"the fight for change did not go unseen, but politics inside the highest courts of law are rooted in partisan loyalty, not the true reality of any given situation."
---Tahlia Torres-Cohen
On September 28th, 2018, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford came forward to the Supreme Court with an allegation of sexual assault against Judge Brett Kavanaugh. She shared her moving testimony to Congress, clearly affected by the pressure that came with stepping behind the podium. In her opening statement, Blasey Ford expressed, “I am here not because I want to be… I am here because I believe it is my civic duty.” The image of her testifying strikes a chord in Supreme Court history, and, for many, reopens a wound that never quite healed after the Anita Hill testimony in 1991.
Twenty-seven years before, the Hill hearing was held on a different floor but under the same conditions. Hill, at the time a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, came forward against the nominated Judge Clarence Thomas with allegations of sexual misconduct. She stood before a panel of white men, who berated her with graphic questions about the sexual harassment, which prompted public outrage, especially among women.
But despite Hill’s testimony, Thomas was still approved and Hill’s accusations were dismissed by both Democratic and Republican voters.
Hill’s testimony inspired many female politicians to run for office that following year, and became known as “the year of the woman” in American politics. The result was a record-breaking 24 women elected to The House of Representatives, the largest number elected to the House in any single election, and the women elected to the Senate tripled the number of women in that chamber by the start of the 103rd Congress.
The same course of events took place with the Blasey-Ford hearing, despite the nearly thirty-year difference. Of course, there were some key differences, due to some significant cultural changes within this political era. Ford testified in the midst of the #MeToo movement and perhaps had the comfort of other women standing with her, both in the room and out. Hill testified to an all-male Republican Judiciary Panel, with the only women present representing the Democrats, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was first elected in 1992’s “Year of the Woman.” .
That gender dynamic heavily affected the way the hearings unfolded. The Republican politicians brought in Rachel Mitchell, a female prosecutor who specializes in sex crimes to question Ford, in an attempt to dismantle the all-male image that enraged the public in regards to the Anita Hill hearing. Thanks to the massive movement made by female politicians after the 1991 hearing, it was possible for Ford to experience the process in a way that might have been slightly different from Hill. Despite this, the outcome was the same.
Many Americans, especially American women, are searching for answers to a question that seems very prevalent during this political time period. Why has there been no change? Did our efforts to change the narrative of power in our country fall short?
A common answer would be no, the fight for change did not go unseen, but politics inside the highest courts of law are rooted in partisan loyalty, not the true reality of any given situation.
That aside, an interesting point to consider is the female Republican senators. There are five Republican women on the Senate, but throughout the Kavanaugh hearing the attention was set on two of them. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are the Republican women who are most well known for voting against major GOP priorities, but not in any major sense. Throughout the hearing, a very heavy weight was put on their votes. Their votes could have changed the outcome of the confirmation, if they had ventured outside of their parties priorities.
Collins and Murkowski have both showed some support to feminism in previous years. In 1996, Collins supported Roe v. Wade and voted against anti-abortion legislation. Murkowski is also pro-choice. Though in the end, Collins voted for Kavanaugh and even spoke in his favor to explain her vote. Murkowski abstained, showing a level of opposition but not enough to cross party lines. This was a major blow to the hope of many women, seeing as these senators knew the meaning of their vote and still chose their party over their morality.
For some, this brings forward a familiar situation. The “cool girl” feminist, as known to many in Generation Z. “Cool girl feminist” is a term that describes a woman who, although her morals may lie with other women and equality, changes or erases that part of her persona for a male ideal. In politics, many white and conservative women demonstrate behavior like this. Collins and Murkowski are perfect examples of the archetype, being women who may have exhibited some support of feminism but without fail stand by the patriarchy and the comfort that comes with it.
Many argue that their votes are just standard partisan voting, with little to do with gender. This would be a wild understatement of the effect women have on politics, and the effect that politics have on women. In any male-dominated workplace, there is a constant shroud of pressure on the women to cater to male ideals, ideas, and standards. The United States government is no different, if not ten times worse. While they are still overwhelmingly a minority, women have managed to create space for themselves in politics, and for the most part, they are a progressive force to be reckoned with.
