• commentary
  • THURSDAY DECEMBER 29 2011 9:06 PM

Why Don’t We Have More Women in Public Office? Look at Who’s Running the Campaigns

by Yashar Ali

Every election season, I ask myself the same question: Why aren’t more women running for public office?

Over the past ten years, I have been hopeful for the prospect and rise of women political candidates. While I never studied the numbers, I felt like we were heading in the right direction.

I couldn’t be more wrong.

Reporter Kate Linthicum’s brilliant Los Angeles Times article sheds light on the City of Los Angeles’ problem with proper female representation on the city council. The fifteen-member council, which had five female members eleven years ago, currently has just one, Jan Perry.

Current statistics about women holding federal office are equally dismal: women hold fewer than 20 percent of House and Senate seats. The House faced its first decline in 30 years with respect to women members.

Women hold fewer than 25 percent of seats in state legislatures. This sort of decline has not been seen in decades.

Why are we slipping back after so many years of slow but steady progress?

There exists real obstacles for prospective women politicians: media bias, lack of financial support, mediocre recruitment efforts, underfunded organizations built to help women run for public office.

I want to introduce a not-so-prominent problem: the serious deficiency of women in senior positions on political campaigns. With the exception of political fundraisers, you find very few women running campaigns or serving in top management spots.

The absence of women operating behind the scenes of political campaigns has been largely ignored. This is made clear by the complete absence of studies tracking the numbers of women working in politics. Open your newspaper and turn on your TV. You usually hear a senior-level male staffer speaking for candidates.

This isn’t just about my ideology. This is personal for me.

For the past two and half years, I worked for California Lieutenant Governor and former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. In my last position with him, I managed his 2010 race for Lieutenant Governor.

Lieutenant Governor Newsom and his wife, actress and documentary filmmaker, Jennifer Siebel Newsom (who made a brilliant documentary about women’s under-representation in positions of power and the limited and often disparaging portrayal of women in the media - see SG interview) expressed in this campaign their frustration and concern about the lack of women working on his campaigns.

Lieutenant Governor Newsom always asked, when we made hiring decisions, whether we could fill these posts with qualified women. This was not just a question for him. In his first year as mayor, he appointed San Francisco’s first female police chief and fire chief. He was also the first mayor to initiate gender analysis of budget cuts.

But I couldn’t find available and qualified women to take senior positions in his campaign. The few women I did know were already working on other campaigns.

Shawnda Westly, Executive Director of the California Democratic Party, saw a need to fix this problem in California. She, along with her colleague Robin Swanson, put their money where their mouth is, and launched a website called Political Women California.

Political Women California delivers a simple, but powerful mission: to give women working in politics a place to post their resumes so employers can find and hire them for campaigns, elections and political positions throughout California — and across the country.

Their site has been flooded with postings from women already working in politics in California. Even though I am not in the business of managing campaigns anymore, it helped me realize how many women are trying to work in politics.

Usually, people run for office after being exposed to a political campaign in one way or another. So the question is: how do we expect young women to motivate themselves to run for public office when all the people running campaigns are men?

This issue is not limited to Democrats. We need more women working on campaigns and in elective office across the political spectrum. Both parties should see the benefit of female leadership. But drawing from my personal experience, I want to speak to Democrats: There is no excuse. How can we demand equality for women in the workplace and fair wage laws, when we can’t manage to hire women for the campaigns professing these issues?

I spent the better part of two years working tirelessly for Hillary Clinton in her bid to be the 44th President of the United States. My passion for her candidacy was primarily based on my belief that she was the most qualified candidate for president. I felt her unique combination of experiences would serve our country incredibly well.

But there was another strong factor for my motivation. One I will not apologize for. I really wanted a woman president.

The dream I have for a woman president is not dead. However, if we don’t make conscious efforts to hire more women on political campaigns, we are not only limiting our talent pool, but we will also face an epidemic shortage of women running for office.

We must demand that candidates we support value diversity in their hiring practices. So, my message is for two people: the candidate and the campaign manager.

