Statement on the Election Now more than ever, we need herstory.
November 13, 2024
Now, more than ever, we need to know our Herstory. For the second time in US history, a female presidential candidate has lost to the worst of American men. A rapist and a 34 count felon is poised to take the position as the leader of the United States. Those of us who know our history are asking: How qualified and how flawless must a woman be in order to win this office? Let us be clear: In the coming weeks and days, analysts will break down why she lost. Commentators from across the political spectrum will pick apart the campaign, the strategies, and the rhetoric of the Democratic Party to explain away the fundamental truth: Consciously or unconsciously, those who voted against her did so because she was a Black woman. While we know many factors contributed to this moment, below our statement, you can read our dissection of each alternative argument and how they fall short of explaining away gender. Sadly, gender remains the largest barrier to the Oval Office. Some may react to that and say that it is tone deaf to their very real concerns about the economy or immigration, concerns we share, but as we demonstrate, experts in both fields do not favor Trump policies on these issues. As an organization founded on the principle of including women in this historical narrative, our stance on the election results is straightforward. It wasn't just about seeing a qualified, intelligent, and articulate woman take up space in that narrative. For us, it was also about fighting to keep out the man that wants to erase us from it.
We must keep marching on. As historians, we know that the arc of history is sometimes long. We often think about the life of Harriet Jacobs, an enslaved woman, subjected to the worst of humanity. She had to live through the failures of Reconstruction and the introduction of segregation. Our world is better because she marched on, despite never living to see the more equal world we have now. Susan B. Anthony, Mary Church Terrell, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Sojourner Truth never voted, legally, in their lives. They died in a country where they were second class citizens. Like abolitionists, suffragists, and civil rights leaders before us, women today must keep marching on. Now, more than ever, we need to teach women’s history in schools, to the masses, and yell it from the rooftops. Women’s lives matter and are on the line. Education that brings gender parity in content will help the next generation take women's lives seriously. The status of women is worth fighting for no matter how long it takes and whether we live to see the effect. Holding onto the long view, we know that the fight would not have ended with a Harris victory. Now, the fight will continue despite an obvious setback for girls and women. To RHP teachers, supporters, and patrons: We’re not going anywhere. In four years, we have built the largest collection of resources in the world for teaching about women in world history—they are made by teachers for teachers. We are the only source in the world for gendered economics curriculum or gendered government curriculum. We also remain a leader in curriculum for US women’s history, alongside others. We’ve developed inquiry-based lessons on government and economics which should be staples in K-12 classrooms. They include whether patriarchy is the natural state of government, the pay gap, the gender gap in political leadership, the importance of party and gender in outcomes for women, covering topics like how Margaret Thatcher got elected, and why Hillary Clinton did not. Where others stick to American and Euro-centric themes and ideas, we have resources on China, Africa, India, Europe, the Middle East, and the Americas. This work is guiding teachers to rethink the themes and narratives traditionally taught in schools. Women cannot be equal if they are denied an education on the history of women’s oppression and triumphs. We study history to not repeat it. Women fight battles over and over because we are systematically denied our history. Kelsie Eckert’s book, Teaching Women’s History: Breaking Barriers and Undoing Male Centrism in K-12 Social Studies should become a staple in teacher preparation programs and professional development for practicing teachers. In the words of Vice President Harris, “This is not a time to throw up our hands. This is a time to roll up our sleeves.” We are still fighting for a more gender equitable world and you can join us:
The RHP has joined with the New Hampshire Council for Social Studies (NHCSS) to demand the National Council advocate for gender parity in professional development and state standards by 2030. This vote will take place in two weeks at NCSS. Email the president of your state council for the social studies and ask them to support this resolution.
Learn herstory. If you did, this election would not be shocking, yet the strategies forward would be clear. Head to http://www.remedialherstory.com/learn to get going.