Matters get more complicated with conservatives though. For female Republican senators, party loyalty too often overshadows personal politics, especially when it comes to women’s rights. The standard for an influential Republican politician is to maintain the strong, masculine representation of an American. So then, for female politicians, their vote and word become about maintaining an image rather than furthering a true feminist agenda.
Twenty-seven years before, the Hill hearing was held on a different floor but under the same conditions. Hill, at the time a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, came forward against the nominated Judge Clarence Thomas with allegations of sexual misconduct. She stood before a panel of white men, who berated her with graphic questions about the sexual harassment, which prompted public outrage, especially among women.
But despite Hill’s testimony, Thomas was still approved and Hill’s accusations were dismissed by both Democratic and Republican voters.
Hill’s testimony inspired many female politicians to run for office that following year, and became known as “the year of the woman” in American politics. The result was a record-breaking 24 women elected to The House of Representatives, the largest number elected to the House in any single election, and the women elected to the Senate tripled the number of women in that chamber by the start of the 103rd Congress.
The same course of events took place with the Blasey-Ford hearing, despite the nearly thirty-year difference. Of course, there were some key differences, due to some significant cultural changes within this political era. Ford testified in the midst of the #MeToo movement and perhaps had the comfort of other women standing with her, both in the room and out. Hill testified to an all-male Republican Judiciary Panel, with the only women present representing the Democrats, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was first elected in 1992’s “Year of the Woman.” .
That gender dynamic heavily affected the way the hearings unfolded. The Republican politicians brought in Rachel Mitchell, a female prosecutor who specializes in sex crimes to question Ford, in an attempt to dismantle the all-male image that enraged the public in regards to the Anita Hill hearing. Thanks to the massive movement made by female politicians after the 1991 hearing, it was possible for Ford to experience the process in a way that might have been slightly different from Hill. Despite this, the outcome was the same.
Many Americans, especially American women, are searching for answers to a question that seems very prevalent during this political time period. Why has there been no change? Did our efforts to change the narrative of power in our country fall short?
A common answer would be no, the fight for change did not go unseen, but politics inside the highest courts of law are rooted in partisan loyalty, not the true reality of any given situation.
That aside, an interesting point to consider is the female Republican senators. There are five Republican women on the Senate, but throughout the Kavanaugh hearing the attention was set on two of them. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski are the Republican women who are most well known for voting against major GOP priorities, but not in any major sense. Throughout the hearing, a very heavy weight was put on their votes. Their votes could have changed the outcome of the confirmation, if they had ventured outside of their parties priorities.
Collins and Murkowski have both showed some support to feminism in previous years. In 1996, Collins supported Roe v. Wade and voted against anti-abortion legislation. Murkowski is also pro-choice. Though in the end, Collins voted for Kavanaugh and even spoke in his favor to explain her vote. Murkowski abstained, showing a level of opposition but not enough to cross party lines. This was a major blow to the hope of many women, seeing as these senators knew the meaning of their vote and still chose their party over their morality.
For some, this brings forward a familiar situation. The “cool girl” feminist, as known to many in Generation Z. “Cool girl feminist” is a term that describes a woman who, although her morals may lie with other women and equality, changes or erases that part of her persona for a male ideal. In politics, many white and conservative women demonstrate behavior like this. Collins and Murkowski are perfect examples of the archetype, being women who may have exhibited some support of feminism but without fail stand by the patriarchy and the comfort that comes with it.
Many argue that their votes are just standard partisan voting, with little to do with gender. This would be a wild understatement of the effect women have on politics, and the effect that politics have on women. In any male-dominated workplace, there is a constant shroud of pressure on the women to cater to male ideals, ideas, and standards. The United States government is no different, if not ten times worse. While they are still overwhelmingly a minority, women have managed to create space for themselves in politics, and for the most part, they are a progressive force to be reckoned with.
Matters get more complicated with conservatives though. For female Republican senators, party loyalty too often overshadows personal politics, especially when it comes to women’s rights. The standard for an influential Republican politician is to maintain the strong, masculine representation of an American. So then, for female politicians, their vote and word become about maintaining an image rather than furthering a true feminist agenda.