27. Women in a gender-polarized time
The 2016 Election and its aftermath marked a transformative era for women’s rights and gender politics. Hillary Clinton's historic campaign faced intense opposition, with Donald Trump's polarizing rhetoric, allegations of sexual misconduct, and controversial behavior galvanizing both conservative and progressive women in deeply divided ways. The resulting resistance manifested in movements such as the 2017 Women’s March, which mobilized millions globally, and the #MeToo movement, which exposed systemic sexual harassment and assault across industries. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s appointments of three conservative Supreme Court justices, culminating in the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, dealt a significant blow to reproductive rights, signaling lasting ramifications for women’s autonomy and equality. Despite the challenges, women continued to make strides in leadership, business, sport, culture, and activism.
|

2016 Election and the 2017 Women’s March:
After four years in the Obama administration, Hilary Clinton resigned as Secretary of State to make another bid for the presidency. The 2016 election was marked by deep polarization of the American public and the racial and gender divides of the electorate were ever present. Throughout the 2016 campaign, Donald J, Trump revealed deep disrespect for women, causing even some longtime Republican women to turn against him. In October, an infamous Hollywood tape from 2005 was released to the press. In the tape, he bragged about sexually assaulting women, using the phrase, “grab ‘em by the pussy.” Trump’s crude language on the tape about how wealth and fame gave him license to force himself on women prompted numerous women to come forward with accusations of sexual harassment, assault, and rape. Trump and his allies dismissed his foul language about women as “locker room talk,” which infuriated people across the political spectrum.
The tape also proved to be a problematic political situation for a number of female politicians. Incumbent Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire was in a hotly contested race against Democratic challenger Maggie Hassan. In a calculated choice, she spoke out against Trump. Trump turned his ire on her and Trump supporters didn’t show up for her. Her choice to part with Trump caused her to lose the election, showing just how much power Trump had on the party.
Many conservative women did accept Donald Trump's campaign of grievances, hatred of class, education, expertise, and government. They tolerated his racism, anti-semitism, and disrespect for women. His rallies attract women who believe that he is being mistreated by a Democratic Party conspiracy to undermine him. White, suburban, and rural women in particular supported Trump. Many were loyal Republican voters who just voted on party lines. Others were anti-abortion, while some favored Trump's stance on immigration and national security. Many, like male Republicans, just abhorred Hillary Clinton who represented the political establishment they felt had left them behind. When Clinton called Trump supporters “deplorables,” some women saw it as a badge of honor and wore it on shirts.
During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, there was a notable and widely covered incident involving candidate Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly, a journalist and former anchor at Fox News. Kelly was one of the moderators for the debate and asked Trump about his derogatory comments toward women that had been noted by the press on the campaign trail. She read some of the things he had called women including but not limited to "fat pigs," "dogs," "slobs," and "disgusting animals." She asked if this language was befitting of a presidential candidate. Trump was angry and after the debate ripped into her on social media. He insinuated that her tough questioning might have been due to her menstrual cycle. Kelly and her family were harassed by Trump supporters. Trump's treatment of Kelly throughout the campaign cycle was seen as emblematic of his confrontational and unfiltered communication style.
It seemed all but assured that Hilary Clinton would win. Polls and conventional wisdom suggested she would. Then, on November 8, 2016, as Americans gathered around the country to watch the first woman win a presidential election, Trump began winning states Clinton was slated to secure. 54%, the overwhelming majority, had voted against Trump. But while 98% of Black women voters went for Clinton, only 45% of white voters did. Trump won the Electoral College, despite Clinton winning the popular vote, only the fifth time in US history. It is important not to understate the profound disappointment felt by the majority of women who had voted for Clinton. Not only did she lose, but she lost to a man credibly accused of being a womanizer.
This was a history making moment for one woman: Kellyanne Conway. She became the first woman to successfully manage a presidential campaign. Then and through the early part of his presidency, she was one of the most visible and vocal defenders of the Trump administration's policies and positions.
Still, 54% of women were shocked and the feeling was palpable in the days following the election. Veteran women’s organizers went to work with a public message to Trump and his allies: a Women’s March. Planned for the day after his inauguration, a nod to suffrage organizer Alice Paul, the march drew more than double the expected attendance: 500,000 women and allies arrived in Washington, DC. Sister marches were staged around the world in almost every major city. Marchers donned pink clothing for the occasions and knit hats at home with cat-like ears on top. These hats were dubbed “pussy hats” referencing Trump’s choice word in the infamous 2005 recording.
After four years in the Obama administration, Hilary Clinton resigned as Secretary of State to make another bid for the presidency. The 2016 election was marked by deep polarization of the American public and the racial and gender divides of the electorate were ever present. Throughout the 2016 campaign, Donald J, Trump revealed deep disrespect for women, causing even some longtime Republican women to turn against him. In October, an infamous Hollywood tape from 2005 was released to the press. In the tape, he bragged about sexually assaulting women, using the phrase, “grab ‘em by the pussy.” Trump’s crude language on the tape about how wealth and fame gave him license to force himself on women prompted numerous women to come forward with accusations of sexual harassment, assault, and rape. Trump and his allies dismissed his foul language about women as “locker room talk,” which infuriated people across the political spectrum.
The tape also proved to be a problematic political situation for a number of female politicians. Incumbent Senator Kelly Ayotte from New Hampshire was in a hotly contested race against Democratic challenger Maggie Hassan. In a calculated choice, she spoke out against Trump. Trump turned his ire on her and Trump supporters didn’t show up for her. Her choice to part with Trump caused her to lose the election, showing just how much power Trump had on the party.
Many conservative women did accept Donald Trump's campaign of grievances, hatred of class, education, expertise, and government. They tolerated his racism, anti-semitism, and disrespect for women. His rallies attract women who believe that he is being mistreated by a Democratic Party conspiracy to undermine him. White, suburban, and rural women in particular supported Trump. Many were loyal Republican voters who just voted on party lines. Others were anti-abortion, while some favored Trump's stance on immigration and national security. Many, like male Republicans, just abhorred Hillary Clinton who represented the political establishment they felt had left them behind. When Clinton called Trump supporters “deplorables,” some women saw it as a badge of honor and wore it on shirts.
During the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, there was a notable and widely covered incident involving candidate Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly, a journalist and former anchor at Fox News. Kelly was one of the moderators for the debate and asked Trump about his derogatory comments toward women that had been noted by the press on the campaign trail. She read some of the things he had called women including but not limited to "fat pigs," "dogs," "slobs," and "disgusting animals." She asked if this language was befitting of a presidential candidate. Trump was angry and after the debate ripped into her on social media. He insinuated that her tough questioning might have been due to her menstrual cycle. Kelly and her family were harassed by Trump supporters. Trump's treatment of Kelly throughout the campaign cycle was seen as emblematic of his confrontational and unfiltered communication style.
It seemed all but assured that Hilary Clinton would win. Polls and conventional wisdom suggested she would. Then, on November 8, 2016, as Americans gathered around the country to watch the first woman win a presidential election, Trump began winning states Clinton was slated to secure. 54%, the overwhelming majority, had voted against Trump. But while 98% of Black women voters went for Clinton, only 45% of white voters did. Trump won the Electoral College, despite Clinton winning the popular vote, only the fifth time in US history. It is important not to understate the profound disappointment felt by the majority of women who had voted for Clinton. Not only did she lose, but she lost to a man credibly accused of being a womanizer.
This was a history making moment for one woman: Kellyanne Conway. She became the first woman to successfully manage a presidential campaign. Then and through the early part of his presidency, she was one of the most visible and vocal defenders of the Trump administration's policies and positions.
Still, 54% of women were shocked and the feeling was palpable in the days following the election. Veteran women’s organizers went to work with a public message to Trump and his allies: a Women’s March. Planned for the day after his inauguration, a nod to suffrage organizer Alice Paul, the march drew more than double the expected attendance: 500,000 women and allies arrived in Washington, DC. Sister marches were staged around the world in almost every major city. Marchers donned pink clothing for the occasions and knit hats at home with cat-like ears on top. These hats were dubbed “pussy hats” referencing Trump’s choice word in the infamous 2005 recording.

#MeToo:
Just a couple months later, Alyssa Milano encouraged people who had experienced sexual harassment and abuse to speak out about their stories using #MeToo on Twitter. The goal was to show how widespread sexual harassment and assault are and combat the harmful rhetoric used by Trump. The hashtag came from a term coined by social activist Tarana Burke on MySpace as part of her work. Milanos tweet in 2017 capitalized on the despair so many women felt around the world. It quickly generated 1.7 million #MeToo tweets in over 85 countries. The movement also sparked conversations on Facebook, with 4.7 million people from around the world talking about it within 24 hours. The power and importance of social media in mobilizing this social movement were evident.
On October 5, 2017, journalists at the New York Times, Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor, published an investigative report detailing Holywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s decades of sexual abuse. More than 80 women publicly accused Weinstein of sexually abusing or assaulting them. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Weinstein was representative of a number of famous Hollywood men taken down by the #MeToo movement.
#MeToo spread to other industries. On January 18, 2018, Olympic gymnastics gold medalist Simone Biles released a statement on Twitter confirming that the former USA Gymnastics physician Larry Nassar had sexually assaulted her and that USA Gymnastics covered up the abuse. 300 other women made similar claims. After a class action lawsuit, Nassar is serving a life sentence.
Just a couple months later, Alyssa Milano encouraged people who had experienced sexual harassment and abuse to speak out about their stories using #MeToo on Twitter. The goal was to show how widespread sexual harassment and assault are and combat the harmful rhetoric used by Trump. The hashtag came from a term coined by social activist Tarana Burke on MySpace as part of her work. Milanos tweet in 2017 capitalized on the despair so many women felt around the world. It quickly generated 1.7 million #MeToo tweets in over 85 countries. The movement also sparked conversations on Facebook, with 4.7 million people from around the world talking about it within 24 hours. The power and importance of social media in mobilizing this social movement were evident.
On October 5, 2017, journalists at the New York Times, Megan Twohey and Jodi Kantor, published an investigative report detailing Holywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s decades of sexual abuse. More than 80 women publicly accused Weinstein of sexually abusing or assaulting them. He was sentenced to 23 years in prison. Weinstein was representative of a number of famous Hollywood men taken down by the #MeToo movement.
#MeToo spread to other industries. On January 18, 2018, Olympic gymnastics gold medalist Simone Biles released a statement on Twitter confirming that the former USA Gymnastics physician Larry Nassar had sexually assaulted her and that USA Gymnastics covered up the abuse. 300 other women made similar claims. After a class action lawsuit, Nassar is serving a life sentence.

Women and the Trump Presidency:
By most feminist measures, Trump’s presidency was an assault on women’s rights. Trump was also credibly accused by multiple women during his campaign for the presidency of sexual misconduct. He was accused of falsifying records in order to pay hush money to a former adult film actress, Stormy Daniels, to stop her from talking about an alleged affair they had. Trump reimbursed his lawyer, Cohen, through a series of monthly checks, which prosecutors say caused business records to be falsified to disguise the true purpose of the payments. Cohen served prison time for his role in this scandal.
His wife Melania was in the middle of all this and one has to imagine the public spotlight on her marriage and young son were hard. She stood in stark contrast to Michelle Obama, a lawyer and an activist. Melania was a former model and the first immigrant to hold the role of First Lady. She was reserved and private. She initiated a BE BEST initiative which hoped to address bullying and became an ambassador for kindness, which was a bit ironic given the bullying espoused so publicly by her husband.
Yet women were visible as forceful leaders all over the Trump administration. Ivanka Trump, his daughter, served as a senior advisor to the President. She focused on issues such as workforce development, women's economic empowerment, and paid family leave. She often represented the administration at international events and advocated for policies related to education and economic opportunities.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders served as the White House Press Secretary from July 2017 to June 2019. She was responsible for communicating the administration's message to the media and the public. Sanders played a significant role in shaping the narrative around Trump's policies and decisions. She went on to become Governor of Arkansas.
The Trump administration experienced a high turnover of key staff members, including cabinet members, advisors, and other officials. This turnover led to a lack of consistency and stability in policy implementation and decision-making. Trump's rhetoric on various issues, including immigration, race, and international relations, was often polarizing. His statements and tweets sometimes sparked controversy and backlash, both domestically and internationally.
The most lasting effect of the Trump presidency was his opportunity to appoint three conservative justices to the Supreme Court. Early in 2017 he appointed Neil Gorsuch, a Bush era appointee. Shortly afterward, Trump had the opportunity to nominate an even more controversial figure to the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Even before Christine Blasey Ford publicly accused him of sexual assault, his nomination was controversial because of the potential implications for women’s rights. Many progressive women opposed Kavanaugh’s appointment, fearing that his confirmation would shift the balance of the Supreme Court toward conservatism, potentially endangering the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which protects the right to abortion. These concerns were amplified by the prospect of a conservative majority on the court, which had been a key motivator for many voters in the 2016 presidential election.
When Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, the hearings became a focal point for the broader cultural reckoning sparked by the Me Too movement. Progressive women saw Ford’s allegations as a test of whether survivors of sexual violence would be believed, especially when testifying about powerful men. Julia Peters, a protestor from New York, described Kavanaugh as a figure who did not align with progressive values, emphasizing that his lifetime appointment could have long-lasting effects on issues such as abortion rights. Similarly, Grace Perret, a college student from Louisiana, expressed concern about the disproportionate impact that overturning Roe v. Wade would have on poor women.
Conservative women, however, rallied behind Kavanaugh, viewing the process as unfair and overly politicized. Supporters like Rachel Gill highlighted the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and expressed concern that the allegations lacked concrete evidence. Others, such as Nancy Wilson, argued that the allegations were part of a politically motivated smear campaign designed to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation. For these women, Kavanaugh represented a judge who adhered to constitutional principles and whose confirmation could restore what they saw as a lost balance in the Supreme Court.
The testimonies of both Ford and Kavanaugh during the hearings further deepened these divides. Ford’s testimony was widely viewed by progressives as heartfelt and credible, with many seeing her willingness to come forward as a selfless act of courage. In contrast, Kavanaugh’s emotional and angry defense was seen by his supporters as a passionate rebuttal of unfounded accusations. For conservative women, his testimony reinforced their belief in his innocence and suitability for the court.
Ultimately, the hearings underscored the deep divisions in American society over issues of gender, power, and justice. To many progressives, Kavanaugh’s confirmation signaled a failure to support survivors of sexual violence and a setback for the progress of women’s rights. To many conservatives, his confirmation represented a triumph of fairness and due process against what they perceived as a politicized attempt to derail his career. These conflicting perspectives have made Brett Kavanaugh a symbol of broader cultural and political battles in the United States.