We remain resolute: Education and policy are the solution to gender inequity. We remain committed to treating the problem, not the symptoms. Let's make herstory! --Kelsie Brook Eckert, Executive Director Alongside the Program Directors of the Remedial Herstory Project
A Brief Defense of our Statement Our cultural template for a leader remains resolutely male. Donald Trump has campaigned for the presidency three times. He lost once; to a man. When asked why men were voting for Trump, one voter put it, “The Democratic party has somehow become the anti-male party,” one voter said. This is far from true, but it speaks to well-known phenomena. Women are not oppressing men, yet the slight shift toward equity feels like oppression for some men. In her book, our Executive Director, Kelsie Eckert explained, “Studies show that ‘relative deprivation' or the feeling that your group is doing worse than it used to creates ‘outgroup prejudice.’ This explains why those concerned about boys and men, or the challenges facing men, struggle to see how those issues are tangential from those impacting women.” The economy is worse than it used to be for men, but that is not because of women. In fact, the vast majority of economic growth in the 20th century can be traced to feminism. This is not to discredit male feelings, but to check them. As a white teacher in the classroom after George Floyd’s death, Eckert herself was frustrated at the assumption that her curriculum was inherently racist. Privileged parties must learn to fight the impulse of offense, hear feedback if necessary, and vote rationally. Asking for Black people to be in history curricula did not make critics anti-white people. Just as asking voters to consider women in their votes is not anti-men. Yet it is perceived that way. Dozens of women personally affected by abortion bans joined Kamala Harris on the campaign. They bravely told their stories, and an overwhelming majority of Americans ignored their desperate pleas and reelected the party that created the terrifying circumstances they had found themselves in. Michelle Obama implored audiences to “take our lives seriously.” Women are literally dying from bans imposed because Trump appointed justices overturned Roe v. Wade and the only reason these numbers are not higher are because it takes time to do the studies. In response, most men of America took offense and revenge, by reinstated the party that caused this to every branch of government. Their vote condemned women to further dehumanization and second-class status. Richard Reeves, a senior analyst at the Brookings Institute, was interviewed by NPR in advance of the election. In reference to Michelle Obama’s Michigan speech he explained, “What Michelle Obama is suggesting there between the lines is that if you don't vote for us, then somehow that means you're anti-women… actually, like, men do care about the women in their lives. But men also care about other things, and so there's got to be a way to find a political message here.” Imagine this! On the one hand, dying women. On the other my grocery bills, presumably. This is unconscionable! How dare American men be so selfish. Worse, the assumption here is that Harris ran on a campaign only about women’s rights and abortion. Her campaign had robust plans for every major issue; she was judged on a double standard. Harris’ plan was superior on all these “other things” men and women care about. From healthcare, to the economy, to immigration, to the military, expert reviewers from across the political spectrum remain deeply concerned with Trump’s proposals and their effect on average people. His plan to impose tariffs will actually increase inflation and add to the national debt. Our cost of living, our taxes will go up, not down– it’s basic macroeconomics… but none of this matters.
This election was not about policy. We cannot let the analysts suggest that Harris somehow failed to develop good policy. To put it bluntly, in voting for the “economy,” Americans seized a policy-acceptable reason to be sexist. And yes, women can be sexist and vote against their interests. A cursory study of the anti-suffrage and Stop ERA movements will tell you all you need to know. Psychologists have long shown the human preference to trust male voices over female ones. The number of post-election interviews we’ve seen about people “just not believing her” speaks volumes. The losers will be people of all genders, but marginalized people first, not America White women failed Harris and themselves. 53% of white women voted against her, especially Gen X women. Within that divide by class were stark: 63% of women without college degrees voted for Trump, while 57% with college degrees voted for Harris. It is these women we are most worried about, as Trump’s tariffs will have an inflationary effect on our economy and hit working class Americans the most. Trump has proposed, and it remains to be seen if he can, a rollback on funding and programs for healthcare, head start, public education access, school and business loans, social security, medicare and medicaid, which would have directly supported many of these women who voted for Trump. The economic struggles for men and women are real. Male wages have stagnated, and yet men voted based on their perception of strength and strategy. Men and women perceived Harris as less qualified. Some even said women like Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama were more qualified and the kicker is why: because their husbands had major accomplishments. A woman, like Harris, whose career outshines her husband’s– was perceived as unqualified. For a woman, her success continues to be measured through men. Some analysts praised Trump' s ground game in the days after the election. This again is missing the mark. The Harris campaign raised more than $1 billion, and impressively not from billionaires like Elon Musk, but rather, from millions of motivated Democrats. The campaign also had a strong ground game in the swing states. People were mobilized, active, and voters rejected her because she was a woman. Harris played by the rules of the game before her. She earned a law degree and worked her way up to become Attorney General, then a Senator, then the Vice President. Harris, like Clinton before her, followed the rules of the game only for the American people to move the goal post in favor of a man. If the analysts argue it was anti-establishmentism, remind them that currently 13/50 governors are women, 25/100 senators are women, 126/435 representatives are women. Women are not and have never been the “establishment” in office. If the analysts argue Harris could have articulated the issue this way or that, remind them that Trump can’t speak a coherent sentence unless scripted. The question is not why did Harris lose, but why did Trump win by this measure? If the analysts argue this was solely a matter of race, remember that 95% of Black men voted for Obama and only 80% showed up for Harris. The economic situation in 2008 was far worse than today, but men across the spectrum showed up for Obama and not for Harris. It’s not about the economy. The first Black woman in US history to seek the office of president on a major party ticket, Shirley Chisholm said, “I have certainly met much more discrimination in terms of being a woman than being Black, in the field of politics.” Black women interviewed after the 2024 election feel overwhelmingly