, said it’s part of a growing realization among politicians that “you are communicating at all times, because a clip on social media can be even more meaningful than something on national TV.” And that means “thinking at all times about what story you are telling with your nonverbal tools, which means your style.”As Washington has begun to realize. Conversation with various insiders and Congressologists offered theories on the wardrobe that suggested it was either: a sleight-of-hand, meant to distract from Ms. Sinema’s journey from progressive to moderate to possibly Republican-leaning; or meant to offer reassurance to her former progressive supporters that she wasn’t actually part of the conservative establishment.Richard Ford, a professor at Stanford Law School and the author of “Dress Codes: How the Laws of Fashion Changed History,” said he thought her image was designed to telegraph: “I’m a freethinker, my own person, not going along with convention, so even though I’m a part of the Democratic Party I am representing your interests, not theirs.” (As it happens Ms. Sinema is featured in the book as an example of a woman “unapologetically” bringing a more feminine approach to dress to “the halls of power.”)Whatever the interpretation, however, no one expressed any doubt that she knew exactly what she was doing. To pay attention is simply to acknowledge what Ms. Haddad called “a branding exercise” being done “at the highest level.” Either way, the senator’s office did not respond to emails on the subject.Senator Sinema in non-traditional silver talking with Senator Thom Tillis in traditional dark suit in 2020.J. Scott Applewhite/Associated PressSenator Sinema in the U.S. Capitol Building in 2020.Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesAnother of Senator Sinema’s wigs, which came in a variety of Easter egg shades. This one matches the large flower on her dress.Pool photo by Tom WilliamsSenator Sinema stood out like a beacon in a bright red halter dress, blue beads, and an apple watch during a news conference in July.Alex Wong/Getty ImagesAfter all, said Hilary Rosen, the vice chair of the political consultancy SKDKickerbocker, who has known Ms. Sinema since 2011, the senator “used to dress more like the rest of us, in simple dresses” and the occasional suit jacket. But, Ms. Rosen said, “I’ve seen a real shift in the last few years, and I think they way she dresses now is a sign of her increasing confidence as a legislator. She’s not afraid to wear her personality on her sleeve, and that’s rare in a politician. They usually dress for ambiguity.”There are few places, after all, more hidebound when it comes to personal style than Congress, which long had a dress code that included the caveat that congresswomen were not supposed to show their shoulders or arms in the building. The House changed its rules in 2017, but the Senate hewed to tradition until Ms. Sinema’s election; the rules were actually changed for her.According to Jennifer Steinhauer’s book “The Firsts: the Inside Story of the Women Reshaping Congress,” Senator Amy Klobuchar, the senior member on the Senate Rules Committee, went to leadership before the last swearing-in to request the rules be reconsidered to reflect the modern world. She knew Ms. Sinema, a triathlete, had a penchant for showing her arms, and believed the new senator “needed to be allowed to wear what she wanted” in her new workplace. Some male senators grumbled, but acceded. (In the end, Ms. Sinema compromised by carrying a silver faux-fur stole to cover her shoulders.)But for women, Capitol Hill is traditionally a land of Talbots and St. John’s; of dressing to camouflage yourself in the group so it is your words that stand out, not your clothes. As Mr. Ford said, “Women are always subject to heightened scrutiny and criticism,” and in Washington this is even more true.There’s a reason Kamala Harris, the first female vice president, seems to wear only dark pantsuits. A reason the Women’s Campaign School at Yale Law, an annual five-day intensive training course for female elected officials hosted by the school (though not administered by it), includes a seminar entitled “Dress to Win.” Any woman in the political public eye has to make a decision about her clothes, whether she likes it or not, and resorting to the most nondescript common denominator is the norm.Senator Sinema, on the second day of former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial at the U.S. Capitol in February, modeling message dressing.Pool photo by Joshua RobertsSenator Sinema on Capitol Hill in September in tiger stripes, though not the kind normally seen in nature.Tom Brenner for The New York TimesSenator Sinema in September, this time in a sort of cow print.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesYet more wild animal imagery, courtesy of the sweater Senator Sinema wore for a vote in the Capitol in March.Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesWhen statements have been made with dress, they have been made with clear intent, both individually — the flamethrower coat Nancy Pelosi wore when she faced down President Donald J. Trump over his border wall; her many face masks; her mace pin — and with critical mass, as when the women of the House wore white to Mr. Trump’s State of the Union in 2019 and 2020. However, such visual messaging remains the exception to the general rule (that’s part of what makes these moments stand out, and gives them their power).When fashion comes into play, it is more generally as a gesture of international diplomacy (where it is often left to the first lady to get fancy in the name of playing nice on a state visit) or national boosterism, using the political spotlight to promote local business and thus justify the choice of a designer name as a move to help the economy (see President Biden’s decision to wear Ralph Lauren to his swearing-in).Senator Sinema began her Washington career by breaking that tradition, clearly reveling in a seemingly endless wardrobe of eye-catching, idiosyncratic and colorful clothes speckled with flowers and zebra stripes: the kind more often labeled “fun” rather than, say, “sober” or “serious”; the kind that were unidentifiable in terms of provenance (where did she get them? where were they made? who knew?); the kind that are not unusual in civilian life, but stand out like neon lights under the rotunda of the Capitol; the kind that maybe call to mind an uninhibited co-worker with a zest for retail therapy at the mall. But that the senator continued to do so as she ascended the political ranks served two purposes.Everything’s coming up floral, as Senator Sinema leaves a closed-door bipartisan infrastructure meeting on Capitol Hill in June.Manuel Balce Ceneta/Associated PressMore blooms on Senator Sinema in September.Kevin Dietsch/Getty ImagesPuffed sleeves and poesies on Senator Sinema in September.Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesIt made her nationally recognizable in a way very few new members of Congress are, and it placed her at the forefront of a social trend at a time when dress codes of all kinds are being reconsidered — and often left behind. (It’s no accident that the other congresswoman sworn in at the same time who has become a household name, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is equally good at using the tools of image making to craft her political message.)And, it made it clear she just wasn’t going to apologize for enjoying shopping. She clearly does a lot of it. So what? As far as she is concerned, she can have her stuff and substance too.In other words, all those seemingly kooky clothes that Ms. Sinema is wearing aren’t kooky at all. They’re signposts. And the direction they are pointing is entirely her way. More

    • 125 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Emily’s List Backs Hochul for Governor in Key Early Endorsement

      by

      The group decided to not wait for other potential primary rivals, most notably the state attorney general, Letitia James, to enter next year’s race.Emily’s List, the fund-raising juggernaut dedicated to electing women who back abortion rights, threw its support on Thursday behind Gov. Kathy Hochul’s campaign for a full term as New York governor.The group’s endorsement opens doors to deep-pocketed donors and seasoned campaign strategists across the country. But for Ms. Hochul, the state’s first female governor, it may prove more valuable as an early stamp of approval for female activists, donors and operatives as she attempts to freeze out potential rivals and head off a raucous Democratic primary next year.In its endorsement, Emily’s List cited Ms. Hochul’s management of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, as well as steps she has taken since assuming office in August to clean up a culture of intimidation and harassment that flourished in Albany under her predecessor, Andrew M. Cuomo.“Governor Hochul stepped up to lead New York in a moment rife with skepticism and mistrust for Albany,” said Laphonza Butler, the group’s president. “As governor, she has prioritized rebuilding trust between her administration and New Yorkers, and delivering results.”The timing of the endorsement by the group, known for making shrewd calculations about who it thinks can win, was conspicuous. It is likely to make ripples through the large field of high-profile Democrats mulling campaigns, including the state attorney general, Letitia James, who would be the first Black woman elected governor of any state.In backing Ms. Hochul before others decide whether to enter the race, the group appeared to simultaneously signal that it believed she was the candidate best positioned to win and do its part to help keep others out of the race.The endorsement stood in sharp contrast to many of New York’s most influential unions, campaign donors and other elected leaders, who appear to be withholding support until it becomes clearer whether Ms. James and other Democrats — including Mayor Bill de Blasio, Representative Tom Suozzi or Jumaane Williams, the New York City public advocate — decide to run.The decision may be particularly stinging for Ms. James, who is generally viewed as Ms. Hochul’s most formidable potential opponent and whose investigation into claims of sexual harassment prompted Mr. Cuomo to resign. Emily’s List endorsed Ms. James’s campaign for attorney general in 2018, touting her as a candidate who “always had the back of every New Yorker, especially women.”The group, however, has also endorsed Ms. Hochul in past races for lieutenant governor and for a seat in Congress.In many ways, Ms. Hochul is a natural candidate for Emily’s List to back. She has been a stalwart supporter of abortion rights for decades, and achieved a historic first in a state that has resisted elevating women to some top offices.Ms. Hochul, who is Catholic, has made abortion rights a priority of her young administration. After Texas last month instituted a ban on any abortions after six weeks, the governor declared New York a “safe harbor” for women from the state. She also vowed to implement New York’s 2019 Reproductive Health Act, including drawing up a patient bill of rights.The endorsement is the latest sign that Ms. Hochul, the only Democrat who has formally entered the race for governor, is moving swiftly to amass resources and support in hopes of altering the shape of the primary field.In recent weeks, she has locked down endorsements from the Democratic Governors Association, the chairman of the New York State Democratic Party, and nearly two dozen other leaders of party county committees. She has hired a campaign manager and key consultants. And she has set a blistering fund-raising pace to try to raise $10 million or more by the end of the year from many of the state’s largest political donors.So far, the hard-charging approach, coupled with Ms. Hochul’s performance as governor, appear to be paying dividends with voters.A Marist College poll released on Tuesday showed Ms. Hochul with a considerable head-to-head edge over her potential opponents if the election were to take place today. But that could change should Ms. James or another candidate formally enter the race. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Sanae Takaich Hopes to Be Japan’s First Female Leader