Fomenting the resistance throughout Trump’s chaotic administration was the first female speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi was a Washington insider, a feminist, and a Democratic moderate. She was able to take bold stands against Trump. Perhaps the most notable moment in her career was after one of Donald Trump’s State of the Union addresses, in which she tore up a copy of Trump’s speech with a look of disdain as the country watched on.
At every State of the Union address in the four years of Trump's presidency, Democratic women, who made up the majority of women in Congress, wore white clothing at the House’s opening session in homage to the suffragists, and to stand apart from male members of Congress wearing black suits. Republican women did not join them. The women in white made headlines as they visibly showed disapproval of Donald Trump and their solidarity with each other.
Proponents of women’s rights continued to advocate for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, even though the deadline for ratification had long since passed.. Then in January 2020, Virginia became the 38th and last-needed state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, leaving major legal questions for consideration. Precedent shows that deadlines for passage are not constitutionally binding, so many consider the ERA the law of the land. Since the 1980s, several states had attempted to rescind their ratification of the amendment. These efforts held no legal weight based on court precedent, but created confusion. Where did the ERA stand? With just a year left in his term, the Trump presidency declined to certify the ERA as the 28th Amendment, leaving the equality of women and girls in limbo.
By most feminist measures, Trump’s presidency was an assault on women’s rights. Trump was also credibly accused by multiple women during his campaign for the presidency of sexual misconduct. He was accused of falsifying records in order to pay hush money to a former adult film actress, Stormy Daniels, to stop her from talking about an alleged affair they had. Trump reimbursed his lawyer, Cohen, through a series of monthly checks, which prosecutors say caused business records to be falsified to disguise the true purpose of the payments. Cohen served prison time for his role in this scandal.
His wife Melania was in the middle of all this and one has to imagine the public spotlight on her marriage and young son were hard. She stood in stark contrast to Michelle Obama, a lawyer and an activist. Melania was a former model and the first immigrant to hold the role of First Lady. She was reserved and private. She initiated a BE BEST initiative which hoped to address bullying and became an ambassador for kindness, which was a bit ironic given the bullying espoused so publicly by her husband.
Yet women were visible as forceful leaders all over the Trump administration. Ivanka Trump, his daughter, served as a senior advisor to the President. She focused on issues such as workforce development, women's economic empowerment, and paid family leave. She often represented the administration at international events and advocated for policies related to education and economic opportunities.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders served as the White House Press Secretary from July 2017 to June 2019. She was responsible for communicating the administration's message to the media and the public. Sanders played a significant role in shaping the narrative around Trump's policies and decisions. She went on to become Governor of Arkansas.
The Trump administration experienced a high turnover of key staff members, including cabinet members, advisors, and other officials. This turnover led to a lack of consistency and stability in policy implementation and decision-making. Trump's rhetoric on various issues, including immigration, race, and international relations, was often polarizing. His statements and tweets sometimes sparked controversy and backlash, both domestically and internationally.
The most lasting effect of the Trump presidency was his opportunity to appoint three conservative justices to the Supreme Court. Early in 2017 he appointed Neil Gorsuch, a Bush era appointee. Shortly afterward, Trump had the opportunity to nominate an even more controversial figure to the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Even before Christine Blasey Ford publicly accused him of sexual assault, his nomination was controversial because of the potential implications for women’s rights. Many progressive women opposed Kavanaugh’s appointment, fearing that his confirmation would shift the balance of the Supreme Court toward conservatism, potentially endangering the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which protects the right to abortion. These concerns were amplified by the prospect of a conservative majority on the court, which had been a key motivator for many voters in the 2016 presidential election.
When Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault, the hearings became a focal point for the broader cultural reckoning sparked by the Me Too movement. Progressive women saw Ford’s allegations as a test of whether survivors of sexual violence would be believed, especially when testifying about powerful men. Julia Peters, a protestor from New York, described Kavanaugh as a figure who did not align with progressive values, emphasizing that his lifetime appointment could have long-lasting effects on issues such as abortion rights. Similarly, Grace Perret, a college student from Louisiana, expressed concern about the disproportionate impact that overturning Roe v. Wade would have on poor women.
Conservative women, however, rallied behind Kavanaugh, viewing the process as unfair and overly politicized. Supporters like Rachel Gill highlighted the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" and expressed concern that the allegations lacked concrete evidence. Others, such as Nancy Wilson, argued that the allegations were part of a politically motivated smear campaign designed to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation. For these women, Kavanaugh represented a judge who adhered to constitutional principles and whose confirmation could restore what they saw as a lost balance in the Supreme Court.
The testimonies of both Ford and Kavanaugh during the hearings further deepened these divides. Ford’s testimony was widely viewed by progressives as heartfelt and credible, with many seeing her willingness to come forward as a selfless act of courage. In contrast, Kavanaugh’s emotional and angry defense was seen by his supporters as a passionate rebuttal of unfounded accusations. For conservative women, his testimony reinforced their belief in his innocence and suitability for the court.
Ultimately, the hearings underscored the deep divisions in American society over issues of gender, power, and justice. To many progressives, Kavanaugh’s confirmation signaled a failure to support survivors of sexual violence and a setback for the progress of women’s rights. To many conservatives, his confirmation represented a triumph of fairness and due process against what they perceived as a politicized attempt to derail his career. These conflicting perspectives have made Brett Kavanaugh a symbol of broader cultural and political battles in the United States.
Fomenting the resistance throughout Trump’s chaotic administration was the first female speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi was a Washington insider, a feminist, and a Democratic moderate. She was able to take bold stands against Trump. Perhaps the most notable moment in her career was after one of Donald Trump’s State of the Union addresses, in which she tore up a copy of Trump’s speech with a look of disdain as the country watched on.
At every State of the Union address in the four years of Trump's presidency, Democratic women, who made up the majority of women in Congress, wore white clothing at the House’s opening session in homage to the suffragists, and to stand apart from male members of Congress wearing black suits. Republican women did not join them. The women in white made headlines as they visibly showed disapproval of Donald Trump and their solidarity with each other.
Proponents of women’s rights continued to advocate for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, even though the deadline for ratification had long since passed.. Then in January 2020, Virginia became the 38th and last-needed state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, leaving major legal questions for consideration. Precedent shows that deadlines for passage are not constitutionally binding, so many consider the ERA the law of the land. Since the 1980s, several states had attempted to rescind their ratification of the amendment. These efforts held no legal weight based on court precedent, but created confusion. Where did the ERA stand? With just a year left in his term, the Trump presidency declined to certify the ERA as the 28th Amendment, leaving the equality of women and girls in limbo.

COVID-19 Pandemic and Impeachment:
The division and controversy over the 2016 election never left Trump. He was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 18, 2019 for obstruction of Congress on claims that he solicited foreign interference in the 2020 Election, a claim supported by Hilary Clinton. He was impeached because he refused to comply with subpoenas from Congress for documents and testimony. The Senate trial began on January 16, 2020, and ended on February 5, 2020 with an acquittal.
In late 2019, a virus originating in China spread quickly through human populations, killing thousands of people. The virus spread around the world, eventually being labeled a pandemic. In March 2020, US health officials advised the closing of schools, travel, and urged strict social distancing to slow the spread of the virus and reduce the pressure it will have on local hospitals with no vaccine, limited staff, and limited resources. The pandemic triggered a major education crisis and disrupted critical health services for women and girls. School closures impacted over 1.6 billion children globally, with 870 million still facing disruptions. Women and girls were 11% more likely than men and boys to drop out of school during the pandemic, increasing risks of child marriage and reversing decades of progress. Disruptions in contraceptive access resulted in unintended pregnancies and reduced medical services for pregnant women due to hospitals refocusing their efforts on the pandemic. Economic disruptions disproportionately pushed women into poverty.
Further, the pandemic intensified gender-based violence, referred to by many as a “shadow pandemic.” Reports of domestic violence surged globally, with 54% of women and 44% of men reporting increased gender-based violence in their communities. Approximately 245 million women and girls experienced violence from intimate partners in the first year of the pandemic, and surveys found that nearly half of women in 13 countries reported experiencing or knowing someone who faced such violence. School closures also heightened risks for children, with increased reports of violence in the home. These alarming trends underscore the urgent need to address the worsening gender inequalities and violence exacerbated by the pandemic, while investing in policies and programs that protect and empower women and girls.
The pandemic signaled the end for Trump. It was hardly his fault, but his leadership left a lot to be desired; he ridiculed health experts, spread misinformation, and went against recommendations. With his treatment of women, the economic woes caused by his handling of the pandemic, and impeachment, the 2020 campaign was not looking good.
The division and controversy over the 2016 election never left Trump. He was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 18, 2019 for obstruction of Congress on claims that he solicited foreign interference in the 2020 Election, a claim supported by Hilary Clinton. He was impeached because he refused to comply with subpoenas from Congress for documents and testimony. The Senate trial began on January 16, 2020, and ended on February 5, 2020 with an acquittal.
In late 2019, a virus originating in China spread quickly through human populations, killing thousands of people. The virus spread around the world, eventually being labeled a pandemic. In March 2020, US health officials advised the closing of schools, travel, and urged strict social distancing to slow the spread of the virus and reduce the pressure it will have on local hospitals with no vaccine, limited staff, and limited resources. The pandemic triggered a major education crisis and disrupted critical health services for women and girls. School closures impacted over 1.6 billion children globally, with 870 million still facing disruptions. Women and girls were 11% more likely than men and boys to drop out of school during the pandemic, increasing risks of child marriage and reversing decades of progress. Disruptions in contraceptive access resulted in unintended pregnancies and reduced medical services for pregnant women due to hospitals refocusing their efforts on the pandemic. Economic disruptions disproportionately pushed women into poverty.
Further, the pandemic intensified gender-based violence, referred to by many as a “shadow pandemic.” Reports of domestic violence surged globally, with 54% of women and 44% of men reporting increased gender-based violence in their communities. Approximately 245 million women and girls experienced violence from intimate partners in the first year of the pandemic, and surveys found that nearly half of women in 13 countries reported experiencing or knowing someone who faced such violence. School closures also heightened risks for children, with increased reports of violence in the home. These alarming trends underscore the urgent need to address the worsening gender inequalities and violence exacerbated by the pandemic, while investing in policies and programs that protect and empower women and girls.
The pandemic signaled the end for Trump. It was hardly his fault, but his leadership left a lot to be desired; he ridiculed health experts, spread misinformation, and went against recommendations. With his treatment of women, the economic woes caused by his handling of the pandemic, and impeachment, the 2020 campaign was not looking good.

Kamala Harris, Amy Coney Barrett, and the 2020 Election:
In 2020, Trump faced a formidable challenge for the presidency from Joe Biden, a longtime politician and Barack Obama’s Vice President. Kamala Harris was appointed to be his Vice President. In addition to being a woman of mixed Black and Indian heritage, she was a former Attorney General for California and State Senator. Her long career in service made her an ideal candidate. The COVID pandemic was a deciding issue in the campaign, with the candidates taking very different positions. The sinking economy and high unemployment rate made the success of a challenger likely, but women were also highly motivated as voters. Threats to abortion access, years of rhetoric that was decidedly anti-women, scandals in which Trump was credibly accused of sexually assaulting women had worn even loyal women thin.
Then, just as the election rhetoric was at its peak, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, opening a vacancy on the court. Trump, still in office, forced the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett through the Senate just a few weeks before the 2020 presidential election. A strong opponent of abortion, Coney Barrett told the Senate Judiciary in her hearing that she respected legal precedent. This was very quickly proven to be a false statement. Barrett’s appointment turned the Supreme Court conservative for the first time in a half century, ushering in a new era of court decisions.
Trump lost the 2020 election, a fact he has long denied, claiming election fraud. On January 6, 2021 Congress convened to certify the results of the 2020 election, a procedural process that historically received little fanfare. Yet on this day, Trump held a rally on the mall outside the Capitol. He spoke to his supporters and urged them to, “fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," Following the rally, protesters stormed the Capitol building where the certification procedure was taking place. Republican and Democratic congress people barricaded doors and took refuge inside the building as rioters broke windows, doors, carried and used guns, beat Capitol police and, importantly went hunting for Vice President Mike Pence, in charge of the proceedings, and Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House who had dogged Trump most of his presidency.
Richard “Bigo” Barnett, carrying a stun gun, entered Nancy Pelosi’s office. Barnett claimed he was looking for a restroom, but once inside he stole property and left behind a sexist note stating, “Nancy, Bigo was here,” followed by an expletive. Using a bullhorn, Barnett gave a speech to the crowd, “We took back our house, and I took Nancy Pelosi’s office!”
On January 25th, the House of Representatives, led by Pelosi, voted to impeach Trump a second time. This time, Republican Representative from Wyoming, Liz Chenney joined the team putting Trump on trial in the Senate. Cheney’s decision to join Democrats in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump was a pivotal moment in her political career, marking her as one of the few Republicans to break with her party over the Capitol insurrection. As vice-chair of the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, events, Cheney became one of Trump’s fiercest critics, focusing on his role in inciting the attack. Despite facing increasing hostility from the Republican Party, which was largely loyal to Trump, Cheney took a leading role in the investigation. This stance reflected her deep sense of duty, inspired by her family’s legacy of public service.
Cheney’s position drew sharp criticism from Republican colleagues, leading to her removal from her leadership role in the House GOP and making her a target for Trump’s supporters. The former president campaigned against Cheney in Wyoming, rallying behind her challenger, Harriet Hageman. With Wyoming’s heavily Republican electorate, Cheney’s actions were seen as a betrayal by many voters who aligned with Trump and she lost reelection. Cheney was stalwart in her position, emphasizing the importance of standing united in defense of the republic. She expressed confidence that history would judge this moment and the choices made in preserving democracy.
Through all of this, Kamala Harris became the first woman Vice President in American history. This accomplishment cannot be understated and it led to hope that more women could follow. In addition to Harris, Biden appointed more women and people of color to cabinet and justice positions than any president before him. Biden made significant strides in advancing gender equity and defending women’s rights through the establishment of the first-ever White House Gender Policy Council. This landmark initiative. The Gender Policy Council developed the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality, a comprehensive framework to address systemic gender inequalities across various sectors, including healthcare, economic security, and education.
In 2020, Trump faced a formidable challenge for the presidency from Joe Biden, a longtime politician and Barack Obama’s Vice President. Kamala Harris was appointed to be his Vice President. In addition to being a woman of mixed Black and Indian heritage, she was a former Attorney General for California and State Senator. Her long career in service made her an ideal candidate. The COVID pandemic was a deciding issue in the campaign, with the candidates taking very different positions. The sinking economy and high unemployment rate made the success of a challenger likely, but women were also highly motivated as voters. Threats to abortion access, years of rhetoric that was decidedly anti-women, scandals in which Trump was credibly accused of sexually assaulting women had worn even loyal women thin.
