Read on Twitter
The way some of y’all went straight to the comments to go off about how women ran for Senate in the past & lost! I’ve been fuming for hours. I’ve got thoughts.
First, Sec. Marshall has won more statewide races than probably anyone else alive in NC at this point or is damn close.
First, Sec. Marshall has won more statewide races than probably anyone else alive in NC at this point or is damn close.
Sec. Marshall also won not one but 2 primaries in her US Senate bid, the 2nd being a completely unnecessary, timely, & costly endeavor against a cis white man who couldn’t accept he wasn’t the best candidate. His name is Cal Cunningham. Think about that & fast forward to 2020.
The late Sen. Kay Hagan dominated Sen. Liddy Dole in the 2008 General, over-performing in rural areas & out-performing Obama, who won NC that year. She faced off against men in both the 2008 & 2014 Primaries & won handily. She faced sexist attacks. The DNC should’ve done more.
Congresswoman Deb Ross ran against 3 men in the 2016 Primary for US Senate. She walloped them. She lost to Burr, yes. In the process, the Right was merciless for her ACLU work. They lobbied sexist attacks against her, just as they did against Sec. Hillary Clinton that year.
Auditor Beth Wood wins statewide. The anti-union former labor commissioner won over and over again, but only after folks made her “fun” and digestible by falsely suggesting her name rhymed with “elevator lady.” (It doesn’t, by the way.)
Fmr. Gov. Bev Perdue—our state’s first and unfortunately still only female governor—was criticized mercilessly for her colorful suits, her height, her haircut, her frown lines, her accent...really, it boils down to her gender. I know, because I worked for her.
Gov. Perdue experienced sexist attacks from the Right who suggested her gender made her ill-equipped to combat the terrible economic downfall (which she inherited because of Republicans, by the way). Notice we haven’t had a woman run since. Republicans would try tying one to her.
Not just that, but her leadership style often meant having to fit in with the big boys & gain their approval. Look at appointments made to state boards & commissions under her tenure. Not much to rock the boat there. To be clear, I’m implying the patriarchy played a role.
Let’s not forget Fmr. Superintendent June Atkinson. Folks associate the teaching profession with women. Don’t @ me because I’m right. She seemed safe to folks until her & Gov. Perdue had a disagreement that got dragged by the media in typical sexist “cat fight” fashion.
The whole dissolution of their working relationship actually revolves around the appointment of—you guessed it—a white man to the State Board of Education. [Le sigh.]
I think some of y’all are forgetting how many women—including women of color—have been phenomenal statewide candidates & elected officials, particularly in the judicial branch. Perhaps Fmr. Chief Justice Cheri Beasley or current Justice Anita Earls will enter this US Senate race.
How are you going to feel then after running your mouth off about a “presumptive nominee” over a year before the Primary even happens and almost that long until the filing deadline?! What if more talented, interesting, diverse women or POC or queer folks are considering running?
Y’all are counting out a whole crop of candidates before it’s even time to plant the seeds, let alone harvest the results, of this election. By engaging in “presumptive nominee” talk that essentially concludes only one type of candidate can win in NC, you’re limiting our options.
Let me explain. The media, rigid societal standards, the patriarchy, White Supremacist & heteronormative rape culture, our history, & 100 other deeply-ingrained but subconsciously accepted beliefs have made you believe the standard for success exists within a narrow paradigm.
Nothing will change if we don’t change the way we recruit, train, support, and fight for candidates who are more representative of the populations they will be serving than of the donor class who is funding a perpetuation of their own lifestyles and comfort zones.
If you don’t make room for new voices to enter the conversation because you’re so busy talking about sustaining the status quo, your rigid ideology of how best to move this state forward is actually what’s holding us back.
There are many women who’ve run for office in our state & across the US who are subjected to sexist attacks, death threats, looming gender-based violence, & disinformation campaigns. They don’t receive the same support from their Party or insiders as the favored male candidates.