      by

      If Sanae Takaichi wins, it would be a milestone for the country. But some feminists hope it doesn’t happen.TOKYO — Shinzo Abe, Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, often talked about creating a society in which women could “shine.”Now, a year after he resigned because of ill health, Mr. Abe is backing a woman, Sanae Takaichi, to lead the governing Liberal Democratic Party. If party members elect her this month, she will almost certainly become Japan’s first female prime minister.Ms. Takaichi, 60, is considered a long shot. If she beats the odds, it will be a significant milestone for Japan, where women make up less than 15 percent of Parliament and only two of the current cabinet’s 21 ministers are female.But Ms. Takaichi, a hard-line conservative, is a divisive figure among Japanese who want politicians to do more to empower women. She rarely talks about gender equality, and she supports some policies, such as a law requiring married couples to share a surname, that feminists say diminish women’s rights.“For her to be up there on a pedestal as a shining example of a different, improved, changed society for Japanese women would be the worst possible thing that could happen,” said Noriko Hama, an economics professor at Doshisha University Business School in Kyoto.The Liberal Democrats will hold their leadership vote on Sept. 29. Yoshihide Suga, the unpopular current prime minister and party leader, said this month that he would step aside.Whoever party members choose is highly likely to be named the new prime minister by Parliament. He or she will then lead the party into a general election that must be held by the end of November. The Liberal Democrats, who have governed Japan for almost all of the postwar period, are heavily favored to win that election.Ms. Takaichi, who was first elected to Parliament in 1993 from Nara Prefecture in western Japan, has been a staunch ally of Mr. Abe’s since 2006, when he began his first, brief stint as prime minister, and through his return to power in 2012. She served repeatedly in his cabinet, where her portfolios included — ironically, in some feminists’ view — gender equality.Ms. Takaichi, left, with then-Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, center, and the rest of his first cabinet in 2006. Kazuhiro Nogi/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesUnlike Mr. Abe, Ms. Takaichi has said little about the gender gap, though she has called for tax deductions for child care and doing more to support women’s health.But on many other far-right policies, she echoes Mr. Abe. She supports amending the pacifist Constitution, a contentious position in a country wary of military aggression. In a campaign speech Friday, she vowed to “protect the national sovereignty and honor at all costs.” (She did not comment for this article.)Like Mr. Abe and other conservatives, Ms. Takaichi argues that Japanese atrocities during World War II have been overstated and objects to further official apologies for them. She regularly visits Yasukuni Shrine, a memorial in Tokyo honoring Japan’s war dead — including Class A war criminals from the World War II era — that is a flash point for historical sensitivities in China and South Korea.On social issues, Ms. Takaichi opposes same-sex marriage and legal changes that would allow women to reign as emperor. And she opposes changing the century-old law requiring married couples to share a surname for legal purposes, an issue often seen as a litmus test among conservative power brokers.She has said that revising the law could lead to divorce or extramarital affairs. Ms. Takaichi, who is divorced, used her birth surname professionally during her marriage.Political analysts say Mr. Abe, who still wields considerable influence in the party, has calculated that Ms. Takaichi’s gender will overshadow her lack of policies supporting women. “Abe is just pretending to respect and proactively promote women,” said Naoto Nonaka, a professor of politics at Gakushuin University in Tokyo.Ms. Takaichi visiting the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, which honors Japan’s war dead, in 2014. Yoshikazu Tsuno/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesMr. Abe is widely seen as having fallen short on his promises to advance women in society. In the World Economic Forum’s annual analysis of gender gaps, Japan, which has the world’s third-largest economy, ranks 120th out of 156 countries. Women still struggle to gain traction in Japanese politics, particularly at the national level. Yuriko Koike, the governor of Tokyo, founded a party in 2017 in an attempt to disrupt a national election that year, but Mr. Abe led the Liberal Democrats to victory, while Ms. Koike’s party drew only lukewarm support.Another woman in the Liberal Democrats’ leadership race, Seiko Noda, 61, has explicitly promoted gender equality, as well as rights for older people and those with disabilities. But she barely secured enough signatures from party lawmakers to qualify as a candidate.The Liberal Democrats’ far-right wing has held sway for a decade, and analysts said women in particular had to tack right to rise in the party. “In order to compensate for this disadvantage of being a woman, you have to show over-loyalty to the conservatives,” said Mari Miura, a professor of political science at Sophia University in Tokyo. “And that means you have to be hawkish and anti-feminist.”Gender aside, Ms. Takaichi is an unusual leadership candidate because she does not come from a prominent political family. The top contenders, Taro Kono, 58, and Fumio Kishida, 64, are both sons and grandsons of members of Parliament. Mr. Abe’s grandfather was also a prime minister.Ms. Takaichi’s mother was a police officer in Nara, and her