Then, just as the election rhetoric was at its peak, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, opening a vacancy on the court. Trump, still in office, forced the appointment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett through the Senate just a few weeks before the 2020 presidential election. A strong opponent of abortion, Coney Barrett told the Senate Judiciary in her hearing that she respected legal precedent. This was very quickly proven to be a false statement. Barrett’s appointment turned the Supreme Court conservative for the first time in a half century, ushering in a new era of court decisions.
Trump lost the 2020 election, a fact he has long denied, claiming election fraud. On January 6, 2021 Congress convened to certify the results of the 2020 election, a procedural process that historically received little fanfare. Yet on this day, Trump held a rally on the mall outside the Capitol. He spoke to his supporters and urged them to, “fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," Following the rally, protesters stormed the Capitol building where the certification procedure was taking place. Republican and Democratic congress people barricaded doors and took refuge inside the building as rioters broke windows, doors, carried and used guns, beat Capitol police and, importantly went hunting for Vice President Mike Pence, in charge of the proceedings, and Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House who had dogged Trump most of his presidency.
Richard “Bigo” Barnett, carrying a stun gun, entered Nancy Pelosi’s office. Barnett claimed he was looking for a restroom, but once inside he stole property and left behind a sexist note stating, “Nancy, Bigo was here,” followed by an expletive. Using a bullhorn, Barnett gave a speech to the crowd, “We took back our house, and I took Nancy Pelosi’s office!”
On January 25th, the House of Representatives, led by Pelosi, voted to impeach Trump a second time. This time, Republican Representative from Wyoming, Liz Chenney joined the team putting Trump on trial in the Senate. Cheney’s decision to join Democrats in the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump was a pivotal moment in her political career, marking her as one of the few Republicans to break with her party over the Capitol insurrection. As vice-chair of the House committee investigating the January 6, 2021, events, Cheney became one of Trump’s fiercest critics, focusing on his role in inciting the attack. Despite facing increasing hostility from the Republican Party, which was largely loyal to Trump, Cheney took a leading role in the investigation. This stance reflected her deep sense of duty, inspired by her family’s legacy of public service.
Cheney’s position drew sharp criticism from Republican colleagues, leading to her removal from her leadership role in the House GOP and making her a target for Trump’s supporters. The former president campaigned against Cheney in Wyoming, rallying behind her challenger, Harriet Hageman. With Wyoming’s heavily Republican electorate, Cheney’s actions were seen as a betrayal by many voters who aligned with Trump and she lost reelection. Cheney was stalwart in her position, emphasizing the importance of standing united in defense of the republic. She expressed confidence that history would judge this moment and the choices made in preserving democracy.
Through all of this, Kamala Harris became the first woman Vice President in American history. This accomplishment cannot be understated and it led to hope that more women could follow. In addition to Harris, Biden appointed more women and people of color to cabinet and justice positions than any president before him. Biden made significant strides in advancing gender equity and defending women’s rights through the establishment of the first-ever White House Gender Policy Council. This landmark initiative. The Gender Policy Council developed the National Strategy on Gender Equity and Equality, a comprehensive framework to address systemic gender inequalities across various sectors, including healthcare, economic security, and education.

Dobbs v Jackson:
Although Democrats had retaken the White House, Trump appointees on the court gave it a conservative majority. On Friday, 24 June 2022, the Supreme Court, stacked with three Trump appointees, issued a historic decision in Dobbs v Jackson [Mississippi] Women’s Health Center, overturning almost fifty years of precedent set by the 1973 decision in Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade had permitted the termination of a pregnancy prior to the viability of a fetus, placing this important medical decision generally in the hands of women and their doctors. In Roe, the Court had presumed a woman‘s right to make her own reproductive health decisions with state intervention only in the final stages of a pregnancy, when it was presumed that a fetus could survive outside the womb. This created a standard based on fetal viability. Over half a century, the point at which a fetus could be considered viable shifted earlier and earlier, raising the question of the point at which a fetus should be considered a person. Significant advances in fetal viability contributed to a powerful, often vitriolic debate over whether a fetus is, in fact, an unborn child with inherent rights to personhood. The Dobbs case was brought by the Center for Reproductive Justice challenging a Mississippi 15 week abortion ban that left women with pregnancy complications in danger and with little recourse. The decision in Dobbs left it to the states to determine the availability and regulation of abortion and left the country with no coherent policy on the matter. Women’s rights groups saw this as a devastating setback in women’s struggle for reproductive autonomy.
Scholars attacked the Court’s abandonment of stare decisis, a legal principle that says courts should reject precedent only with great care. Historians attacked Alito’s assertion that, in the US, “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973,” as patently untrue. Physicians disputed his claim that a fetus can feel pain as neurologically impossible. And almost all opponents of the decision questioned the principle of originalism, which required that rights be “deeply rooted in the nation’s history,” because the American Constitution neglected to mention women at all– so if originalist perspectives must be taken, where do women stand? Americans enjoy many rights that do not appear in the original Constitution, including a woman’s right to vote, an African-American’s right to full citizenship, and everyone’s right to privacy. These rights are enshrined in amendments and Supreme Court rulings that speak to the flexibility of basic American constitutional principles.
Justice Alito’s opinion represents a profound attack on the rights of women, particularly in its originalist claim that women have no guarantee to rights that were not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that was ratified in 1868. In Dobbs, Justice Alito adopted the reasoning of his late colleague on the Court, Antonin Scalia, who argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause contains no explicit protections for women and that the concerns of the authors of the Reconstruction Amendments focused on race, not gender. From the originalist point of view that appears to dominate the current Supreme Court, providing for equal protection for women, pregnant or not, has no constitutional legitimacy. Women, then, are to be considered in light of the law and practice of the late 1860s rather than practices and standards of today.
Justice Alito and his conservative colleagues argued that the US has no tradition of permitting abortion. They cited a voluminous list of laws that prohibited the practice, while ignoring common practices that allowed women to terminate a pregnancy prior to “quickening,” or a perception of movement of the fetus in utero. The Dobbs ruling is a damaging blow to women’s rights in the US. Despite Justice Alito’s declaration that the Court’s opinion applies only to the issue of abortion, other rights may soon be under attack. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the right to privacy established in Griswold v Connecticut was vulnerable. This could mean that other rights not in the original Constitution such as contraception, gay marriage, and homosexuality itself, all of which are protected under the general concept of privacy, could be taken away or significantly diminished in future Court rulings.
The fallout from Dobbs meant that state bans on abortion quickly went into effect. In August 2022, just two weeks after the Georgia abortion ban went into effect, a 28-year-old mother, Amber Thurman, died as providers in the Emergency room watched, unable to provide the abortion necessary to save her life. The effect of Dobbs was devastating for women’s rights and health.
An expanding body of evidence has documented the widespread harm Dobbs has inflicted on reproductive health care. Studies and reports reveal a dramatic decline in the number of clinics providing abortion care, with 66 clinics in 15 states ceasing services within 100 days of the decision and no clinics operating in 14 states enforcing total abortion bans. Despite these losses, the total number of U.S. abortions has paradoxically risen, fueled by innovative care models such as telehealth services offering medication abortions and by a surge in out-of-state travel for care. Virtual clinics now account for nearly 20% of all abortions, and many patients in restrictive states rely on shield laws in supportive states to access medication abortion. However, these options have not mitigated the logistical, financial, and emotional burdens placed on individuals, particularly those from marginalized communities.
Further, physicians in states with abortion bans report delays in emergency care, moral distress, and legal uncertainties, with many considering relocating to states where abortion is legal. Medical students in these states face diminished training opportunities, raising concerns about a decline in expertise. Beyond health care access, Dobbs has exacerbated existing inequities, including higher maternal mortality rates and worsening mental health for vulnerable populations. Emerging research underscores that states enforcing abortion bans also have poorer maternal health outcomes, disproportionately impacting Black and Indigenous communities. Harrowing accounts of patients denied life-saving care in obstetric emergencies further highlight the dangers of restrictive abortion policies. These findings underscore the urgent need for comprehensive solutions to address the devastating consequences of the decision and to reimagine abortion rights and access nationwide.
Still women’s groups, primarily led by Planned Parenthood, pushed back. Since 2022, defenders of women’s health worked tirelessly to expand access to information, resources, medical abortion by mail, and fought back in court.
Although Democrats had retaken the White House, Trump appointees on the court gave it a conservative majority. On Friday, 24 June 2022, the Supreme Court, stacked with three Trump appointees, issued a historic decision in Dobbs v Jackson [Mississippi] Women’s Health Center, overturning almost fifty years of precedent set by the 1973 decision in Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade had permitted the termination of a pregnancy prior to the viability of a fetus, placing this important medical decision generally in the hands of women and their doctors. In Roe, the Court had presumed a woman‘s right to make her own reproductive health decisions with state intervention only in the final stages of a pregnancy, when it was presumed that a fetus could survive outside the womb. This created a standard based on fetal viability. Over half a century, the point at which a fetus could be considered viable shifted earlier and earlier, raising the question of the point at which a fetus should be considered a person. Significant advances in fetal viability contributed to a powerful, often vitriolic debate over whether a fetus is, in fact, an unborn child with inherent rights to personhood. The Dobbs case was brought by the Center for Reproductive Justice challenging a Mississippi 15 week abortion ban that left women with pregnancy complications in danger and with little recourse. The decision in Dobbs left it to the states to determine the availability and regulation of abortion and left the country with no coherent policy on the matter. Women’s rights groups saw this as a devastating setback in women’s struggle for reproductive autonomy.
Scholars attacked the Court’s abandonment of stare decisis, a legal principle that says courts should reject precedent only with great care. Historians attacked Alito’s assertion that, in the US, “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973,” as patently untrue. Physicians disputed his claim that a fetus can feel pain as neurologically impossible. And almost all opponents of the decision questioned the principle of originalism, which required that rights be “deeply rooted in the nation’s history,” because the American Constitution neglected to mention women at all– so if originalist perspectives must be taken, where do women stand? Americans enjoy many rights that do not appear in the original Constitution, including a woman’s right to vote, an African-American’s right to full citizenship, and everyone’s right to privacy. These rights are enshrined in amendments and Supreme Court rulings that speak to the flexibility of basic American constitutional principles.
Justice Alito’s opinion represents a profound attack on the rights of women, particularly in its originalist claim that women have no guarantee to rights that were not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that was ratified in 1868. In Dobbs, Justice Alito adopted the reasoning of his late colleague on the Court, Antonin Scalia, who argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause contains no explicit protections for women and that the concerns of the authors of the Reconstruction Amendments focused on race, not gender. From the originalist point of view that appears to dominate the current Supreme Court, providing for equal protection for women, pregnant or not, has no constitutional legitimacy. Women, then, are to be considered in light of the law and practice of the late 1860s rather than practices and standards of today.
Justice Alito and his conservative colleagues argued that the US has no tradition of permitting abortion. They cited a voluminous list of laws that prohibited the practice, while ignoring common practices that allowed women to terminate a pregnancy prior to “quickening,” or a perception of movement of the fetus in utero. The Dobbs ruling is a damaging blow to women’s rights in the US. Despite Justice Alito’s declaration that the Court’s opinion applies only to the issue of abortion, other rights may soon be under attack. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the right to privacy established in Griswold v Connecticut was vulnerable. This could mean that other rights not in the original Constitution such as contraception, gay marriage, and homosexuality itself, all of which are protected under the general concept of privacy, could be taken away or significantly diminished in future Court rulings.
The fallout from Dobbs meant that state bans on abortion quickly went into effect. In August 2022, just two weeks after the Georgia abortion ban went into effect, a 28-year-old mother, Amber Thurman, died as providers in the Emergency room watched, unable to provide the abortion necessary to save her life. The effect of Dobbs was devastating for women’s rights and health.
An expanding body of evidence has documented the widespread harm Dobbs has inflicted on reproductive health care. Studies and reports reveal a dramatic decline in the number of clinics providing abortion care, with 66 clinics in 15 states ceasing services within 100 days of the decision and no clinics operating in 14 states enforcing total abortion bans. Despite these losses, the total number of U.S. abortions has paradoxically risen, fueled by innovative care models such as telehealth services offering medication abortions and by a surge in out-of-state travel for care. Virtual clinics now account for nearly 20% of all abortions, and many patients in restrictive states rely on shield laws in supportive states to access medication abortion. However, these options have not mitigated the logistical, financial, and emotional burdens placed on individuals, particularly those from marginalized communities.
Further, physicians in states with abortion bans report delays in emergency care, moral distress, and legal uncertainties, with many considering relocating to states where abortion is legal. Medical students in these states face diminished training opportunities, raising concerns about a decline in expertise. Beyond health care access, Dobbs has exacerbated existing inequities, including higher maternal mortality rates and worsening mental health for vulnerable populations. Emerging research underscores that states enforcing abortion bans also have poorer maternal health outcomes, disproportionately impacting Black and Indigenous communities. Harrowing accounts of patients denied life-saving care in obstetric emergencies further highlight the dangers of restrictive abortion policies. These findings underscore the urgent need for comprehensive solutions to address the devastating consequences of the decision and to reimagine abortion rights and access nationwide.
Still women’s groups, primarily led by Planned Parenthood, pushed back. Since 2022, defenders of women’s health worked tirelessly to expand access to information, resources, medical abortion by mail, and fought back in court.
Women’s Advocacy Organizations:
Conservatives remained concerned about shifting gender norms and anti-religious sentiments in schools. Moms for Liberty was founded in 2021 by former Florida school board members, Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich, to push back against what they viewed as “wokeness” in American schools. The group rallied people to school board meetings, advocated for school policies and legislation, and defended what they considered a “parent’s right” to determine their child’s education. The group particularly targeted LGBTQ+ issues and teachers with they/them pronouns. They pushed states to adopt anti-critical race and feminist theory legislation. Moms for Liberty developed state chapters and in some states established bounties for members of the public who provided the evidence that could get teachers fired for teaching about systemic racism and sexism. No teacher has been fired under these efforts, but many educators left the profession due to the harassment and pressure.
Other mom groups sought to use their platforms to advocate against the leading cause of death among children in this era: gun violence. Moms Demand Action was a grassroots movement of Americans dedicated to advocating for public safety measures aimed at protecting people from gun violence. It also collaborated with communities and business leaders to promote a culture of responsible gun ownership. The movement was founded by Shannon Watts, a mother of five, who launched a Facebook group the day after the Sandy Hook tragedy to encourage Americans to take action against gun violence. This online initiative evolved into a national movement, uniting moms, dads, students, families, concerned citizens, and survivors to collaborate with partners in the gun violence prevention movement to address this pressing issue.
The COVID-19 pandemic proved just how vulnerable the US economy was without a more sustainable plan for child care. Mom’s First, a nonprofit working to fight for an economy that put the needs of mothers first. It was founded by Reshma Saujani, a leading activist. The organization fights for expanded family leave policies, investment in childcare, and government solutions to fight the failure of the market to meet the childcare needs of parents. The group was successful in advocating for the first ever question about childcare to be asked in a presidential debate in 2024, neither candidate had a plan for solving the childcare crisis.