It’s an uphill battle for women, POC, queer, young, & nontraditional candidates. Today is another example of how we’re counted out before we even begin. Imagine the talented leaders we’ll never know because they refuse to subject themselves to already coming in 2nd in your minds.
By branding the cis white man lawyer with armed forces experience the presumptive nominee—even if he is great (& in this case, I do think highly of him)—before we know the dynamics of the race & who all is running on both sides, we’re falling into the same trap we always have.
We’re shutting the door to possibilities & telling others not to walk into the room. We’re signaling to folks traditionally unwelcomed at the table that their presence could jeopardize the future when the people with seats have already decided what it should look like for us all.
I’ve been taking heat all day for “throwing shade.” I wasn’t actually targeting my friend who we all knew was going to throw his hat in the ring eventually. Instead, I’m attacking a rigged system and limited way of how we decide which candidates are automatically seen as viable.
I know better than most what it is to run statewide in NC as a woman, as an LGBTQ candidate, as someone originally from a rural area, as someone who is an unmarried, childless, outspoken, progressive millennial & who is a renter with student loan debt. I was ALWAYS the underdog.
Candidates with even one or two of these perceived “otherisms” are counted out or never considered to run for most offices. We’re not the names whispered in insider circles months or years before an election. We’re not the first ones suggested when appointments come available.
We have to fight like hell to be taken seriously. We work 10 times harder. We run great campaigns but are limited by fewer donor resources, less media attention, less qualified staff (because we can’t pay as well), fewer mentors & often not ones who share our lived experiences.
If we do or say one thing that even seems like a slip up or perceived weakness, we’re pounced on by the media or the Party insiders like sharks who smell blood in the water—hoping to eat us alive and send the message that any deviation from their rigid norm is a death sentence.
The number of women I know—myself included—who have received unwelcome commentary and even solicited (yes, you read that correctly) advice about every aspect of our appearance, demeanor, behavior, mannerisms, & more is disheartening.
What’s worse is compliance with rigid dress & behavioral standards often still doesn’t protect us as female candidates from criticism, sexualization, unwanted advances, or outdated notions about our proper role in society. It’s true that you’re damned if you do & if you don’t.
I’m hoping to illustrate that even subconsciously assuming a certain type of candidate has the best chance at victory is how you’re presupposing the end of a story before there’s even a chance to change the narrative and write-in new protagonists. Give a lady a plot twist!
Every time I think I’m ready to walk away from this thread, my anger brings me back. Y’all, only a few of us know what it’s like to run statewide in NC as a woman, an even smaller number as our Party’s nominee, & unfortunately a smaller number as the winner of a General election.
What we go through as women candidates is toxic. TOXIC. We persist because we understand what’s at stake. We’re strong beyond measure. We’ve done what most will only pass opinions on our doing of.
Every single one of us has, at one point or another, thought about how our successes or failings—actual or perceived—will be unfairly and subconsciously attributed to our gender identity and will then become used to set a standard by which to judge any women who come after us.
Even if we don’t vocalize that thought, it’s always the elephant in the room. Perhaps it’s why we empathize with other women who dare to step into spaces where none of us are welcomed & even those who once there feel the need to conform or shrink to better their odds at staying.
We’re all fighting the same war. Each election is a new battle & we’re hopeful the tide will turn. The less victories & the bloodier the fight, the harder it is to recruit new champions. 2016 & 2020 casualties breed reluctance & fear of losing a race & yourself in the process.
I had to walk away for a moment because my neck is so tight and my jaw is sore from tensing up. I checked the thermostat because I’m burning up. It’s 62 degrees in my house. The rage I feel from vocalizing the sexism in politics actually has me fuming. That’s a message in itself.
I announced in spring 2019 when I was 30. I’m pretty sure I’m the youngest woman to ever run statewide; I know I’m the first to run as an out-LGBTQ woman. I say these things without Googling because I personally know almost every woman who has ever run statewide. Let that sink in
It was 2020 before you had an out-LGBTQ candidate for a constitutional office. It was 2020 before you had the chance to elect a Black woman as Lieutenant Governor or Commissioner of Labor. It was 2020 before you had both major party candidates running for Superintendent be women.