father worked for a car company affiliated with Toyota. In a memoir, Ms. Takaichi wrote that she had been admitted to two prominent private universities, Waseda and Keio, but that her parents wanted to save the tuition money for her younger brother.Instead, she attended Kobe University, a state school, where she played drums in a band and drove a motorcycle. After graduation, she spent a year in the United States, interning with then-Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder of Colorado, a Democrat.From left, Taro Kono, Fumio Kishida, Ms. Takaichi and Seiko Noda, all candidates to lead the Liberal Democratic Party, at a debate in Tokyo on Saturday.Pool photo by Eugene Hoshiko“I was amazed that she was so interested in how the U.S. government worked,” Ms. Schroeder wrote in an email. “A lot of Americans aren’t interested in that! She was very dedicated and dug into any project she was given.”Ms. Takaichi, who has often cited Margaret Thatcher as a role model, decided her best path to power was to align with Mr. Abe. “Her candidacy became viable in a way that it wouldn’t have been without” him, said Tobias Harris, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress in Washington and a specialist in Japanese politics.She has never strayed far from her mentor’s agenda. Ms. Takaichi has even unveiled an economic platform that she calls “Sanaenomics,” an obvious reference to Mr. Abe’s so-called Abenomics. It includes monetary easing and strong fiscal investment, two principles that he promoted.Ms. Takaichi raised eyebrows in 2014 when she posed for photos with Kazunari Yamada, a Holocaust denier who leads the fringe National Socialist Japanese Workers party. Years earlier, she had endorsed a book by a Liberal Democrat that praised Hitler’s campaign tactics.Taku Yamamoto, Ms. Takaichi’s ex-husband and a fellow lawmaker in the party, said being photographed with someone was not a sign of an alliance. “We politicians accept anyone who wants to take a picture with us,” he said, adding, “I have had my photo taken with members of the Communist Party.”References to Nazi Germany are not as politically explosive in Japan and other Asian countries as they can be in the West. “The issue seems very distant in Japan regarding the Holocaust,” said Kiyoka Tokumasu, 20, a student studying education and international affairs at International Christian University in Tokyo.Ms. Tokumasu said she knew little about Ms. Takaichi’s positions but would welcome a female prime minister.“Having a high-profile woman represent a country where the politicians are predominantly male will create a ripple effect,” Ms. Tokumasu said. “Hopefully, while she’s in her role, we can influence her to support more laws and ideologies that create a more gender-equal world.”Hisako Ueno contributed reporting. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Elecciones en Rusia: las activistas llevan la violencia doméstica a la agenda electoral

      by

      Las mujeres de mediana edad son votantes clave para el partido gobernante, que ha ignorado a las víctimas de la violencia de género.MOSCÚ — Sentada en la estrecha cocina de su sede suburbana en Moscú, Alyona Popova apuntó hacia el complejo de edificios de ladrillo de cinco pisos que tiene al lado y explicó por qué la violencia doméstica está en el centro de su campaña por una curul en la Duma, la Cámara Baja del Parlamento de Rusia.“En cada puerta de entrada, tenemos una historia de violencia doméstica”, dijo Popova. “Justo ahí, tenemos a dos abuelas a las que acaban de golpear sus parientes. En la que viene después, tenemos a una madre con tres hijos. A ella la golpea su marido. Y allá, tenemos a una madre golpeada por su hijo”.Mientras hace campaña por todo el ducentésimo quinto distrito electoral, un área de clase trabajadora en la periferia oriental de Moscú, Popova les implora a las mujeres que se rebelen contra el partido en el poder, Rusia Unida, del presidente Vladimir Putin, el cual ha reducido las protecciones para las mujeres a lo largo de varios años. En la antesala de las elecciones de este fin de semana, Popova ha presentado el asunto en términos urgentes y en el primer lugar de su plataforma de campaña se encuentra una propuesta para que todas las leyes relacionadas con la violencia doméstica estén sujetas a sanciones penales.De acuerdo con el análisis que Popova realizó de datos que recabó la agencia nacional de estadística de Rusia, hay más de 16,5 millones de víctimas de violencia doméstica cada año. Entre 2011 y 2019, más de 12.200 mujeres murieron a manos de sus parejas o parientes, es decir dos terceras partes de las mujeres asesinadas en Rusia, según un estudio.“Esta es nuestra realidad; la única palabra que podemos usar es ‘epidemia’”, opinó Popova, abogada y activista de 38 años que se está postulando por el partido liberal Yablojo, aunque no es integrante de sus filas.Las luces encendidas de un complejo habitacional de la era soviética en el vecindario de Pervomayskaya en MoscúEmile Ducke para The New York TimesHay evidencia de que muchos rusos coinciden con ella. Una encuesta de 2020 que realizó el Centro Levada, una organización independiente, reveló que casi el 80 por ciento de los encuestados cree que es necesaria una legislación que frene la violencia doméstica. Una petición que inició Popova para apoyar esa ley obtuvo un millón de firmas.Sin embargo, ¿los simpatizantes votarán? Y en una Rusia autoritaria, donde los resultados de las elecciones en esencia están predestinados, ¿marcarán una diferencia?Incluso en un país en el que las mujeres representan el 54 por ciento de la población, la violencia doméstica en su mayor parte sigue sin ser un asunto que motive a los votantes y queda en segundo plano detrás de problemas como la corrupción, el aumento de los precios al consumidor, la falta de oportunidades económicas y la pandemia de la COVID-19.