The issues facing families, particularly moms due to prevailing gender norms are vast. 12 percent of women in the private sector don’t have any maternity leave. 25 percent of women must return to work within 2-weeks of giving birth. 9 percent of workplaces offer paid paternity leave and 76 percent of fathers return to work within a week of their child’s birth, making mothers the primary caregiver and denying them needed support in recovery from birth. The US has the highest infant mortality for wealthy countries, at 6.1 for every 1,000 births. 1 in 10 women suffer from postpartum depression in the United States. That includes me, if you’d like to put a face to the data. Single-parent households are mostly headed by women and have more than tripled since 1960. 35 percent of children live in single-parent households. Mothers are 40 percent more likely than fathers to report that they had personally felt the negative impact of child care issues on their careers.
Conservatives remained concerned about shifting gender norms and anti-religious sentiments in schools. Moms for Liberty was founded in 2021 by former Florida school board members, Tiffany Justice and Tina Descovich, to push back against what they viewed as “wokeness” in American schools. The group rallied people to school board meetings, advocated for school policies and legislation, and defended what they considered a “parent’s right” to determine their child’s education. The group particularly targeted LGBTQ+ issues and teachers with they/them pronouns. They pushed states to adopt anti-critical race and feminist theory legislation. Moms for Liberty developed state chapters and in some states established bounties for members of the public who provided the evidence that could get teachers fired for teaching about systemic racism and sexism. No teacher has been fired under these efforts, but many educators left the profession due to the harassment and pressure.
Other mom groups sought to use their platforms to advocate against the leading cause of death among children in this era: gun violence. Moms Demand Action was a grassroots movement of Americans dedicated to advocating for public safety measures aimed at protecting people from gun violence. It also collaborated with communities and business leaders to promote a culture of responsible gun ownership. The movement was founded by Shannon Watts, a mother of five, who launched a Facebook group the day after the Sandy Hook tragedy to encourage Americans to take action against gun violence. This online initiative evolved into a national movement, uniting moms, dads, students, families, concerned citizens, and survivors to collaborate with partners in the gun violence prevention movement to address this pressing issue.
The COVID-19 pandemic proved just how vulnerable the US economy was without a more sustainable plan for child care. Mom’s First, a nonprofit working to fight for an economy that put the needs of mothers first. It was founded by Reshma Saujani, a leading activist. The organization fights for expanded family leave policies, investment in childcare, and government solutions to fight the failure of the market to meet the childcare needs of parents. The group was successful in advocating for the first ever question about childcare to be asked in a presidential debate in 2024, neither candidate had a plan for solving the childcare crisis.
The issues facing families, particularly moms due to prevailing gender norms are vast. 12 percent of women in the private sector don’t have any maternity leave. 25 percent of women must return to work within 2-weeks of giving birth. 9 percent of workplaces offer paid paternity leave and 76 percent of fathers return to work within a week of their child’s birth, making mothers the primary caregiver and denying them needed support in recovery from birth. The US has the highest infant mortality for wealthy countries, at 6.1 for every 1,000 births. 1 in 10 women suffer from postpartum depression in the United States. That includes me, if you’d like to put a face to the data. Single-parent households are mostly headed by women and have more than tripled since 1960. 35 percent of children live in single-parent households. Mothers are 40 percent more likely than fathers to report that they had personally felt the negative impact of child care issues on their careers.
Women’s Sports:This era celebrated 50 years of Title IX where the full effects of Title IX can be seen in the flourishing of professional leagues, increased scholarships for female athletes, and greater representation across various sports. By 2024, women’s sports were experiencing a watershed moment. The movement "Everyone Watches Women’s Sports" took off, marking a cultural shift in how women’s sports are viewed and celebrated. This movement, combined with decades of advocacy and progress, continues to push for equality in viewership, sponsorships, and pay, solidifying the importance of women’s sports in the global athletic landscape.
Gymnastics has historically been a predominantly white sport, but Black women and girls have steadily reshaped its landscape. Pioneers like Dominique Dawes, Gabby Douglas, and Simone Biles have broken barriers, not only excelling in their craft but also challenging racism and sexism within the sport. These athletes often navigate a field that prizes Eurocentric beauty standards and lean body types, emphasizing a need to reframe how strength and athleticism are valued.
Yet, despite these advancements, gymnastics remains plagued by systemic issues, including toxic coaching practices that foster unhealthy relationships with food and body image. The Larry Nassar case exposed pervasive abuse and highlighted the need for greater accountability, demonstrating how women athletes face both external and internal institutional challenges. Simone Biles’ decision to prioritize her mental health during the 2021 Tokyo Olympics marked a significant cultural moment, underscoring the importance of mental well-being in sports and earning her the title of Greatest of All Time (GOAT).
Billie Jean King’s work benefited many tennis stars to come and she was an inspiration to all women athletes. Most notably, Serena Williams, the greatest tennis player to date, and her talented sister Venus. Serena Williams had an illustrious career marked by 23 major singles titles, the most in the Open Era. She achieved significant milestones, including two "Serena Slams" and an Olympic gold in singles, completing a Career Golden Slam. Williams was known for her powerful serve and groundstrokes, becoming the world No. 1 in singles multiple times despite battling injuries. Her return to dominance in the early 2010s, culminating in her 23rd major title at the 2017 Australian Open while pregnant, solidified her legacy. Beyond singles, Williams excelled in doubles with her sister Venus, winning 14 major titles and three Olympic gold medals, creating an unbeaten record in major doubles finals.
Williams, alongside Venus, significantly influenced the sport by introducing a new era of power and athleticism in women’s tennis. They have been credited with increasing diversity in the sport and inspiring countless young athletes. Off the court, Serena Williams has been a vocal advocate for gender equality, championing equal prize money and supporting women’s rights through her foundation and public statements. Her relationship with Venus, also an extraordinary athlete, has been a central theme of her career, as the sisters have dominated both singles and doubles tennis while supporting each other’s pursuits and challenges. Williams' impact extends beyond tennis, making her a cultural icon and a trailblazer for future generations.
In 2024, women’s basketball experienced a surge in popularity due to the record breaking senior season of a white college basketball star, Caitlin Clark. Clark, who played for the University of Iowa, is widely regarded as one of the greatest women’s college basketball players in history, known for her exceptional three-point scoring ability. Clark shattered numerous records, including becoming the all-time leading scorer in NCAA basketball with 3,667 points in 2024. She also led Iowa to multiple deep NCAA tournament runs, including two national title game appearances, while earning accolades such as Big Ten Freshman of the Year and the Associated Press Player of the Year in 2023. Her popularity, bolstered by record-breaking performances and a massive social media following, elevated women’s basketball to unprecedented levels of attention, with sold-out arenas and record TV ratings. Fans followed Clark straight off of her college season into the 2024 WNBA draft as the number one overall pick. She joined the Indiana Fever, where she continued her dominance by setting rookie records for assists and points and earning WNBA Rookie of the Year honors.
Clark’s successes overshadowed many of her Black counterparts in the rookie class and veteran players in the WNBA. Many have called out the media hype around the white star while other talented black players received less attention. Kamilla Soares Cardoso’s college team, South Carolina, beat Clarks in the NCAA tournament and she was named Most Outstanding Player of the tournament. She was the number two pick and was selected by the Chicago Sky. Although she was only the number seven pick, Angel Reese and Clark's rivalry both in college and professionally drew a lot of media attention. Reese and Clark have both denied that they don’t like each other but have pushed back against attempts to make their professional rivalry more personal.
College women’s volleyball also set records in 2024 for attendance, showing that the tide was turning on women’s sports attendance. An outdoor match between Nebraska and Omaha, drew a record-breaking crowd of 92,003, the largest ever for a women’s sporting event in the world. It also shattered the previous US record of 90,185 from the 1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final. Nebraska, which has led the nation in volleyball attendance every year since moving to Devaney in 2013, further cemented its reputation as a powerhouse in women’s sports.
At the 2024 Summer Olympics, women’s sports were front and center. Team USA women made a historic impact at the Paris Olympics, comprising 314 of the 593 athletes and winning 57% of the country’s 126 medals, including 26 of 40 golds, which tied China atop the gold medal count. At the Opening Ceremony, 20-year-old Coco Gauff became the first American woman to serve as the US flag bearer, symbolizing a remarkable Olympics for Team USA women.
Swimming legend Katie Ledecky became the most decorated American woman in Olympic history with 14 career medals, breaking her own records and leading the U.S. to gold in the 4x100m medley relay. Simone Biles cemented her status as the gymnastics GOAT with three golds and a silver, becoming the most decorated American gymnast ever. In track and field, Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone set a world record in the 400m hurdles and won gold in the 4x400m relay, while Valerie Allman became the first American woman to win two discus golds. The U.S. women’s basketball team won its eighth consecutive gold, led by Diana Taurasi, the first athlete to earn six Olympic golds in a team sport.
Ilona Maher became an American icon after the US women took home bronze in women’s rugby to give the country its first Olympic medal in rugby sevens. While a beast on the field, Maher is known for her social media presence, her strong role modeling for girls, and consistent stance against sexist messaging about preferred women’s body types.
Women athletes weren’t simply excelling against other women. It had long been shown that women endurance athletes had unique traits that gave them physiological advantages over male athletes. In 2024, Tara Dower set the fastest known time (FKT) on the Appalachian Trail. Dower wasn’t the first woman to hold this record, Jennifer Pharr Davis held the record in 2015. It was beaten by 3 hours by Scott Jurek, then Karel Sabbe, whose record was 41 days, 7 hours, and 38 minutes. Dower smashed Sabbe’s previous overall record by 13 hours at 40 days, 18 hours, and 5 minutes.
Gymnastics has historically been a predominantly white sport, but Black women and girls have steadily reshaped its landscape. Pioneers like Dominique Dawes, Gabby Douglas, and Simone Biles have broken barriers, not only excelling in their craft but also challenging racism and sexism within the sport. These athletes often navigate a field that prizes Eurocentric beauty standards and lean body types, emphasizing a need to reframe how strength and athleticism are valued.
Yet, despite these advancements, gymnastics remains plagued by systemic issues, including toxic coaching practices that foster unhealthy relationships with food and body image. The Larry Nassar case exposed pervasive abuse and highlighted the need for greater accountability, demonstrating how women athletes face both external and internal institutional challenges. Simone Biles’ decision to prioritize her mental health during the 2021 Tokyo Olympics marked a significant cultural moment, underscoring the importance of mental well-being in sports and earning her the title of Greatest of All Time (GOAT).
Billie Jean King’s work benefited many tennis stars to come and she was an inspiration to all women athletes. Most notably, Serena Williams, the greatest tennis player to date, and her talented sister Venus. Serena Williams had an illustrious career marked by 23 major singles titles, the most in the Open Era. She achieved significant milestones, including two "Serena Slams" and an Olympic gold in singles, completing a Career Golden Slam. Williams was known for her powerful serve and groundstrokes, becoming the world No. 1 in singles multiple times despite battling injuries. Her return to dominance in the early 2010s, culminating in her 23rd major title at the 2017 Australian Open while pregnant, solidified her legacy. Beyond singles, Williams excelled in doubles with her sister Venus, winning 14 major titles and three Olympic gold medals, creating an unbeaten record in major doubles finals.
Williams, alongside Venus, significantly influenced the sport by introducing a new era of power and athleticism in women’s tennis. They have been credited with increasing diversity in the sport and inspiring countless young athletes. Off the court, Serena Williams has been a vocal advocate for gender equality, championing equal prize money and supporting women’s rights through her foundation and public statements. Her relationship with Venus, also an extraordinary athlete, has been a central theme of her career, as the sisters have dominated both singles and doubles tennis while supporting each other’s pursuits and challenges. Williams' impact extends beyond tennis, making her a cultural icon and a trailblazer for future generations.
In 2024, women’s basketball experienced a surge in popularity due to the record breaking senior season of a white college basketball star, Caitlin Clark. Clark, who played for the University of Iowa, is widely regarded as one of the greatest women’s college basketball players in history, known for her exceptional three-point scoring ability. Clark shattered numerous records, including becoming the all-time leading scorer in NCAA basketball with 3,667 points in 2024. She also led Iowa to multiple deep NCAA tournament runs, including two national title game appearances, while earning accolades such as Big Ten Freshman of the Year and the Associated Press Player of the Year in 2023. Her popularity, bolstered by record-breaking performances and a massive social media following, elevated women’s basketball to unprecedented levels of attention, with sold-out arenas and record TV ratings. Fans followed Clark straight off of her college season into the 2024 WNBA draft as the number one overall pick. She joined the Indiana Fever, where she continued her dominance by setting rookie records for assists and points and earning WNBA Rookie of the Year honors.
Clark’s successes overshadowed many of her Black counterparts in the rookie class and veteran players in the WNBA. Many have called out the media hype around the white star while other talented black players received less attention. Kamilla Soares Cardoso’s college team, South Carolina, beat Clarks in the NCAA tournament and she was named Most Outstanding Player of the tournament. She was the number two pick and was selected by the Chicago Sky. Although she was only the number seven pick, Angel Reese and Clark's rivalry both in college and professionally drew a lot of media attention. Reese and Clark have both denied that they don’t like each other but have pushed back against attempts to make their professional rivalry more personal.
College women’s volleyball also set records in 2024 for attendance, showing that the tide was turning on women’s sports attendance. An outdoor match between Nebraska and Omaha, drew a record-breaking crowd of 92,003, the largest ever for a women’s sporting event in the world. It also shattered the previous US record of 90,185 from the 1999 FIFA Women’s World Cup Final. Nebraska, which has led the nation in volleyball attendance every year since moving to Devaney in 2013, further cemented its reputation as a powerhouse in women’s sports.
At the 2024 Summer Olympics, women’s sports were front and center. Team USA women made a historic impact at the Paris Olympics, comprising 314 of the 593 athletes and winning 57% of the country’s 126 medals, including 26 of 40 golds, which tied China atop the gold medal count. At the Opening Ceremony, 20-year-old Coco Gauff became the first American woman to serve as the US flag bearer, symbolizing a remarkable Olympics for Team USA women.
Swimming legend Katie Ledecky became the most decorated American woman in Olympic history with 14 career medals, breaking her own records and leading the U.S. to gold in the 4x100m medley relay. Simone Biles cemented her status as the gymnastics GOAT with three golds and a silver, becoming the most decorated American gymnast ever. In track and field, Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone set a world record in the 400m hurdles and won gold in the 4x400m relay, while Valerie Allman became the first American woman to win two discus golds. The U.S. women’s basketball team won its eighth consecutive gold, led by Diana Taurasi, the first athlete to earn six Olympic golds in a team sport.