Next time you are walking through your campaign headquarters, take a look at the young woman who shows up everyday after her classes to volunteer. The same one who always pays her own way on public transportation to make phone calls and to help knock on doors. The same one that you are impressed by and think is better than half your paid staff. And probably the same one you take for granted. She could be president one day…if you give her a chance.


***

Yashar Ali is a Los Angeles-based columnist, commentator, and political veteran whose writings about women, gender inequality, political heroism, and society are showcased on his website, The Current Conscience. Please follow him on Twitter and join him on Facebook.

He will be soon releasing our first short e-book, entitled, A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not Crazy — How We Teach Men That Women Are Crazy and How We Convince Women To Ignore Their Instincts. If you are interested and want to be notified when the book is released, please click here to sign-up.


Related Posts:
You Don’t Drink? What’s Wrong With You?
You're An Unavailable Man? Fantastic! When Are We Getting Married?
When Everything Is On His Terms
Now…Give Your Uncle A Kiss
The Modern Day Version of “Just The Tip”
Men Who E-Maintain Women
He Doesn’t Deserve Your Validation: Putting The Fake Orgasm Out of Business
A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not Crazy

 
Comments
99percent

99percent

Scarborough, ON
December 2011

DEC 30, 2011 08:45 AM

Same deal in news media. Style over substance. Can one blame the rise of infotainment above and beyond the ideal of a well-educated populace for the imbalance cited here?

As the message and information created by news gathering agencies melds with the portrayal of such on a global scale, audiences become accustomed to political will being espoused for men, by men but sometimes spoken through women who are neatly deemed the ambassadors of the message by the ratings-driven nature of modern news media. In politics too, women are seen through a looking glass that portrays them as the messengers of men, rather than of a independent voice, struggling for equal footing.

With few exceptions, women are sometimes judged to be acceptable politicians (and news readers) not based on the depth of their text, but on the softness of their voice or palatability of skin tone. The world is not an equal place, thus, this is reflected by the make-up chairs and wardrobe selectors that keep women chained to quarter-hour ratings and focus group mutterings.

Break the relationship and reliance on L'Oreal, Venus and Sephora and maybe we'll get somewhere. A man in politics could get away with owning just one suit his whole life and would be viewed as wise. A woman? notsomuch...

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Oakland, NJ
June 2003

DEC 30, 2011 09:08 AM

NJ has a fairly decent mix of female politicians.

LaceyK

LaceyK

Tarrytown, NY
October 2005

DEC 30, 2011 11:14 AM

99percent said:
With few exceptions, women are sometimes judged to be acceptable politicians (and news readers) not based on the depth of their text, but on the softness of their voice or palatability of skin tone. The world is not an equal place, thus, this is reflected by the make-up chairs and wardrobe selectors that keep women chained to quarter-hour ratings and focus group mutterings.





WTF?
I am sorry, what?
I don't even know where to begin with this.

Spoilered for length

SPOILERS! (Click to view)


First, most media spokespeople are based on the tone of their voice regardless of gender. They must be able to pronounciate properly, be clear and soothing, and keep an even level in their pitch. So how can you say that women are only ever chosen because of the softness of their voice?

You then say women are held back in their careers because of make up and wardrobe choices? You do realize that both men and women who are in the media utilize both make up and stylists? The man doesn't come in from home grab a cup of coffee and wait for the women in the field to come in get dolled up and work tirelessly with a stylist. You would probably be surprised by how much make up men put on - particularly with the advent of HD TV.

But the most idiotic and insulting statements of your post is:


Break the relationship and reliance on L'Oreal, Venus and Sephora and maybe we'll get somewhere. A man in politics could get away with owning just one suit his whole life and would be viewed as wise. A woman? notsomuch...



You really think that a gentleman who is trying to build a professional career needs one suit and by wearing that suit every day would be considered wise?

Both men and women who are taken seriously in the media need to invest in properly fitting suits that are classic, compliment their skin tones, the background behind them, and portray professionalism.

You clearly are unaware that certain suits are considered Power suits based on their color.

It is insulting that you state that women wearing makeup decreases their crediblity.