“Para nuestros votantes, este problema está en el lugar 90”, comentó el vicepresidente de la Duma, Pyotr O. Tolstoy, quien busca un segundo periodo con Rusia Unida.Tolstoy se burló de las insinuaciones de que las mujeres podrían abandonar a su partido, el cual controla 336 de las 450 curules de la Duma. En efecto, las mujeres son una parte fundamental de la base de votantes de Rusia Unida. En parte esto se debe a que ocupan la mayoría de los trabajos del sector público en campos como la enseñanza, la medicina y la administración, es decir que sus ingresos a menudo dependen del sistema político en el poder.Mientras salía de una estación de metro una tarde reciente, Irina Yugchenko, de 43 años, también expresó su escepticismo en torno a la atención que le ha puesto Popova a la violencia doméstica. “Claro, sin duda debe haber una ley, pero, si les pasa a las mujeres más de una vez, tenemos que preguntarnos por qué”, comentó, haciendo eco de una opinión común en Rusia. “Si mis amigas tuvieran este problema no lo tolerarían”.Yugchenko dijo que no había decidido por quién votar y dudaba que las elecciones produjeran algún cambio, y agregó con cinismo: “No es la primera vez que votamos”. Un estudio de julio de 2021 encontró que tan solo el 22 por ciento de los encuestados planeaba votar, la cifra más baja en 17 años.Un repartidor de folletos del partido Rusia Unida frente a las elecciones legislativas de 2021 de este fin de semana.Emile Ducke para The New York TimesDurante la última década, Putin y su partido se han vuelto cada vez más conservadores en sus políticas sociales. Cuando se agravó el conflicto de Rusia con Occidente, el Kremlin comenzó a promocionarse como el baluarte de las estructuras familiares y apoyó actitudes reaccionarias hacia los rusos de la comunidad LGBTQ.En 2016, el gobierno etiquetó de “agente extranjero” al Centro ANNA con sede en Moscú, el cual ofrece ayuda legal, material y psicológica a las mujeres que enfrentan problemas de abuso. Ese título acarrea connotaciones negativas e impone requisitos onerosos. El año pasado, el gobierno designó a otro grupo, Nasiliu.net (“No a la violencia”), como agente extranjero.En 2017, los representantes de la Duma votaron 380 a 3 para que se despenalizara de forma parcial la violencia doméstica y la redujeron a una infracción administrativa si ocurre no más de una vez al año. Si el daño da como resultado moretones o sangrado, pero no huesos rotos, se castiga con una multa de tan solo 5000 rublos (68 dólares), poco más de lo que se paga por estacionarse en un lugar prohibido. Solo las lesiones como las contusiones y los huesos rotos, o los ataques repetidos en contra de un familiar, generan cargos penales. No hay ningún instrumento legal para que la policía expida órdenes de alejamiento.El borrador de una ley en contra de la violencia doméstica que fue propuesto en 2019 produjo un debate en la Duma, pero a final de cuentas fue modificado tanto que sus primeros partidarios, entre ellos Popova, quedaron “horrorizados”. Nunca se sometió a votación.Sin embargo, en años recientes, varios casos dramáticos han detonado la indignación, por eso el asunto ha empezado a tener potencial político. En un caso famoso de 2017, el esposo de Margarita Gracheva le cortó ambas manos con un hacha, meses después de que ella empezó a pedir protección de la policía. (Más tarde, él fue sentenciado a 14 años de cárcel. Gracheva ahora es presentadora de un programa de la televisión estatal sobre violencia doméstica).“Por fin este problema obtuvo tanta atención que se convirtió en un asunto político”, comentó Marina Pisklakova-Parker, directora del Centro ANNA.En abril, la Corte Constitucional de Rusia les ordenó a los legisladores que modificaran el código penal para castigar a los perpetradores de violencia doméstica repetitiva y concluyó que las protecciones para las víctimas y los castigos para los agresores eran insuficientes. Además, las agrupaciones activistas han registrado repuntes de violencia doméstica relacionados con la pandemia de la COVID-19.La Duma no ha actuado.Muchos votantes de Rusia Unida aprecian los vales gubernamentales que se conceden a las madres. Las prestaciones se han ampliado recientemente a las mujeres con un solo hijo, en un intento de Moscú por aumentar la decreciente tasa de natalidad del país.Pero eso no sustituye a una protección elemental, dijo Oksana Pushkina, una popular presentadora de televisión que entró en la Duma con Rusia Unida en 2016 y que hizo de la lucha contra la violencia doméstica una de sus prioridades.Oksana Pushkina hizo de la lucha contra la violencia doméstica una de sus prioridadesEmile Ducke para The New York Times“Todas estas son medidas de apoyo que están diseñadas para dejar a la mujer en casa, y no crear oportunidades para su autorrealización e independencia económica”, dijo. “De este modo, las autoridades cubren las necesidades básicas de las mujeres rusas, a cambio de su lealtad política. Pero este gasto gubernamental no es para nada una inversión social”.Pushkina, que defendió la ley de violencia doméstica en la Duma, no fue invitada a presentarse a un segundo mandato.“Aparentemente, Rusia Unida y la gente de la gestión presidencial me consideraron demasiado independiente, y a la agenda pro-feminista demasiado peligrosa”, dijo.Expertos y sobrevivientes afirman que gran parte de la oposición al proyecto de ley de 2019 estaba desinformada, ya que muchos opositores afirmaban erróneamente que si se imponía una orden de alejamiento, un hombre podría perder su propiedad, o que los niños podrían ser retirados de las familias.“Tienen miedo de que vuelva la época de Stalin, cuando la gente delataba a sus vecinos”, dijo Irina Petrakova, una asistente de recursos humanos que sobrevivió a siete años de abusos por parte de su exmarido. Dijo que denunció 23 incidentes a las autoridades en ocho ocasiones, pero que su esposo no ha pasado ni un solo día en la cárcel.