Ilona Maher became an American icon after the US women took home bronze in women’s rugby to give the country its first Olympic medal in rugby sevens. While a beast on the field, Maher is known for her social media presence, her strong role modeling for girls, and consistent stance against sexist messaging about preferred women’s body types.
Women athletes weren’t simply excelling against other women. It had long been shown that women endurance athletes had unique traits that gave them physiological advantages over male athletes. In 2024, Tara Dower set the fastest known time (FKT) on the Appalachian Trail. Dower wasn’t the first woman to hold this record, Jennifer Pharr Davis held the record in 2015. It was beaten by 3 hours by Scott Jurek, then Karel Sabbe, whose record was 41 days, 7 hours, and 38 minutes. Dower smashed Sabbe’s previous overall record by 13 hours at 40 days, 18 hours, and 5 minutes.
Transgender Bans and Rights:
In the 2010s transgender issues came increasingly to the forefront of social activism. The Trump and Biden administrations instituted and reversed bans on trans people serving in the military. Although historically there have always been trans people, the shifting attitudes allowed trans youth to come out with greater frequency leading to questions of appropriate bathrooms and school literature that gave voice to LGBTQ+ voices. Many schools added single stall bathrooms for trans girls and boys to use, but that solution failed to honor their gender expression and allow them to use the restroom of the gender they felt best represented them, and sometimes restricted trans kids to using a single bathroom in a school. Trans women were elected to public office too, helping to fight for trans rights from the inside. Althea Garrison was elected to the Massachusetts state legislature in 1992 but was outed by the Boston Herald and lost re-election. She was also controversial for her conservative views on women and was adamantly anti-abortion. Danica Roem of Virginia became the next openly transgender person elected to a state legislature in 2018, over two decades later. James Roesener became the first openly transgender man elected to a state legislature in New Hampshire in 2022, while Sarah McBride, Representative for Delaware in the US House of Representatives was the first elected at the federal level in 2024.
Trans women and girls became controversial in sports, despite little compelling evidence that their involvement hindered female athletes. One of the confusing aspects of Title IX, is that it protects people on the basis of sex, but gender identity is more of a social construct. While in 99% of people gender expression aligns with their sex, for those it does not, the binary “girls sports” and “boys sports” pose challenges. Should they play with the sex they were assigned at birth, or with their gender identity? Some, mostly conservatives, have felt the need to “protect” women and girls sports from trans women and that the entire purpose of Title IX was to create a safe space for those who didn’t benefit from a male puberty from dominating the game. From 2011-2021, Under NCAA rules, transgender athletes are allowed to compete in women's sports after one year of hormone therapy that suppresses testosterone and this has been updated to be even more restrictive in recent years. Professional leagues have their own rules and levels of testosterone expected of women athletes, which poses challenges when women assigned female at birth also don’t meet those standards based on natural human variations. Primary and secondary schools often don’t have such rules and either follow a student’s gender expression or force them to go by the sex they were assigned at birth. Most advocates for trans youth think this is bad for mental health and stigmatizes trans youth who just want to play.
Transgender runner CeCe Telfer is a good example of how varying policies give transwomen whiplash. Telfer was assigned male at birth and competed on the men’s track team in college. After she transitioned, she competed on the women’s team and won the Division II NCAA hurdles title. She received significant public attention when President Trump referred to her publicly as a "biological male," criticizing her wins as unfair against young women. Telfer claimed her wins were fair because her testosterone levels were lower than the average woman and her over six foot height was not an advantage in her chosen event. Her coaches protected her physical and mental well-being during the competition by hiring security and keeping her off social media where transphobic comments were rampant. Telfer was banned from competing at the US Olympic trials because she didn’t meet their hormone requirements and recent regulations by the Track and Field governing body currently exclude her from elite-level competitions. To that Telfer said, “I want to live my life just like everybody else is living their life.”
Telfer is not alone. Trans women and youth around the world face these challenges everyday. Using testosterone in sports regulations raises the question, what makes someone a man or a woman? Socially or biologically the research shows this is blurry and more complicated than people think. And these challenges are not new, trans athletes have always competed in sports.
Some women assigned female at birth struggle to accept trans women into the fold of feminist advocacy and see these battles for trans women as battles for them as well. Trans exclusive feminism is not feminism, and is not endorsed by scholars, scientists, and mainstream feminist organizations despite some women calling themselves feminists. In 2023, many states began introducing the “Women’s Bill of Rights,” which sounds great, but the legislation seems eerily familiar to the way DOMA tried to “protect” marriage at the expense of gay women. The law would create a biological definition of womanhood based on the capacity to produce human eggs. Defining womanhood this way leaves out women born with ovaries who don’t produce eggs. This definition of “woman” also excludes trans women who are subjected to the same social challenges these women face, and more. This “trans exclusionary feminism” and advocacy reflects a very limited understanding of gender and sexuality, even on a biological level.
For most of history, women’s “biology” was what justified laws that prevented women’s inclusion in certain aspects of society, jobs, etc. Anti-trans rhetoric and laws do not help women, it actually un-does feminism by reinstating the stereotypes that oppressed women for millennia. It is hard to separate the argument that trans girls should not play with other girls from the suggestion that this is because women are the “weaker sex.” In 2023, over 400 bills against trans people were introduced in state legislatures, driving back progress. Still, many women felt that the inclusion of trans women on sports teams threatened Title IX protections for cis-gendered women. Bans on trans women and girls participating in sports popped up everywhere from state legislatures to the NCAA.
While significant strides have been made in the fight for LGBTQ rights, challenges persist in the present day. Legal equality has not translated to social equality, and there are active threats to LGBTQ+ rights. The Trump Administration attempted, but failed, to rollback open service for LGBTQ+ service members. When the court struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022, it challenged the legal foundation on which Windsor and subsequent cases stood: the right to privacy. Ongoing social struggles such as book banning, restrictions on drag shows, debates over hormone therapy, parental rights, and trans bathroom access, demonstrate that the work towards equality is far from complete. LGBTQ+ youth are far more likely to struggle with mental health and suicide as a result of the social stigmatization and delegitimizing of the society around them. Recognizing the past accomplishments and the present struggles is important. The remarkable resilience of women in the LGBTQ movement can inspire us to continue working towards a more inclusive and equitable future for all.
Questions remain as more research and evidence comes forward about the threat to competition that less than one-percent of the population posed to girls sports. It remains unclear, how will these issues shape the landscape of privacy, equality, and personal freedom in the years to come?
In the 2010s transgender issues came increasingly to the forefront of social activism. The Trump and Biden administrations instituted and reversed bans on trans people serving in the military. Although historically there have always been trans people, the shifting attitudes allowed trans youth to come out with greater frequency leading to questions of appropriate bathrooms and school literature that gave voice to LGBTQ+ voices. Many schools added single stall bathrooms for trans girls and boys to use, but that solution failed to honor their gender expression and allow them to use the restroom of the gender they felt best represented them, and sometimes restricted trans kids to using a single bathroom in a school. Trans women were elected to public office too, helping to fight for trans rights from the inside. Althea Garrison was elected to the Massachusetts state legislature in 1992 but was outed by the Boston Herald and lost re-election. She was also controversial for her conservative views on women and was adamantly anti-abortion. Danica Roem of Virginia became the next openly transgender person elected to a state legislature in 2018, over two decades later. James Roesener became the first openly transgender man elected to a state legislature in New Hampshire in 2022, while Sarah McBride, Representative for Delaware in the US House of Representatives was the first elected at the federal level in 2024.
Trans women and girls became controversial in sports, despite little compelling evidence that their involvement hindered female athletes. One of the confusing aspects of Title IX, is that it protects people on the basis of sex, but gender identity is more of a social construct. While in 99% of people gender expression aligns with their sex, for those it does not, the binary “girls sports” and “boys sports” pose challenges. Should they play with the sex they were assigned at birth, or with their gender identity? Some, mostly conservatives, have felt the need to “protect” women and girls sports from trans women and that the entire purpose of Title IX was to create a safe space for those who didn’t benefit from a male puberty from dominating the game. From 2011-2021, Under NCAA rules, transgender athletes are allowed to compete in women's sports after one year of hormone therapy that suppresses testosterone and this has been updated to be even more restrictive in recent years. Professional leagues have their own rules and levels of testosterone expected of women athletes, which poses challenges when women assigned female at birth also don’t meet those standards based on natural human variations. Primary and secondary schools often don’t have such rules and either follow a student’s gender expression or force them to go by the sex they were assigned at birth. Most advocates for trans youth think this is bad for mental health and stigmatizes trans youth who just want to play.
Transgender runner CeCe Telfer is a good example of how varying policies give transwomen whiplash. Telfer was assigned male at birth and competed on the men’s track team in college. After she transitioned, she competed on the women’s team and won the Division II NCAA hurdles title. She received significant public attention when President Trump referred to her publicly as a "biological male," criticizing her wins as unfair against young women. Telfer claimed her wins were fair because her testosterone levels were lower than the average woman and her over six foot height was not an advantage in her chosen event. Her coaches protected her physical and mental well-being during the competition by hiring security and keeping her off social media where transphobic comments were rampant. Telfer was banned from competing at the US Olympic trials because she didn’t meet their hormone requirements and recent regulations by the Track and Field governing body currently exclude her from elite-level competitions. To that Telfer said, “I want to live my life just like everybody else is living their life.”
Telfer is not alone. Trans women and youth around the world face these challenges everyday. Using testosterone in sports regulations raises the question, what makes someone a man or a woman? Socially or biologically the research shows this is blurry and more complicated than people think. And these challenges are not new, trans athletes have always competed in sports.
Some women assigned female at birth struggle to accept trans women into the fold of feminist advocacy and see these battles for trans women as battles for them as well. Trans exclusive feminism is not feminism, and is not endorsed by scholars, scientists, and mainstream feminist organizations despite some women calling themselves feminists. In 2023, many states began introducing the “Women’s Bill of Rights,” which sounds great, but the legislation seems eerily familiar to the way DOMA tried to “protect” marriage at the expense of gay women. The law would create a biological definition of womanhood based on the capacity to produce human eggs. Defining womanhood this way leaves out women born with ovaries who don’t produce eggs. This definition of “woman” also excludes trans women who are subjected to the same social challenges these women face, and more. This “trans exclusionary feminism” and advocacy reflects a very limited understanding of gender and sexuality, even on a biological level.
For most of history, women’s “biology” was what justified laws that prevented women’s inclusion in certain aspects of society, jobs, etc. Anti-trans rhetoric and laws do not help women, it actually un-does feminism by reinstating the stereotypes that oppressed women for millennia. It is hard to separate the argument that trans girls should not play with other girls from the suggestion that this is because women are the “weaker sex.” In 2023, over 400 bills against trans people were introduced in state legislatures, driving back progress. Still, many women felt that the inclusion of trans women on sports teams threatened Title IX protections for cis-gendered women. Bans on trans women and girls participating in sports popped up everywhere from state legislatures to the NCAA.
While significant strides have been made in the fight for LGBTQ rights, challenges persist in the present day. Legal equality has not translated to social equality, and there are active threats to LGBTQ+ rights. The Trump Administration attempted, but failed, to rollback open service for LGBTQ+ service members. When the court struck down Roe v. Wade in 2022, it challenged the legal foundation on which Windsor and subsequent cases stood: the right to privacy. Ongoing social struggles such as book banning, restrictions on drag shows, debates over hormone therapy, parental rights, and trans bathroom access, demonstrate that the work towards equality is far from complete. LGBTQ+ youth are far more likely to struggle with mental health and suicide as a result of the social stigmatization and delegitimizing of the society around them. Recognizing the past accomplishments and the present struggles is important. The remarkable resilience of women in the LGBTQ movement can inspire us to continue working towards a more inclusive and equitable future for all.
Questions remain as more research and evidence comes forward about the threat to competition that less than one-percent of the population posed to girls sports. It remains unclear, how will these issues shape the landscape of privacy, equality, and personal freedom in the years to come?
2024 Election:
As incumbent, Biden faced no opposition in the 2024 primary. Trump faced several competitors, but none as formidable and forceful as Nikki Haley, a former governor of South Carolina and US ambassador to the UN under Trump. Haley focused her campaign against liberal gender politics and categorized Trump as unfit. Haley was forceful while also conforming to traditional femininity. Haley’s campaign failed overall, but was successful in that she became the first Republican woman to win a presidential primary or caucus in Vermont and DC.
Trump was less active in this stage of the campaign, refusing to appear on the debate stage with Haley and other challengers because he was embroiled in litigation. In Spring of 2024, Trump was convicted of 34 counts and as a felon in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, a porn actor who had sex with the former president.
As Biden prepared for reelection, his age and the public perception of his ability to lead became a problem. Nancy Pelosi, a longtime friend, privately urged him to step aside to ensure Democratic victory. In the summer of 2024, just before the Democratic convention where presidential candidates are selected, Biden stepped down urging the party to nominate his Vice President, Kamala Harris. Harris had just under 107 days to pull together a campaign against a vindictive Trump-led campaign.
The campaigns again featured deep polarization of the American people and the gendered divisions. They both played identity politics, Harris’ campaign leaned into her commitments to marginalized peoples, while Trump appealed to white, male voters directly– an appeal that proved effective. Trump ran for the presidency three times, only losing once– to a man. When asked why men voted for him, one voter explained, “The Democratic Party has somehow become the anti-male party.” This sentiment, though inaccurate, reflected a broader perception. While women were not oppressing men, the shift toward gender equity and the rhetoric surrounding that fight felt oppressive to some. Social scientists have long shown that feeling that a group is doing worse than it used to, creates out-group prejudice. Men, especially those concerned about boys and men’s challenges, often struggled to see these as separate to the issues facing women, turning gendered issues into a zero sum game where if one group wins the other loses. Though the economy had worsened for men, it was not due to women; rather, feminism had spurred much of the 20th-century economic growth.
Many women personally affected by abortion bans joined Kamala Harris on the campaign trail, sharing their stories, but the overwhelming majority of Americans ignored their pleas and reelected the party responsible for imposing the bans after the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Michelle Obama urged voters to “take our lives seriously,” as women literally died due to these bans. Despite the dire circumstances, the gender gap in the electorate grew and American men responded defensively, voting to reinstate the administration that had created these dire conditions for women.
Richard Reeves, a senior analyst at the Brookings Institute, reflected on Michelle Obama’s speech, noting the disconnect between concerns about women’s lives and men’s preoccupation with economic matters. Contrary to claims that Harris’ campaign was solely focused on women’s rights and abortion, Harris’ platform addressed all major issues. However, she was judged by a double standard. Expert reviewers expressed concern over Trump’s policies, such as his tariff proposal, which was predicted to raise inflation and increase the national debt. Yet this critique seemed irrelevant as voters fixated on economic concerns, often using them as an excuse to perpetuate sexism. Many voters rejected Harris not due to her policies but because of her gender and their attraction to the machoism presented by Trump.