Someone just reminded me of Fmr. Rep. Linda Coleman’s Lt. Governor race in 2012. If elected, she would have been the first Black woman elected statewide. Like Fmr. Rep. Yvonne Holley in 2020, she didn’t receive the respect & support she earned from years of service to this state.
Women, young, & queer candidates often lack access to the same deep-pocketed donors of more traditional candidates. The hurdle to perceived viability validated by high fundraising totals is often even greater for women of color to achieve. (See criticism of Fmr. Sen. Erica Smith)
Not to beat a dead horse, but y’all just don’t realize how personally expensive it is to run for office. It cost money many of us had less of in the first place because of the wage gap or years of performing second shift, emotionally & physically draining unpaid labor.
Buying a whole new wardrobe & makeup pallet while paying for “appropriate” (don’t even get me started) hairstyles & nails—not to mention the time required to comply with socially preferred grooming standards—that allegedly appeal to delicate sensibilities of voters isn’t cheap.
I promise you that even for men purchasing a couple bespoke suits in black, navy, or dark grey, they’re coming out cheaper than nearly any woman candidate. Men buy a pair of black & brown shoes. They need a couple shirts, maybe a few ties, a good pair of jeans or khakis. Voilà!
Women laugh at the simplicity of a male candidate’s wardrobe while longing for the freedom it would bring. Here we are spending $70 on one piece of shapewear that you— God forbid—won’t even see! Packing for a 3 day campaign trip looks like we’ve moved in to our car.
Despite having to spend far more time deciding what will be deemed appropriate attire to each picnic, rally, fundraiser, or carnival than male counterparts, we know the chance for criticism remains high regardless of our choice. It’s exhausting.
Add to this the anxiety of sweat stains, runny mascara, messy or flat hair, shiny foreheads, stocking runs, unknowingly sheer fabric, blistered heels, bloating, hot flashes, breasts in need of pumping, cramps, dry skin, or weight change—from stress—all visible in your appearance.
The physical appearance of women candidates seems fair game to her opponents, the press, & voters. I recall a feature written after my 2010 win that began by describing my hair color & length followed by my wardrobe choice. I remember every email with unsolicited fashion advice.
I still feel the pit in my stomach when I reflect on former women candidates I respected who told me I wouldn’t be taken seriously until I lightened my makeup, cut my hair, donned a blazer & more sensible heel, & made myself look older. I recall them comparing me to other women.
I remember every man who suggested I make myself less sexy, less pretty to be taken seriously. Some thought I should wear my glasses; others fetishized even that look—hoping to live out some boyhood fantasy that they more often than not inappropriately made me aware of.
Here’s an idea: why don’t we just start taking women—all women identifying folks—seriously? It doesn’t seem that novel of a concept to me, but apparently y’all have a lot of hang ups when it comes to a woman’s appearance. As more women are elected, we can redefine “acceptable.”
If we spent less time policing bodies or forcing compliance with unrealistic, rigid standards—most of which were set by men—down the throats of women, we’d all be happier, more productive, & free. We’d set better examples for our daughters. We’d see more women run for office.
Speaking of free, let’s address the speech of women candidates. We’re held to a higher standard of rhetoric, pitch, length, humor, aggression, passion, emotion, vocabulary, relatability, & personalization. Jokes are risky; if we’re funny, we’re memorable but less serious.
We’re dumb when we soften ideas into suggestions with filler words. You’re threatened when we don’t.
Moderators, press, and opponents talk over us or rephrase our ideas like they are their own. When we do the same, we’re rude or showy.
Moderators, press, and opponents talk over us or rephrase our ideas like they are their own. When we do the same, we’re rude or showy.
When we give you only the time you deserve or we’re to the point without flowery language, we’re short, curt, & rude.
Debates with time limited responses are a double-edged sword made worse when rebuttals aren’t allowed & our opponent with a lower burden of truth speaks after us.