“Tienen miedo de que vuelva la época de Stalin, cuando la gente delataba a sus vecinos”,  dijo Irina Petrakova.Emile Ducke para The New York TimesElla, Gracheva y otras dos mujeres han demandado a Rusia ante el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos por no haberlas protegido.Petrakova, que también trabaja como orientadora, dijo que apoyaba a Popova, cuyo distrito es adyacente al suyo. Pero se encogió de hombros cuando se le preguntó si la negativa de Rusia Unida a combatir la violencia doméstica podría alejar a las mujeres del partido. Muchas votantes, dijo, habían vivido la turbulenta década de 1990 y apreciaban la estabilidad.Tenía en sus planes votar, pero dijo que no había candidatos dignos en su distrito.“Si pudiera votar contra todos, lo haría”, dijo.En Rusia, la mayoría de la oposición ha sido encarcelada, exiliada o tiene prohibido postularse a las elecciones de este fin de semana. El domingo, en una pequeña reunión celebrada en un parque con un electorado potencial, Popova, quien tiene como rivales a otros diez candidatos, mencionó que estaba comprometida a participar en las elecciones hasta donde le fuera posible, aunque haya una competencia desleal.Además, dijo sentirse optimista en relación con encuestas que su equipo mandó a hacer, las cuales mostraron un fuerte apoyo a su favor de parte de las mujeres cuya edad oscila entre los 25 y los 46 años.“Esto quiere decir que las mujeres se están uniendo por el futuro, por un cambio”, comentó Popova. “Esta es la mejor victoria que podemos imaginar durante nuestra campaña”.Dos mujeres jóvenes en el público dijeron que planeaban votar por ella.“Para las mujeres de una generación de mayor edad, tal vez sea normal ver violencia doméstica”, comentó Maria Badmayeva, de 26 años. “Pero en la generación más joven somos más progresistas. Pensamos que los valores que defiende Alyona son esenciales”.El centro de Moscú con el muro del Kremlin y la catedral de San Basilio al fondo. Este fin de semana se celebran las elecciones a la Duma rusa.Emile Ducke para The New York TimesAlina Lobzina colaboró con este reportaje.Valerie Hopkins es corresponsal en Moscú. Anteriormente cubrió Europa Central y del Sureste durante una década, más recientemente para el Financial Times. @Valeriein140 More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Glass Ceiling Persists for Women in Mayor’s Race

      by

      Kathryn Garcia and Maya Wiley placed second and third in the Democratic mayoral primary. Many New Yorkers hoped the glass ceiling would finally be broken.It was a constant refrain for the two leading female candidates running for mayor of New York City: The city has had 109 mayors, and all of them were men. It was finally time for a woman.The two candidates, Kathryn Garcia and Maya Wiley, had experience in government. They had major endorsements from unions, elected officials and newspaper editorial boards. They raised millions of dollars and gained momentum in the final weeks of the campaign.But Ms. Garcia, the city’s former sanitation commissioner, and Ms. Wiley, a former counsel to Mayor Bill de Blasio, still fell short, placing second and third in the Democratic primary behind Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president.New York is one of a handful of major cities where voters have yet to elect a woman as mayor, along with Los Angeles, Detroit and Philadelphia. Boston recently got its first female mayor, and women currently run more than 30 of the nation’s 100 largest cities.Ms. Wiley and Ms. Garcia won more than 380,000 first-choice votes between them, or nearly 41 percent of the votes. Ms. Garcia finished just one percentage point behind Mr. Adams under the city’s new ranked-choice voting system.But their loss felt like a missed opportunity for those who believed that New York would at long last elect a woman.“I’m disappointed and sad,” said Christine Quinn, the former City Council speaker who ran for mayor in 2013. “I give a lot of credit to Eric Adams, but I want a woman to be mayor of New York. It is truly, truly disheartening.”Maya Wiley garnered the second highest number of first-place votes, but finished in third place under the ranked-choice voting system.Sara Naomi Lewkowicz for The New York TimesThe Democratic primary field was the most diverse ever: Four women were on the ballot including Dianne Morales, a former nonprofit executive, and Joycelyn Taylor, a businesswoman. A fifth, Loree Sutton, a retired Army brigadier general, dropped out of the race in March. Of 13 candidates on the ballot, only three were white men; if he is elected in November, Mr. Adams will be the city’s second Black mayor.This was the first time New York City used ranked-choice voting in a citywide election, allowing voters to choose up to five candidates in order of preference. In other cities, candidates have often formed alliances to boost their chances.While Ms. Garcia and Ms. Wiley each ran strong campaigns that embraced the notion that it was time for a woman to lead the nation’s largest city, they did so independently.The two campaigns had discussions about Ms. Garcia and Ms. Wiley campaigning together and Ms. Garcia wanted to do it, according to a person who was familiar with the discussions.But Ms. Wiley appeared to have reservations on a policy level; Ms. Garcia was more conservative on policing, for instance, and was one of three candidates favored by the union that represents police officers. Ms. Wiley wanted to cut the police budget by $1 billion a year.Observers also suggested Ms. Garcia may have had more to gain from an alliance than Ms. Wiley. Some of Ms. Garcia’s moderate voters, for instance, might not have voted for Ms. Wiley even if the candidates campaigned together.Ms. Garcia instead struck a late alliance with Andrew Yang, a former presidential candidate, and that helped win over some of his supporters.Ms. Wiley said on Wednesday that she did not have any regrets over her decision not to campaign with other candidates.