This election was not about policy failure on Harris’ part but about deep-rooted sexism. While both men and women struggled with economic hardships, men’s votes often favored perceptions of strength and strategy. A woman’s success continued to be compared to men’s, with Harris, despite her extensive credentials, viewed as less qualified. Analysts mischaracterized Trump’s success as a result of a superior ground game, overlooking the fact that Harris raised over $1 billion and ran a strong campaign in swing states. Harris, like Hillary Clinton before her, encountered a nation that altered the rules to favor a man. While analysts claimed that anti-establishment sentiment accounted for Trump’s victory, the reality was that women had never been in the political establishment. In fact, women held only a fraction of positions of power in the government, which made the claim unsubstantiated. Despite Harris’ sound policies, many voters rejected her because she was a woman.
Harris’ loss highlighted how sexism had permeated the election. White women, particularly Gen X women, overwhelmingly voted against her, with 63% of women without college degrees supporting Trump. This was significant, given that Trump’s policies were expected to harm working-class women, raising inflation and cutting funding for essential services. Black women, however, remained loyal to Harris, with 92% voting for her despite the adversities they faced. This voting pattern echoed historical trends: while white women often upheld the racial status quo, Black women consistently voted for progress. The election’s outcome was a blow to marginalized groups, who bore the brunt of its consequences.
In the aftermath of the election, it became clear that voters had been swayed by rhetoric rather than policy details. Trump’s promises, although unrealistic, had appealed to humanity’s worst impulses. Harris, despite her competence and qualifications, was rejected because of her gender, and this historical moment underscored the ongoing struggle for gender equality. In the days after the election, the hashtag #yourbodymychoice trended and online misogyny spiked. What work remains to be done so future female candidates don’t face such unfair scrutiny based on gender? And is the American public willing to do that work?
As incumbent, Biden faced no opposition in the 2024 primary. Trump faced several competitors, but none as formidable and forceful as Nikki Haley, a former governor of South Carolina and US ambassador to the UN under Trump. Haley focused her campaign against liberal gender politics and categorized Trump as unfit. Haley was forceful while also conforming to traditional femininity. Haley’s campaign failed overall, but was successful in that she became the first Republican woman to win a presidential primary or caucus in Vermont and DC.
Trump was less active in this stage of the campaign, refusing to appear on the debate stage with Haley and other challengers because he was embroiled in litigation. In Spring of 2024, Trump was convicted of 34 counts and as a felon in a scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election through hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, a porn actor who had sex with the former president.
As Biden prepared for reelection, his age and the public perception of his ability to lead became a problem. Nancy Pelosi, a longtime friend, privately urged him to step aside to ensure Democratic victory. In the summer of 2024, just before the Democratic convention where presidential candidates are selected, Biden stepped down urging the party to nominate his Vice President, Kamala Harris. Harris had just under 107 days to pull together a campaign against a vindictive Trump-led campaign.
The campaigns again featured deep polarization of the American people and the gendered divisions. They both played identity politics, Harris’ campaign leaned into her commitments to marginalized peoples, while Trump appealed to white, male voters directly– an appeal that proved effective. Trump ran for the presidency three times, only losing once– to a man. When asked why men voted for him, one voter explained, “The Democratic Party has somehow become the anti-male party.” This sentiment, though inaccurate, reflected a broader perception. While women were not oppressing men, the shift toward gender equity and the rhetoric surrounding that fight felt oppressive to some. Social scientists have long shown that feeling that a group is doing worse than it used to, creates out-group prejudice. Men, especially those concerned about boys and men’s challenges, often struggled to see these as separate to the issues facing women, turning gendered issues into a zero sum game where if one group wins the other loses. Though the economy had worsened for men, it was not due to women; rather, feminism had spurred much of the 20th-century economic growth.
Many women personally affected by abortion bans joined Kamala Harris on the campaign trail, sharing their stories, but the overwhelming majority of Americans ignored their pleas and reelected the party responsible for imposing the bans after the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Michelle Obama urged voters to “take our lives seriously,” as women literally died due to these bans. Despite the dire circumstances, the gender gap in the electorate grew and American men responded defensively, voting to reinstate the administration that had created these dire conditions for women.
Richard Reeves, a senior analyst at the Brookings Institute, reflected on Michelle Obama’s speech, noting the disconnect between concerns about women’s lives and men’s preoccupation with economic matters. Contrary to claims that Harris’ campaign was solely focused on women’s rights and abortion, Harris’ platform addressed all major issues. However, she was judged by a double standard. Expert reviewers expressed concern over Trump’s policies, such as his tariff proposal, which was predicted to raise inflation and increase the national debt. Yet this critique seemed irrelevant as voters fixated on economic concerns, often using them as an excuse to perpetuate sexism. Many voters rejected Harris not due to her policies but because of her gender and their attraction to the machoism presented by Trump.
This election was not about policy failure on Harris’ part but about deep-rooted sexism. While both men and women struggled with economic hardships, men’s votes often favored perceptions of strength and strategy. A woman’s success continued to be compared to men’s, with Harris, despite her extensive credentials, viewed as less qualified. Analysts mischaracterized Trump’s success as a result of a superior ground game, overlooking the fact that Harris raised over $1 billion and ran a strong campaign in swing states. Harris, like Hillary Clinton before her, encountered a nation that altered the rules to favor a man. While analysts claimed that anti-establishment sentiment accounted for Trump’s victory, the reality was that women had never been in the political establishment. In fact, women held only a fraction of positions of power in the government, which made the claim unsubstantiated. Despite Harris’ sound policies, many voters rejected her because she was a woman.
Harris’ loss highlighted how sexism had permeated the election. White women, particularly Gen X women, overwhelmingly voted against her, with 63% of women without college degrees supporting Trump. This was significant, given that Trump’s policies were expected to harm working-class women, raising inflation and cutting funding for essential services. Black women, however, remained loyal to Harris, with 92% voting for her despite the adversities they faced. This voting pattern echoed historical trends: while white women often upheld the racial status quo, Black women consistently voted for progress. The election’s outcome was a blow to marginalized groups, who bore the brunt of its consequences.
In the aftermath of the election, it became clear that voters had been swayed by rhetoric rather than policy details. Trump’s promises, although unrealistic, had appealed to humanity’s worst impulses. Harris, despite her competence and qualifications, was rejected because of her gender, and this historical moment underscored the ongoing struggle for gender equality. In the days after the election, the hashtag #yourbodymychoice trended and online misogyny spiked. What work remains to be done so future female candidates don’t face such unfair scrutiny based on gender? And is the American public willing to do that work?
Conclusion:
The early 21st century was defined by women’s leadership, resistance, and growing independence. Female governors, senators, and members of the House of Representatives represent a variety of political views, both liberal and conservative, suggesting that issues beyond women’s rights contribute to the election of women to serve their states. Still, women make up only fractions of our political and economic leaders, and remain less visible in the media. Women make up 7 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs, 6 percent of Nobel Prize Winners, 24 percent of “heard, read about or seen in newspaper, television and radio.” Women reported 37 percent of news stories, 31 percent of speaking characters, 23 percent of protagonists in film, 21 percent are filmmakers. In sport, they are paid staggeringly less than men in wages and prize money. In the 2018-midterm elections, women only made up 20 percent of Congress and only 6 out of 50 state governors were women. In 2022, only 12 out of 50 governors were women.
Issues related to how to prosecute sexual assault and harassment remain and whether these issues should prevent someone from being president are yet to be determined. It is an empowering and yet strange time to be a woman in America with so many rights and policies in question.
By the end of this era, so much remains in question. What lasting effect will a second Trump presidency have? How will women respond? What effect will Republican control of all three branches have on women’s rights, health, and representation in American democracy?
The early 21st century was defined by women’s leadership, resistance, and growing independence. Female governors, senators, and members of the House of Representatives represent a variety of political views, both liberal and conservative, suggesting that issues beyond women’s rights contribute to the election of women to serve their states. Still, women make up only fractions of our political and economic leaders, and remain less visible in the media. Women make up 7 percent of the Fortune 500 CEOs, 6 percent of Nobel Prize Winners, 24 percent of “heard, read about or seen in newspaper, television and radio.” Women reported 37 percent of news stories, 31 percent of speaking characters, 23 percent of protagonists in film, 21 percent are filmmakers. In sport, they are paid staggeringly less than men in wages and prize money. In the 2018-midterm elections, women only made up 20 percent of Congress and only 6 out of 50 state governors were women. In 2022, only 12 out of 50 governors were women.
Issues related to how to prosecute sexual assault and harassment remain and whether these issues should prevent someone from being president are yet to be determined. It is an empowering and yet strange time to be a woman in America with so many rights and policies in question.
By the end of this era, so much remains in question. What lasting effect will a second Trump presidency have? How will women respond? What effect will Republican control of all three branches have on women’s rights, health, and representation in American democracy?
Draw your own conclusions
Learn how to teach with inquiry.
Many of these lesson plans were sponsored in part by the Library of Congress Teaching with Primary Sources Eastern Region Program, coordinated by Waynesburg University, the History and Social Studies Education Faculty at Plymouth State University, and the Patrons of the Remedial Herstory Project. |
Lesson Plans from Other Organizations
- The National Women's History Museum has lesson plans on women's history.
- The Guilder Lehrman Institute for American History has lesson plans on women's history.
- The NY Historical Society has articles and classroom activities for teaching women's history.
- Unladylike 2020, in partnership with PBS, has primary sources to explore with students and outstanding videos on women from the Progressive era.
- The Roy Rosenzweig Center for History and New Media has produced recommendations for teaching women's history with primary sources and provided a collection of sources for world history. Check them out!
- The Stanford History Education Group has a number of lesson plans about women in US History.
Period Specific Lesson Plans from Other Organizations
- C3 Teachers: This inquiry leads students through an investigation of the LGBTQ+ movement, primarily driven by the history of the movement through various accounts and perspectives. The compelling question—What makes a movement successful?—does not address whether or not the movement was successful, but instead assesses the components of a movement and whether the movement is in a period of growth or has already peaked. Although the focus of this inquiry is on the LGBTQ+ movement, parallels can be drawn to other social movements in history with respect to organization, activism, and overall execution, including the Civil Rights Movement or the women’s suffrage and rights movements. Specifically, this inquiry looks at four different aspects that can potentially shape a movement in its foundation as well as its rise, namely public reaction, government leaders and policies, Supreme Court cases, and personal experiences. Throughout the inquiry, students will examine each individual aspect independently, evaluating the merits, strengths, and significance of each provided source in the “Movement Analysis Organization Chart,” but the summative task will require a compilation and synthesis of the sources in this investigation in order to form an argument to address the compelling question.
- Voices of Democracy: In the speech Clinton positioned the United States as the moral authority in monitoring and enforcing sanctions for global human trafficking, while at the same time reiterating the importance of international cooperation and partnerships.
- Clio: In 1972, feminists in Washington, D.C. founded the nation’s first rape crisis center. Other centers were soon established across the country. In 1994, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). The act was created in response to the nation-wide, grassroots work of activists concerned with domestic violence, sexual assault, date rape, and stalking. This lesson introduces students to the history of efforts to stop violence against women.
- National Women’s History Museum: How has the Supreme Court shaped the lives of American women between 1908-2005? Students will analyze one of four Supreme Court cases that relate to the constitutional rights of women decided between 1908-2005. Students will become mini-experts on one Supreme Court cases and they will be exposed to the content, themes, and questions from the other three cases via peer to peer instruction of their classmates. The goal of this lesson is to introduce students to a broad range of Supreme Court cases that have impacted American women and to have them develop a working knowledge and expertise of at least one case by using primary sources such as the case ruling and secondary sources that will help students to understand the context.
- National History Day: Patsy Takemoto Mink (1927-2002) was born in Hawaii. She studied in Pennsylvania and Nebraska before moving back to Hawaii to earn her undergraduate degree and eventually received her J.D. from the University of Chicago in 1951. She moved back to Hawaii with her husband, John Francis Mink, and founded the Oahu Young Democrats in 1954. In the 1950s, Mink served as both a member of the territorial house of representatives and Hawaii Senate. After Hawaii achieved statehood in 1959, Mink unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. House of Representatives. Mink campaigned for the second representative seat in 1964 and won, making her the first woman of color and first Asian American woman to be elected to Congress. Mink is best known for her support of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society legislation, as well as her advocacy for women’s issues and equal rights. Mink worked tirelessly to earn support for the critical Title IX Amendment from her comprehensive education bill called Women’s Education Equity Act. Mink took a break from Congress after an unsuccessful bid for the Senate, but returned to Congress in 1990 and served until her death in September 2002.
- C3 Teachers: This twelfth grade annotated inquiry leads students through an investigation of a hotly debated issue in the United States: the gender wage gap. The compelling question “What should we do about the gender wage gap?” asks students to grapple not only with how to quantify and interpret the gap but also to consider ways of addressing the problem. Throughout the inquiry, students consider the degree to which economic inequality reflects social, political, or economic injustices or whether it simply reflects individual choices and the role the government should play in decreasing income inequality. Although this inquiry is rooted in a question about economics, no social issue is fully understood without examining a range of economic, historical, geographic, and political concepts in order to craft a full-bodied, evidence-based argument. This inquiry looks at the complexity of the gender wage gap issue through all four social studies disciplines. Students examine the structural factors that influence women’s choices as well as historical (e.g., Equal Pay Act of 1963) and pending (e.g., Paycheck Fairness Act) legislative efforts. Ultimately, students must find a way to measure the gender wage gap, determine if it is an issue worth addressing, and, if so, how to best address it, including private and public sector solutions.
M.A.D.D.
Vox: Why the US Drinking Age is 21 Video
Partial Transcript:
Prohibition, the 18th amendment to the US Constitution, banned alcohol in 1920. It was repealed by the 21st amendment — and after that, a lot of states settled on a drinking age of 21 and older… In the 70s, the 26th amendment changed the dynamic again. “That amendment, as you know, provides for the right to vote of all of our young people between 18 and 21, 11 million new voters as a result of this amendment” (Ronald Reagan). 18 year olds could be drafted to Vietnam and vote, so a lot of states decided they could drink.
That map was short lived for one reason… “Nearly 50,000 people were killed on our highways last year. Now out of that statistic comes an even more chilling one. Drunk drivers were involved in 25,000 of those fatalities, in addition to 750,000 injuries a year” (Ronald Reagan). Drinking age reform advocates quickly attributed drunk driving fatalities in the blue states, or 18 and older states, to earlier drinking ages. People argued that teens driving across state lines to drink or purchase alcohol increased drunk driving. This 1983 map was still a hodgepodge, but see how more states turned green — for 19— and yellow — for 20 years old? That was driven partly by an awareness campaign… Michael Jackson? He was being honored for letting his music be used in anti-drunk driving PSAs.