Debates with time limited responses are a double-edged sword made worse when rebuttals aren’t allowed & our opponent with a lower burden of truth speaks after us.
When you call us by our first names instead of the professional or elected titles we’ve earned, it’s somehow not disrespectful or it’s your way of altering the power dynamic, under the guise it makes us more relatable (since powerful women apparently aren’t, hence this thread).
The way you subconsciously & actively participate in perpetuating the devaluation of women & their unique contributions to society is by allowing the patriarchy to set the standard & our institutions—including government, church, school, & media—to reinforce it as you police it.
Even women candidates are guilty of pushing conformity on other women who are running. Sometimes, as with my mentors, they do so out of a misguided notion that complying with certain standards is a way to protect us from harm, to make us more palatable & success more attainable.
Sometimes, we’re backed in a corner by paralyzing fear that noncompliance with traditional aesthetics will tank our race. We feel pushed to publicly discourage nonconformity amongst others, in a futile attempt to make ourselves more likable by men in power pulling the strings.
It’s an internal push & pull. One of the hardest choices a woman candidate can make is to defy the unwritten rules of campaigns—to remain authentic & unbent to the rigidity expected of us at every conceivable turn—from our personal style to how we vocalize lived experiences.
We run the risk of being perceived as too something: emotional, extreme, feminine, butch, Black, gay, straight, aggressive, sexy, quiet, loud, weak, proud, skinny, plain, fat, dowdy, young, old, pregnant, inexperienced, unfocused, complicated, educated, simple, talkative, pretty.
Why am I “harping”—a gendered word, scantily used when referring to men who verbalize their concerns—on standards women candidates are held to? Well, it’s because the historically accepted gold standard for a political candidate has barely changed since this country was founded.
The immediate hype surrounding the announcement made by a candidate who is the textbook example of that gold standard proves how much lower their bar is for acceptance, viability, attention, media access, & resources (because even mock amateur videos cost money & require a team).
Jeff Jackson & Cal Cunningham are attractive in a wholesome 1950s sitcom way. They’re cis, white male lawyers who served in the Armed Forces as well as the Legislature, representing the same region of NC. Both have beautiful “traditional” nuclear families & alliterative names.
Noting Sen. Jackson is eerily similar to the guy who lost it all for us in 2020 may not be a fair comparison to draw, but you can bet your life on the fact that if two less similar women ran in those races that the media would have us doing mental gymnastics to draw similarities.
Primaries can give us battle-tested candidates, pushed to embrace a more comprehensive platform, reflective of policies voters favored from all choices presented.
“Presumptive nominee” talk is often laced with white cis-male privilege. It prevents bold ideas from taking root.
“Presumptive nominee” talk is often laced with white cis-male privilege. It prevents bold ideas from taking root.
Assuming only one type of candidate is viable in the South is a dangerous impediment to progress for us all. I won’t apologize for making those of you who are too comfortable with your privilege come to terms with that. Recognize the audacity in presuming you know best.
With scant exception, women elected statewide have done so with dignity & distinction—exemplifying grace under fire—while ushering in modernity & meaningful progress that has forever changed the lives of North Carolinians for the better. Their candidacies should be our standard.
When I wrote “I have a dream that one day, someone more interesting, more diverse,& more representative of our population than a generic white guy will be seen as a viable candidate capable of winning statewide in North Carolina,” I envisioned our chance to change hearts & minds.
There is power in telling our story, in speaking the truth. All the great movements in history were built on shared struggles and hope for a better future born of that communal realization that the reality of the present circumstance must evolve to meet the moment.
Women can’t—nor should they—be silenced about barriers still blocking our road to success & acceptance. We’ve reached a fork, providing an opportunity to organize & help us collectively build power while giving the source of the government’s power—the people—a chance to rise up.
When women lead, we’re all better for it. There are countless studies you can refer to (on your own time) proving just that. Look to the women who have run & those who have won in NC as examples. We all have a part to play in redefining what leadership looks like for our future.