“We stood as a campaign on principle, and we stood with everyone who met our principles,” she said.Nearly 130,000 of Ms. Wiley’s votes — roughly half of her total support — were reallocated to Ms. Garcia under ranked-choice voting once Ms. Wiley was eliminated; Mr. Adams received nearly 20 percent of Ms. Wiley’s votes. The rest of the ballots were “exhausted” or eliminated in the final round because the voters did not rank either finalist. In the end, Ms. Garcia lost to Mr. Adams by less than 8,500 votes. Ester Fuchs, a political science professor at Columbia University, said it would have been a smart strategy for Ms. Garcia and Ms. Wiley to endorse each other, despite their differences, to give each a better chance at beating Mr. Adams.“Why did Adams start panicking when Yang and Garcia campaigned for one day together?” she said. “Garcia did get quite a few of Yang’s voters. That’s how ranked-choice voting can work.”The new voting system also could have hurt Ms. Wiley’s chances in a less obvious way: Under the old system, Ms. Wiley — who finished with the second-most number of first-place votes — would have moved on to face Mr. Adams in a head-to-head runoff election.Women are expected to make gains in the City Council, which could have a majority of female members for the first time next year. But the major citywide offices — mayor, comptroller and public advocate — will be occupied by men, and potentially four of the five borough presidents will be men as well.Still, Ms. Wiley said on Wednesday that she and Ms. Garcia had made significant strides for women in the city.“We did shatter the glass ceiling,” she said. “The glass ceiling that said that women could not be top-tier candidates. The glass ceiling that said women would be discounted. The glass ceiling that said we can’t be seen as leaders, and I think we demonstrated that is not true.”Ms. Garcia also referred to the glass ceiling in her concession speech, delivered in front of a women’s suffrage monument in Central Park featuring Susan B. Anthony and Sojourner Truth. Ms. Wiley had held a major event earlier in the campaign in front of the statue, appearing alongside Gloria Steinem, the feminist icon.“This campaign has come closer than any other moment in history to breaking that glass ceiling in selecting New York City’s first female mayor,” Ms. Garcia said. “We cracked the hell out of it, and it’s ready to be broken.”While some voters were excited simply to vote for a woman, many others were focused on ideology or experience, and were drawn to Ms. Garcia’s experience as a manager or Ms. Wiley’s progressive values. Michele Bogart, an art history professor in her 60s who lives in Brooklyn, ranked Ms. Garcia first and left Ms. Wiley off her ballot.“She increasingly struck me as a solid, can-do sort of official,” she said of Ms. Garcia.Catt Small, 31, a designer in Brooklyn, voted for Ms. Wiley first and also ranked Ms. Morales and Ms. Taylor on her ballot. After Mr. Adams won, Ms. Small was rethinking whether she should have ranked Ms. Garcia fifth to try and block him.“I ranked so many women and so many women of color on my ballot,” she said. “I was really hopeful that this was going to be the time.”Ms. Garcia and Ms. Wiley both faced an array of challenges during the campaign. They had some institutional support, but less than Mr. Adams did. They were also not viewed as seriously early on as Mr. Yang, even though he had less experience than they did, said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, which analyzes women’s political participation.Some voters also have reservations about electing women to executive jobs like mayor or president, Ms. Walsh said, and those may have come into play. These voters tend to be more comfortable seeing women in legislative roles.“When they’re trying for that top job where the buck stops, there are still gender stereotypes about who can lead,” she said.Voters might also have believed that a male candidate would be tougher on crime. The city has never had a female police commissioner, for instance, though Mr. Adams says he wants to change that. During the campaign, Mr. Adams focused intensely on public safety — the top issue for many voters — and highlighted his experience as a former police captain. And although Ms. Wiley and Ms. Garcia both surged toward the end of the campaign, the momentum came too late to lift them to victory.Ms. Wiley, for example, won early support from the powerful 1199 SEIU union, but progressive leaders like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez did not endorse her until June. Ms. Garcia did not register high in the polls until she secured endorsements from The New York Times and the New York Daily News in May.Ms. Garcia and Ms. Wiley faced less overt sexism during the campaign than Ms. Quinn, who lost to Mr. de Blasio in 2013 and was criticized for being unlikable, dowdy and not feminine enough. Ruth W. Messinger, a former Manhattan borough president, faced similar attacks over her appearance when she was the Democratic nominee for mayor in 1997.One notable difference was that more female reporters were covering the race than in the past and they covered gender with more nuance, Ms. Fuchs said.“Gender did not hurt them for the first time in my lifetime,” Ms. Fuchs said of Ms. Garcia and Ms. Wiley. “The media did not weaponize gender in this race.”The candidates did call out examples of what they viewed as sexism on the campaign trail. Ms. Garcia grew frustrated when Mr. Yang repeatedly said that he wanted to hire her for his administration; she insisted that she wanted to be the mayor, not work for one. Ms. Wiley argued that she was receiving unfair criticism over her ties to Mr. de Blasio instead of being judged on her own record.Ms. Quinn said she thought both women were held to a higher standard than their male rivals. “They had to be more substantive and more competent than the men to even be considered on par,” she said.And ultimately, she suggested, some New Yorkers may simply not have been comfortable voting for a woman.“I don’t know if voters are even aware of it,” Ms. Quinn said. “I think it is for many voters ingrained in their being from having lived in such a sexist society for their entire lives.”But Ms. Sutton, who endorsed Ms. Garcia after she dropped out of the race, said that while she was sad about the outcome, she was confident that a woman would be elected mayor soon.“She was one percentage point away — it’s heartbreaking yet it’s also exhilarating,” she said. “It should make New York power brokers pay attention.”Michael Gold contributed reporting. More