President Reagan is famous for saying: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” That made his strategy kind of surprising. “For even though drunk driving is a problem nation-wide, it can only be solved at the state and local level. Yet the Federal Government also has a role to play.” His thinking was influenced by two main groups. “Much of the credit for focusing public attention goes to the grassroots campaign of organizations like MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and RID, Remove Intoxicated Drivers” (Ronald Reagan).
Candace “Candy” Lightner founded MADD in 1980 after her daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver. MADD’s goals at the time included making it easier to obtain DUI convictions... and raising the drinking age. This direction was clear at River Dell High School in Oradell, New Jersey, where President Reagan explained his unpredictable political evolution. The problem: “I appointed a Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. They told us that alcohol related automobile accidents are the leading cause of teenage deaths in this country.”
The theory: “In states in which the drinking age has been raised, teenage drinking fatalities have gone down significantly. Here in New Jersey, you raised the drinking age to 21 in 1983, and you know what happened: you had a 26% reduction in nighttime single vehicle fatalities among 19 and 20 year olds in the first year alone” (Ronald Reagan).
The dilemma: “I was delighted again because I hoped that the states would, as they should, take this action themselves without federal orders or interference.” “It’s led to a kind of crazy quilt of different state drinking laws, and that’s led to what’s been called blood borders, with teenagers leaving their home to go the nearest state with a lower drinking age.”
And here? This is where the roads come in. The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 created a network of roads largely funded by Federal dollars. Those roads quickly became crucial to state economies. That money also became a way to bend the states to Federal priorities, even if it meant Reagan had to change his typical political positions. “I’ve decided to support legislation to withhold 5% of a state’s highway funds if it does not enact the 21-year-old drinking age. Some may feel that my decision is at odds with my philosophical viewpoint that state problems should involve state solutions, and it isn’t up to a big and overwhelming government in Washington to tell the states what to do. And you’re partly right. Beyond that, there are some special cases in which overwhelming need can be dealt with by prudent and limited federal action” (Ronald Reagan). The law passed.
That’s Candy Lightner, celebrating. “I’d like to make you an honorary mother against drunk drivers.” It wasn’t technically a nationwide drinking age law, but in effect — it was. “We have no misgiving about this judicious use of Federal power.” States quickly adopted the 21-year-old drinking age. Most couldn't afford to lose federal funding for their highways. Louisiana was the only state that held out at age 18 (due to a loophole, which it closed in the mid 90s). South Dakota challenged the law to preserve sale of low alcohol beer for 19 year olds and up, and it reached the Supreme Court. “Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court, the issue in this case is whether or not Congress may condition the receipt of highway funds upon a state having in effect 21-year-old drinking age.” The court ruled 7-2, stating it was within Congress’s powers to control spending that promoted “general welfare,” argued as the reduction of youth drinking and driving via the 21-year-old drinking age. Did it work?
Most studies of studies declare “case closed” — that the higher drinking age saves lives, and “reduces alcohol consumption.” Skeptics, like people from the libertarian Cato Institute, claim a broader cultural change, not a law, should be credited with saving lives. Reagan himself kind of argued both sides, saying that, “the new minimum drinking age is working,” but that “my friends, there’s so much more to do, and it’s not government that can do it.”
Politically, Ronald Reagan using Federal purse strings to strong arm states is…a strange pairing. But beyond the politics, there’s a bigger message. The Federal government has used other levers to push states, but to change the drinking age there was one big tool. The thing that changed the country wasn’t just the lines on states’ edges. It was the ones that run through them.
Vox.com. “Why the US Drinking Age Is 21.” YouTube. YouTube, August 23, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aWYJugVTs4.
Guiding Questions:
Prohibition, the 18th amendment to the US Constitution, banned alcohol in 1920. It was repealed by the 21st amendment — and after that, a lot of states settled on a drinking age of 21 and older… In the 70s, the 26th amendment changed the dynamic again. “That amendment, as you know, provides for the right to vote of all of our young people between 18 and 21, 11 million new voters as a result of this amendment” (Ronald Reagan). 18 year olds could be drafted to Vietnam and vote, so a lot of states decided they could drink.
That map was short lived for one reason… “Nearly 50,000 people were killed on our highways last year. Now out of that statistic comes an even more chilling one. Drunk drivers were involved in 25,000 of those fatalities, in addition to 750,000 injuries a year” (Ronald Reagan). Drinking age reform advocates quickly attributed drunk driving fatalities in the blue states, or 18 and older states, to earlier drinking ages. People argued that teens driving across state lines to drink or purchase alcohol increased drunk driving. This 1983 map was still a hodgepodge, but see how more states turned green — for 19— and yellow — for 20 years old? That was driven partly by an awareness campaign… Michael Jackson? He was being honored for letting his music be used in anti-drunk driving PSAs.
President Reagan is famous for saying: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” That made his strategy kind of surprising. “For even though drunk driving is a problem nation-wide, it can only be solved at the state and local level. Yet the Federal Government also has a role to play.” His thinking was influenced by two main groups. “Much of the credit for focusing public attention goes to the grassroots campaign of organizations like MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and RID, Remove Intoxicated Drivers” (Ronald Reagan).
Candace “Candy” Lightner founded MADD in 1980 after her daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver. MADD’s goals at the time included making it easier to obtain DUI convictions... and raising the drinking age. This direction was clear at River Dell High School in Oradell, New Jersey, where President Reagan explained his unpredictable political evolution. The problem: “I appointed a Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving. They told us that alcohol related automobile accidents are the leading cause of teenage deaths in this country.”
The theory: “In states in which the drinking age has been raised, teenage drinking fatalities have gone down significantly. Here in New Jersey, you raised the drinking age to 21 in 1983, and you know what happened: you had a 26% reduction in nighttime single vehicle fatalities among 19 and 20 year olds in the first year alone” (Ronald Reagan).
The dilemma: “I was delighted again because I hoped that the states would, as they should, take this action themselves without federal orders or interference.” “It’s led to a kind of crazy quilt of different state drinking laws, and that’s led to what’s been called blood borders, with teenagers leaving their home to go the nearest state with a lower drinking age.”
And here? This is where the roads come in. The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 created a network of roads largely funded by Federal dollars. Those roads quickly became crucial to state economies. That money also became a way to bend the states to Federal priorities, even if it meant Reagan had to change his typical political positions. “I’ve decided to support legislation to withhold 5% of a state’s highway funds if it does not enact the 21-year-old drinking age. Some may feel that my decision is at odds with my philosophical viewpoint that state problems should involve state solutions, and it isn’t up to a big and overwhelming government in Washington to tell the states what to do. And you’re partly right. Beyond that, there are some special cases in which overwhelming need can be dealt with by prudent and limited federal action” (Ronald Reagan). The law passed.
That’s Candy Lightner, celebrating. “I’d like to make you an honorary mother against drunk drivers.” It wasn’t technically a nationwide drinking age law, but in effect — it was. “We have no misgiving about this judicious use of Federal power.” States quickly adopted the 21-year-old drinking age. Most couldn't afford to lose federal funding for their highways. Louisiana was the only state that held out at age 18 (due to a loophole, which it closed in the mid 90s). South Dakota challenged the law to preserve sale of low alcohol beer for 19 year olds and up, and it reached the Supreme Court. “Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the court, the issue in this case is whether or not Congress may condition the receipt of highway funds upon a state having in effect 21-year-old drinking age.” The court ruled 7-2, stating it was within Congress’s powers to control spending that promoted “general welfare,” argued as the reduction of youth drinking and driving via the 21-year-old drinking age. Did it work?
Most studies of studies declare “case closed” — that the higher drinking age saves lives, and “reduces alcohol consumption.” Skeptics, like people from the libertarian Cato Institute, claim a broader cultural change, not a law, should be credited with saving lives. Reagan himself kind of argued both sides, saying that, “the new minimum drinking age is working,” but that “my friends, there’s so much more to do, and it’s not government that can do it.”
Politically, Ronald Reagan using Federal purse strings to strong arm states is…a strange pairing. But beyond the politics, there’s a bigger message. The Federal government has used other levers to push states, but to change the drinking age there was one big tool. The thing that changed the country wasn’t just the lines on states’ edges. It was the ones that run through them.
Vox.com. “Why the US Drinking Age Is 21.” YouTube. YouTube, August 23, 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aWYJugVTs4.
Guiding Questions:
- Based on this video, did MADD impact federal policy related to drunk driving?
- According to this video, did legislation alone help change drunk driving?
American Addiction Centers: Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Every single day in the United States, 28 people die in a car crash that involves a driver who is under the influence of and impaired by alcohol, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes. This equates to just more than one death every hour of every day in America.
After the senseless death of her 13-year-old daughter Cari, who was killed by a drunk driver, Candace Lightner began feverishly working in her home state of California to raise awareness about drunk driving and to attempt to illicit change in drunk driving laws. Together with another mother, Cindi Lamb, whose child was a victim of a crash with an alcohol-impaired driver, the grassroots nonprofit organization Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, or MADD, was founded and incorporated in Sacramento, California on September 5th of 1980…
Since 1980, MADD reports that they have helped to cut drunk driving deaths in half, saved around 350,000 lives, and helped more than 850,000 victims. Today, there are several hundred local MADD chapters spread throughout the US and Canada. The journal World Psychiatry publishes that the MADD campaign has helped to get over 1,000 new laws involving alcohol passed on both a local and national level, including laws regarding server liability, the setting up of sobriety checkpoints, and raising the minimum drinking age. MADD has also influenced public perception of drunk driving, putting faces to the victims to highlight that these are not “accidents” but rather instances of avoidable violence and that the crime is not “victimless.”
… Arguably, MADD has been extremely influential, not only in affecting public policy and legislation, but also in changing public perception and social policy. As a grassroots organization, MADD has brought the crimes and tragedy of drunk driving consequences into the light, offering hope and encouragement for survivors, victims, and their families while also advocating for preventative efforts and positive change.
Editors of American Addiction Centers. “Effectiveness of Mothers Against Drunk Driving: Over the years, MADD has worked tirelessly to influence DUI laws, increase public awareness about underage drinking and impaired driving.” American Addiction Centers. December 13, 2022. https://alcohol.org/teens/mothers-against-drunk-driving/.
Guiding Questions
After the senseless death of her 13-year-old daughter Cari, who was killed by a drunk driver, Candace Lightner began feverishly working in her home state of California to raise awareness about drunk driving and to attempt to illicit change in drunk driving laws. Together with another mother, Cindi Lamb, whose child was a victim of a crash with an alcohol-impaired driver, the grassroots nonprofit organization Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, or MADD, was founded and incorporated in Sacramento, California on September 5th of 1980…
Since 1980, MADD reports that they have helped to cut drunk driving deaths in half, saved around 350,000 lives, and helped more than 850,000 victims. Today, there are several hundred local MADD chapters spread throughout the US and Canada. The journal World Psychiatry publishes that the MADD campaign has helped to get over 1,000 new laws involving alcohol passed on both a local and national level, including laws regarding server liability, the setting up of sobriety checkpoints, and raising the minimum drinking age. MADD has also influenced public perception of drunk driving, putting faces to the victims to highlight that these are not “accidents” but rather instances of avoidable violence and that the crime is not “victimless.”
… Arguably, MADD has been extremely influential, not only in affecting public policy and legislation, but also in changing public perception and social policy. As a grassroots organization, MADD has brought the crimes and tragedy of drunk driving consequences into the light, offering hope and encouragement for survivors, victims, and their families while also advocating for preventative efforts and positive change.
Editors of American Addiction Centers. “Effectiveness of Mothers Against Drunk Driving: Over the years, MADD has worked tirelessly to influence DUI laws, increase public awareness about underage drinking and impaired driving.” American Addiction Centers. December 13, 2022. https://alcohol.org/teens/mothers-against-drunk-driving/.
Guiding Questions
- Why is the name “Mothers” Against Drunk driving a powerful title to the organization?
- Why did Candy Lightner found MADD?
- Based on this article, did MADD impact federal policy related to drunk driving?
- According to this article, did legislation alone help change drunk driving?
Glasses: Video
Guiding Questions:
Maddcanada. “Glasses - Public Television Campaign.” YouTube. YouTube, November 20, 2007. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrhV3QTkNyw.
- What did it feel like watching this clip?
- Why might this public awareness campaign have been effective?
Maddcanada. “Glasses - Public Television Campaign.” YouTube. YouTube, November 20, 2007. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrhV3QTkNyw.
Drunk Driving Video
Guiding Questions:
Casskane007. “Best Madd Anti Dui Commercial Ever.” YouTube. YouTube, November 18, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b69J_bMoYk.
- What did it feel like watching this clip?
- Why might this public awareness campaign have been effective?
- Was the purpose of MADD’s early advertising campaign to support stricter laws relating to drinking and driving or to encourage individuals to make a personal choice to stop drinking and driving?
Casskane007. “Best Madd Anti Dui Commercial Ever.” YouTube. YouTube, November 18, 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b69J_bMoYk.
John J Miller: The Case Against 21
Mothers Against Drunk Driving says on its website that setting the legal drinking age at 21, rather than 18, has saved “more than 21,000 lives” from alcohol-related traffic fatalities. It certainly sounds like a success story. But is it really so simple?
The former president of Middlebury College says that the picture is in fact far more complicated. “It’s just not true,” says John M. McCardell Jr. of MADD’s assertion. “I’m not going to claim that legal-age 21 has saved no lives at all, but it’s just one factor among many and it’s not anywhere near the most important factor.”As his report reveals, alcohol-related driving fatalities have fallen sharply since 1982, when a presidential commission on drunk driving urged states to raise their drinking ages to 21. That year, there were 1.64 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles of travel; in 2001, there were 0.63 deaths. That’s a drop of 62 percent.
This is an important achievement. Yet the drinking age probably played only a small role. The dramatic increase in seat-belt use almost certainly accounts for most of the improvement. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration says that the proper use of seat belts reduces the odds of death for front-seat passengers involved in a car crashes by 45 percent. In 1984, when President Reagan linked federal highway funds to the 21-year drinking age, about 14 percent of motorists used seat belts. By 2004, this figure had shot up to 80 percent. Also during this period, life-saving airbags became a standard feature on cars.
What’s more, alcohol-related fatalities were beginning to decline before the movement for a raised drinking age got off the ground, thanks to a cultural shift. “As a society, we’ve become a lot more aware of the problem of drunk driving,” says McCardell. “When I was in school, nobody used the term ‘designated driver.’” Demographic forces helped out, too: In the 1980s, following the Baby Boom, the population of young people actually shrank. Fewer young drivers means fewer high-risk drivers, and so even if attitudes about seat belts and drunk driving hadn’t changed, there almost certainly would have been a reduction in traffic deaths anyway.