Finally - you state the world is not an equal place. You are right sir. FYI - more women are in the work force then men currently. Yes you hear that correct - a higher percentage of woman are working right now than men. The unemployment rate for men is at approx 10%, and at 8% for women - due to more women continuing their education.


LaceyK

LaceyK

Tarrytown, NY
October 2005

DEC 30, 2011 11:15 AM

mydogfarted said:
NJ has a fairly decent mix of female politicians.



As does Westchester, NY and most of CT.

METOO

METOO

Chicago, IL
October 2011

DEC 30, 2011 11:37 AM

You need GOOD people in politics first. Wanting a female in office just to even out the numbers won't do anything, support qualified candidates.

Son_of_None

Son_of_None

USA
December 2010

DEC 30, 2011 12:32 PM

METOO said:
You need GOOD people in politics first. Wanting a female in office just to even out the numbers won't do anything, support qualified candidates.



Couldn't agree more.

Necia

Necia

San Francisco, CA
August 2005

DEC 30, 2011 08:55 PM

Shema said:

METOO said:
You need GOOD people in politics first. Wanting a female in office just to even out the numbers won't do anything, support qualified candidates.



Couldn't agree more.



Okay. But that's not at all what this article advocated, at any point.

When you fail to bring whole groups of people into the world of campaigning and electoral politics in the first place, you're limiting your chances of finding the most qualified candidates. It's absolutely true that most people who eventually run for office start their political careers working--like, not door-knocking, but as an actual job--on someone else's campaign, and when the vast majority of the people doing all the work on campaigns are of a single demographic group, future elections are automatically missing all of the potential qualified candidates who aren't part of that demographic group and therefore never get their political careers started.

And as the article also pointed out, the reason we don't have more women running campaigns isn't because women aren't interested in campaigning and don't get involved in electoral politics even at the basic levels from which they could then work their way up, and unless you want to posit that men are just inherently more qualified to run campaigns than women and try to back up that position, that's not an explanation, either. Nowhere did anyone argue that we should be electing more female candidates just as a matter of numeric balance, and if that's what you both got from this article, you missed every point it made.

METOO

METOO

Chicago, IL
October 2011

DEC 30, 2011 09:45 PM

Necia said:

Shema said:

METOO said:
You need GOOD people in politics first. Wanting a female in office just to even out the numbers won't do anything, support qualified candidates.



Couldn't agree more.



Okay. But that's not at all what this article advocated, at any point.

When you fail to bring whole groups of people into the world of campaigning and electoral politics in the first place, you're limiting your chances of finding the most qualified candidates. It's absolutely true that most people who eventually run for office start their political careers working--like, not door-knocking, but as an actual job--on someone else's campaign, and when the vast majority of the people doing all the work on campaigns are of a single demographic group, future elections are automatically missing all of the potential qualified candidates who aren't part of that demographic group and therefore never get their political careers started.

And as the article also pointed out, the reason we don't have more women running campaigns isn't because women aren't interested in campaigning and don't get involved in electoral politics even at the basic levels from which they could then work their way up, and unless you want to posit that men are just inherently more qualified to run campaigns than women and try to back up that position, that's not an explanation, either. Nowhere did anyone argue that we should be electing more female candidates just as a matter of numeric balance, and if that's what you both got from this article, you missed every point it made.



That's not what I meant really, but it's like saying why aren't there more female NASCAR drivers or more women garbage collectors or women molten iron workers...maybe they don't want to?
I don't know maybe America is still a racist, sexist place and it will only be ruled by WASP males?

jjwinter

jjwinter

USA
December 2011

DEC 31, 2011 08:17 PM

I donated to Elizabeth Warrens campaign.. shes a true warrior who is willing to stand up too bullshit. I highly recommend her

willam9

willam9

Philadelphia, PA
January 2008

JAN 09, 2012 07:31 PM

i find it interesting that, at least lately, most women who have been able to make it to the forefront of the political landscape have been so utterly vacuous and unqualified. it's almost like the political machine is sabotaging women by allowing caricatures like sarah palin, michelle bachmann and christine o'donnell to advance to the national stage before they're allowed to trip over themselves.