betrayed. One woman said, “I can’t really put my feelings into words. It shows that nothing has really changed in terms of what a leader should look like.” Black women recognized that their interests were at risk as women and as Black people in a Trump America. Where identities intersect gender, race, and class, people often have a better pulse on the direction the nation should go. Imagine if white Americans had listened to Black women’s needs in elections before the end of slavery? Imagine if white Americans had listened to Mary Church Terrel, Ida B. Wells, or Rosa Parks and esteemed their views above others? How much faster might progress have been made that not only improved social conditions, but the economy. We forget the crucial point that racism and sexism hurt the labor force because it excluded the contributions of huge swaths of skilled people. When Black women articulate their policy preferences, they are diagnosing our path forward. History tells us that women have never been a united voting block. In fact, one of the arguments that southern white women made in order to earn the right to vote is that white women would vote alongside their white husbands to out vote the Black vote– they did that this week. In the 1920s, the decade after the 19th amendment was signed into law, the only real voting block that emerged was the votes of Black women. Black women were the only undivided demographic in the United States. They voted overwhelmingly; 92% in favor of Kamala Harris. We would argue that this was not because Harris herself was a Black woman. If you look at history, you will know that Black women have long favored Democratic candidates. It is because, more than any other group, Trump policies and Republican rhetoric have been exceptionally hostile to Black women. Women are diverse, and have a long history of voting against their interests in favor of their husbands’. The Democratic Party is not wrong in its policy proposals, but the overwhelmingly educated people who make up the party’s loyalists must learn to translate their human-centric proposals to an electorate that is largely ethnocentric. Presidential historians have spoken and declared Trump the worst president in US history thus far. We know how devastating a second Trump presidency will be for this dream of an American democracy. And we will watch, like many generations in the past, as rights of marginalized groups and opportunity for average people disappear, while favoritism for political friends and the disregard for intellectualism takes root and grows. If you listen to interviews of American voters, they can’t articulate Harris’ plan versus Trump’s. They voted on rhetoric; disgusting rhetoric. Black women, affronted by racism, were unmoved in their support for Harris. Uneducated white women were persuaded. This pattern has played out more times in history than we care to count. Trump promised everything under the sun to get elected, despite having already proved during his first presidency that he does not have the capacity to fulfill those promises. He used humanity's worst impulses to sell a false lie, and America overwhelmingly fell for it. Like his first presidency, he does not, and will not have the capacity to fulfill those promises. History teachers must redouble their efforts to teach rigorous, critical inquiry in the classroom. We are saddened that attacks on human dignity, especially toward women, won out in an electoral contest. The initial shock and sadness felt after the election has only deepened over the past week. In just ten days, there has been a noticeable rise in online misogyny, with disturbing slogans such as "your body, our choice" and threats of violence towards women gaining popularity on social media. This wave of hostility serves as a sobering reminder that the fight for equality is not over and many still view women’s and LGBTQ+ rights as negotiable rather than fundamental.
The status of women and girls should be our world‘s top priority The status of women and girls in America and around the world is increasingly precarious and, in some places, devastating. We can measure the health of a society based on the status of girls and women throughout time. Everywhere, women and girls are good, the economy is good too. It should be our national barometer, and yet we consistently doubt the opinions of women. Everywhere, rights and opportunities once secured are being threatened. Once fringe ideas, like the disillusion of the 19th Amendment, have been expressed by mainstream Republican politicians. Women in the US are second class citizens where there is a different code of law for men and women.Without the ERA, or the tackling of each sexist law and policy at a time, women will remain second class citizens. Federal money to girls and women is constantly under attack and philanthropic giving for women’s organizations is less than 2% of all giving. It was not until 2023 that medical and scientific researchers were forced to include women in their study samples, so decades of medical studies have failed to design medicines and safety devices for girls and women. In France, Gisèle Pélicot, was drugged and raped by her husband and over 50 other men. An extreme example, yes, but the number of people complicit in this is alarming, and it speaks to the consistent degradation of women as human beings. No man solicited reported to the police– even anonymously – the abuse of this woman who experienced memory loss, unexplained hair loss, and repeated assault. In England, male violence against women and girls was deemed a “national emergency.” In Iraq, they have moved the age of consent to 9. In Afghanistan, women’s rights are under attack and worse, women no longer have a voice; not just in public affairs, but they are even banned from speaking to one another in public. The very sound of a woman’s voice is revolting. The list goes on and on. We must use our voice and speak louder. We must normalize the sounds of powerful women’s voices. Kamala Harris used her voice. She was decent, composed, and played Trump like a fiddle in the presidential debate. She, like Hillary Clinton before her, was perhaps one of the most qualified people ever to seek the office of president. Her economic plan was applauded by Nobel prize winning economists, but it wasn’t about logic. Average people disillusioned with the current state of affairs voted on their perception of Trump as a changemaker. They ignored the pleas from fellow Republicans, experts, generals, and economists. They ignored data and they ignored evidence– everything we should be training students to do. Over the last decades, attacks on academia have become normalized. Expert opinions are dismissed in favor of rhetoric. The purpose is to undermine the very people whose knowledge and research we must rely on to make informed decisions, to counter authoritarians, and to protect those who need protecting the most. Without these beacons of intellectualism, we are subjected to the whims of despots. Teachers have a powerful position in schools to demand evidence-based thesis development, critical thinking, and an appreciation of the necessity to teach multiple perspectives. Please join us as a patron, contributor, or become an RHP teacher to transform the educational landscape to be more gender equal. Perhaps, if we do this, no woman of Harris' caliber and background will ever be questioned as qualified and capable again.