    • 75 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      She Was Raped: The Enduring Trauma

      by

      More from our inbox:The Republican Attack on Our DemocracyThe Power of Physical Books  Damon Winter/The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “I Am Breaking My Silence About the Baseball Player Who Raped Me,” by Kat O’Brien (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, June 20):Ms. O’Brien’s essay broke my heart. Why should she have to suffer for 18 years because a professional athlete raped her and she (probably completely accurately) believed that she had no recourse?How many more stories like this must we read before managers, executives, owners and players take seriously the fact that they create the culture that allows such behavior to happen? Were their wives, sisters or daughters working in professional sports, would they want them to be vulnerable to such a traumatizing experience?Professional sports, like the military, needs to take a hard look at what their indifference and even encouragement (showing porn films in the clubhouse!) are doing to women, maybe even the women they love.Edie LyckeSan Luis Obispo, Calif.To the Editor:Because Kat O’Brien opened up about her rape and the many ways it has constricted her life over the years, I feel finally able to include myself in the statistic that one in five women experience rape or attempted rape.I was lucky enough to escape the rape because of the intervention of another person. It was terrifying at the time, and I quit my summer job because I no longer felt safe coming home alone from work late at night. I lost weeks of income because of it. But, because I escaped with just a punch, a kick and broken glasses, I never thought of myself in terms of the rape statistics.I am sure that all women at various times in their lives fear for their physical safety when out in public or working at their job. What do we women have to do to get men, who seldom fear for their physical safety, to empathize with what it is like to live with that constant fear?Hazel LutzMinneapolisTo the Editor:Kat O’Brien’s piece on her rape and how it affected her entire life was incredibly powerful and brought me to tears. As a woman who came up in the advertising and publishing world in the ’80s and ’90s, I have my own stories and #MeToo moments that happened over and over again, and I applaud her for finally speaking her truth.I hope that coming out publicly about this horrible, life-changing experience will allow her to continue down the path of recovery.Lauren MichaelsVero Beach, Fla.To the Editor:Kat O’Brien’s disturbing account of being raped by a professional baseball player reminded me of an attempted rape when I was 15. I was tricked into being separated from the group at an after-dark beach party, and once out of sight, a schoolmate began to forcibly remove my clothes. I assured him that if he was trying to prove he was bigger and stronger than me, there was no contest, but he should keep in mind that my dad was the best shot in our county and “he knows where you live.”That jerk couldn’t wait to get back to the group, and I learned that the human brain responds faster to fear than anything else. I hope that other women will learn from my experience and conjure up an uncle in the police force or any other story that would instill fear in their attacker.Margaret CurtisAtlantaTo the Editor:Kat O’Brien describes an all-too-familiar story of violence against women followed by self-blame, shame and symptoms of PTSD. Oftentimes it is hard to seek psychological treatment, fearing that talking about what happened will only exacerbate the emotional pain. I hope that Ms. O’Brien’s courage in making public her victimization will help others reach out to friends and family and, if necessary, to seek psychological support.Larry S. SandbergNew YorkThe writer is a psychoanalyst.To the Editor:How many stories of rape or sexual harassment and their lifelong effects on the victims do we need to hear before we all say “it’s not your fault”? I don’t care if you were friendly. If you smiled. I don’t care if you had a few drinks. I don’t care if you looked sexy. If you wore a skirt that day. It’s not your fault.Joan SolotarNew YorkThe Republican Attack on Our DemocracyTo the Editor:The Republicans’ voter suppression, gerrymandering, reduction of voting places in urban minority areas, and baseless audits and challenges to the 2020 election results in Republican-led states are the greatest threat to our democracy since our country’s founding. And not a word of objection from most Republican leaders.I am reminded of a brief conversation recently with an immigrant repairman from Ukraine who has lived in the United States for many years and has his family here and relatives still in Ukraine. When asked if he fears for Ukraine these days, his response was swift: “No, I fear more for this country.”Ken GoldmanBeverly Hills, Calif.The Power of Physical BooksThe new location will offer new services, including food and drinks from a coffee bar.Jeenah Moon for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “How ‘Hamilton’ Brought a Bookstore Back to Life” (Arts pages, June 7):The laudable actions of Lin-Manuel Miranda, the director Thomas Kail, the producer Jeffrey Seller and the theater owner James Nederlander in saving the Drama Book Shop in Manhattan for future generations of theater lovers, professional and amateur, serves as an affirmation of the immutable fact that being in a room surrounded by physical books is a powerful experience that sometimes magically leads to creative inspiration.So long as humans remain a material species and not a digital one, no number of downloaded texts invisibly stored in a hard drive can ever do the same.M.C. LangChevy Chase, Md. More