McCardell suggests that one effect of raising the drinking age was not to prevent deaths but merely to delay them. “The most common age for drinking-related deaths is now 21, followed by 22 and 23,” he says. “It seems that the minimum drinking age is as likely to have postponed fatalities as to have reduced them.”
Miller, John J. “John J. Miller on Drinking Age on National Review Online.” National Review Online, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070829161232/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzU4NTcwMTQ4NTBmYzVlNWMzZjgwYTRjYjgyMzllMjg%3D.
Guiding Questions
The former president of Middlebury College says that the picture is in fact far more complicated. “It’s just not true,” says John M. McCardell Jr. of MADD’s assertion. “I’m not going to claim that legal-age 21 has saved no lives at all, but it’s just one factor among many and it’s not anywhere near the most important factor.”As his report reveals, alcohol-related driving fatalities have fallen sharply since 1982, when a presidential commission on drunk driving urged states to raise their drinking ages to 21. That year, there were 1.64 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles of travel; in 2001, there were 0.63 deaths. That’s a drop of 62 percent.
This is an important achievement. Yet the drinking age probably played only a small role. The dramatic increase in seat-belt use almost certainly accounts for most of the improvement. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration says that the proper use of seat belts reduces the odds of death for front-seat passengers involved in a car crashes by 45 percent. In 1984, when President Reagan linked federal highway funds to the 21-year drinking age, about 14 percent of motorists used seat belts. By 2004, this figure had shot up to 80 percent. Also during this period, life-saving airbags became a standard feature on cars.
What’s more, alcohol-related fatalities were beginning to decline before the movement for a raised drinking age got off the ground, thanks to a cultural shift. “As a society, we’ve become a lot more aware of the problem of drunk driving,” says McCardell. “When I was in school, nobody used the term ‘designated driver.’” Demographic forces helped out, too: In the 1980s, following the Baby Boom, the population of young people actually shrank. Fewer young drivers means fewer high-risk drivers, and so even if attitudes about seat belts and drunk driving hadn’t changed, there almost certainly would have been a reduction in traffic deaths anyway.
McCardell suggests that one effect of raising the drinking age was not to prevent deaths but merely to delay them. “The most common age for drinking-related deaths is now 21, followed by 22 and 23,” he says. “It seems that the minimum drinking age is as likely to have postponed fatalities as to have reduced them.”
Miller, John J. “John J. Miller on Drinking Age on National Review Online.” National Review Online, 2007. https://web.archive.org/web/20070829161232/http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzU4NTcwMTQ4NTBmYzVlNWMzZjgwYTRjYjgyMzllMjg%3D.
Guiding Questions
- Based on this article, did MADD impact federal policy related to drunk driving?
- According to this article, did legislation alone help change drunk driving?
Rick Sand: DUI Statistics In The United States
An arrest for a DUI can cause your insurance to skyrocket by around 71%. Many drivers find it impossible to get back on the road after their DUI, simply because the costs become too expensive for them to afford. However, drunk driving is on a decline. Between 1991 and 2017, the rate of accidents and fatalities has decreased by 50%. [T]he United States… are the third worst country when it comes to drunk driving—which obviously isn’t great. In 2015, South Africa was ranked number one as the worst country when it comes to drunk driving. With 58% of their fatal accidents involving alcohol in some way, they sit high above the second and third seats. The second seat goes to Canada, at 34% and the third to the United States at 31%. Countries on the lower end of the spectrum include Germany (9%), Russia (9%), India (5%), and China (4%).
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET A DUI IN THE UNITED STATES?
…Some states will allow you to be released when bail is paid, but other states have a one- or two-day minimum sentence for people who are arrested for driving under the influence. Your circumstances may be different depending on the nature of your accident. If anyone else is injured, or even killed, your jail time could be much longer. However, this would normally be determined in court… After this, you’ll lose your license for a period of time. After your license is restored, you may have to deal with a variety of restrictions, like taking a breathalyzer before starting your car.
You may also have to serve probation, even if you don’t serve jail time. This probation will be used to keep someone from repeating an offense. If you were to repeat your offense, you may face greater jail time for breaking your probation.
Before getting your license back, you may have to attend driving school specifically for people convicted of DUIs. You’ll then have to pay your fines in order to get your license back. Your insurance may also go up because of your new DUI.
WHAT ARE DUI PENALTIES IN OTHER COUNTRIES?
Let’s look at South Africa, the country with the highest concentration of alcohol accidents in the world. In South Africa, it’s illegal to drive with a blood alcohol content greater than .05, a little lower than the US’s .08mg/dl. If you’re arrested for drunk driving, you’ll likely be granted bail. However, if you’re convicted a second time, you may be sent to prison for up to six years… In China, the legal limit for alcohol in the blood while driving is .02mg, much lower than both the US and South Africa. They have a zero-tolerance policy for repeat offenders, and may suspend your license for a few months even if you’re a first time offender.
DOES THE UNITED STATES HAVE STRICT-ENOUGH DUI LAWS?
When comparing the United States to other countries, it’s easy to see that many other countries have stricter laws than the US, especially when it comes to longer suspension times and higher fines. Other countries generally make it harder to get back on the road after a DUI… In China, their low tolerance policies seem to be working when it comes to keeping drunk drivers off the roads. The United States could experiment with tighter laws and see what happens. However, our percentages seem to be going down over the years.
Sand, Rick. “Comparing DUI Statistics of the U.S. vs. Other Countries.” Sand Law North Dakota, October 5, 2021. https://www.sandlawnd.com/dui-statistics-of-us-vs-other-countries/.
Guiding Questions
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU GET A DUI IN THE UNITED STATES?
…Some states will allow you to be released when bail is paid, but other states have a one- or two-day minimum sentence for people who are arrested for driving under the influence. Your circumstances may be different depending on the nature of your accident. If anyone else is injured, or even killed, your jail time could be much longer. However, this would normally be determined in court… After this, you’ll lose your license for a period of time. After your license is restored, you may have to deal with a variety of restrictions, like taking a breathalyzer before starting your car.
You may also have to serve probation, even if you don’t serve jail time. This probation will be used to keep someone from repeating an offense. If you were to repeat your offense, you may face greater jail time for breaking your probation.
Before getting your license back, you may have to attend driving school specifically for people convicted of DUIs. You’ll then have to pay your fines in order to get your license back. Your insurance may also go up because of your new DUI.
WHAT ARE DUI PENALTIES IN OTHER COUNTRIES?
Let’s look at South Africa, the country with the highest concentration of alcohol accidents in the world. In South Africa, it’s illegal to drive with a blood alcohol content greater than .05, a little lower than the US’s .08mg/dl. If you’re arrested for drunk driving, you’ll likely be granted bail. However, if you’re convicted a second time, you may be sent to prison for up to six years… In China, the legal limit for alcohol in the blood while driving is .02mg, much lower than both the US and South Africa. They have a zero-tolerance policy for repeat offenders, and may suspend your license for a few months even if you’re a first time offender.
DOES THE UNITED STATES HAVE STRICT-ENOUGH DUI LAWS?
When comparing the United States to other countries, it’s easy to see that many other countries have stricter laws than the US, especially when it comes to longer suspension times and higher fines. Other countries generally make it harder to get back on the road after a DUI… In China, their low tolerance policies seem to be working when it comes to keeping drunk drivers off the roads. The United States could experiment with tighter laws and see what happens. However, our percentages seem to be going down over the years.
Sand, Rick. “Comparing DUI Statistics of the U.S. vs. Other Countries.” Sand Law North Dakota, October 5, 2021. https://www.sandlawnd.com/dui-statistics-of-us-vs-other-countries/.
Guiding Questions
- Based on this article, do laws impact the behavior of drunk drivers?
- According to this article, did legislation alone help change drunk driving?
Connie Koenenn: The Company She Keeps
When Candy Lightner went to work at a consulting firm that represents restaurants that serve alcohol, she considered the job compatible with her past as the crusading founder of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. But that hasn’t been the media perception. In a sudden wave of publicity this month, Lightner has found herself portrayed in news stories and on talk shows as having joined the enemy. “MADD Founder Switches Sides” was a typical headline, and “lobbyist for the liquor industry” the typical job description when the media discovered Lightner’s new position.
Lightner, who founded MADD in Fair Oaks, Calif., in 1980 when her 13-year-old daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver, says she has not changed sides. “I am a government relations consultant on public policy issues, and it’s something I have wanted to do for a long time,” she says. Lightner accepted the job in November with Rick Berman, whose Washington, D.C.-based Berman and Co.'s clients include the American Beverage Institute, a 4,000-member trade organization representing restaurants and other establishments that serve alcohol.
She will lobby state legislatures to reject laws that lower the legal standard for driving under the influence to .08% blood-alcohol level because she agrees with the restaurant industry’s position that these are not the dangerous drivers and it is counterproductive to waste law enforcement resources on them. Only a few states, including California, have .08% laws. Most use .10%. “Lowering the level accomplishes nothing. I think we should target the repeat offenders--they are the real danger on our roads,” says Lightner, recalling that the man who killed her daughter had a long record of DUI arrests and had just been bailed out on a hit-and-run drunk-driving charge.
Berman says Lightner will lobby state legislatures for laws that distinguish among light, moderate and heavy drinkers, and adjust the penalties accordingly. “We think that as a person’s blood-alcohol level goes up, the penalties should get stiffer,” Berman says. “The restaurant industry has never done this before.” “This escalated penalty plan is a new approach in our country and I’m very excited about it,” Lightner says. The American Beverage Institute maintains that the .08% standard makes criminals of social drinkers and weakens law enforcement by stretching it over a wider pool of drivers than is necessary.
With this position, Lightner breaks ranks with MADD and other organizations in the anti-drunk driving movement. MADD’s national president, Rebecca Brown of Tampa, Fla., says she doesn’t criticize Lightner, who to the public personifies MADD’s success. The group has grown to 3 million members and is credited with toughening laws against drunk driving in every state and with reducing alcohol-related deaths on America’s highways. “Candy made a great difference in America and we can only be grateful,” Brown says. “The issue here is not Candy Lightner. It’s .08 and we are on different sides of that issue. We have a great deal of research and evidence that even experienced drivers are impaired at that blood-alcohol level.”
California MADD worked on the campaign to lower the state’s blood alcohol level to .08%. Michelle Payne at the Sacramento office says the group has received only a few calls about Lightner and that all comments on policy come from the national office.
MADD is lobbying for .08 because its leaders think this is an achievable goal, Brown says. “However, we believe that no one should drive after drinking, period.” Lightner says she is surprised at the negative reaction to her new post, since much of her progress with MADD was made in conjunction with the restaurant industry and she was praised for the results. “We got them, in some cases, to eliminate happy hours, and two-for-one drinks, and to initiate mandatory server training for bartenders and things like designated drivers and free taxi service,” she says.
After Lightner left MADD in 1985, she wrote a book about grieving, “Giving Sorrow Words,” published in 1990. Last year, she turned her attention to Americans Against Crime, a citizens’ group aimed at stemming violent crime. “We couldn’t raise the money to keep it going,” she says. “It was partly the economy.”
Lightner, who has two grown children, lives in Alexandria, Va. She says she joined Berman’s firm because she wants to continue to make a difference. “I’ve only been doing this for 2 1/2 months and I’m not discouraged. I believe strongly in what I’m doing and I have no problem about the world knowing.” Of her relationship with MADD, she says, the disagreement is with the blood-alcohol level and nothing more. “I oppose .08 and I advocate escalated penalties. I haven’t switched to the ‘other side.’ The ‘other side’ is being a defense attorney for drunk drivers.”
Koenenn, Connie. “The Company She Keeps : Drunk driving: Candy Lightner says she still wants reforms. But now that the MADD founder works for restaurants, some wonder whose side she’s really on.” Los Angeles Times. January 29, 1994. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-26-vw-15591-story.html.
Guiding Questions
Lightner, who founded MADD in Fair Oaks, Calif., in 1980 when her 13-year-old daughter Cari was killed by a drunk driver, says she has not changed sides. “I am a government relations consultant on public policy issues, and it’s something I have wanted to do for a long time,” she says. Lightner accepted the job in November with Rick Berman, whose Washington, D.C.-based Berman and Co.'s clients include the American Beverage Institute, a 4,000-member trade organization representing restaurants and other establishments that serve alcohol.
She will lobby state legislatures to reject laws that lower the legal standard for driving under the influence to .08% blood-alcohol level because she agrees with the restaurant industry’s position that these are not the dangerous drivers and it is counterproductive to waste law enforcement resources on them. Only a few states, including California, have .08% laws. Most use .10%. “Lowering the level accomplishes nothing. I think we should target the repeat offenders--they are the real danger on our roads,” says Lightner, recalling that the man who killed her daughter had a long record of DUI arrests and had just been bailed out on a hit-and-run drunk-driving charge.
Berman says Lightner will lobby state legislatures for laws that distinguish among light, moderate and heavy drinkers, and adjust the penalties accordingly. “We think that as a person’s blood-alcohol level goes up, the penalties should get stiffer,” Berman says. “The restaurant industry has never done this before.” “This escalated penalty plan is a new approach in our country and I’m very excited about it,” Lightner says. The American Beverage Institute maintains that the .08% standard makes criminals of social drinkers and weakens law enforcement by stretching it over a wider pool of drivers than is necessary.
With this position, Lightner breaks ranks with MADD and other organizations in the anti-drunk driving movement. MADD’s national president, Rebecca Brown of Tampa, Fla., says she doesn’t criticize Lightner, who to the public personifies MADD’s success. The group has grown to 3 million members and is credited with toughening laws against drunk driving in every state and with reducing alcohol-related deaths on America’s highways. “Candy made a great difference in America and we can only be grateful,” Brown says. “The issue here is not Candy Lightner. It’s .08 and we are on different sides of that issue. We have a great deal of research and evidence that even experienced drivers are impaired at that blood-alcohol level.”
California MADD worked on the campaign to lower the state’s blood alcohol level to .08%. Michelle Payne at the Sacramento office says the group has received only a few calls about Lightner and that all comments on policy come from the national office.
MADD is lobbying for .08 because its leaders think this is an achievable goal, Brown says. “However, we believe that no one should drive after drinking, period.” Lightner says she is surprised at the negative reaction to her new post, since much of her progress with MADD was made in conjunction with the restaurant industry and she was praised for the results. “We got them, in some cases, to eliminate happy hours, and two-for-one drinks, and to initiate mandatory server training for bartenders and things like designated drivers and free taxi service,” she says.
After Lightner left MADD in 1985, she wrote a book about grieving, “Giving Sorrow Words,” published in 1990. Last year, she turned her attention to Americans Against Crime, a citizens’ group aimed at stemming violent crime. “We couldn’t raise the money to keep it going,” she says. “It was partly the economy.”
Lightner, who has two grown children, lives in Alexandria, Va. She says she joined Berman’s firm because she wants to continue to make a difference. “I’ve only been doing this for 2 1/2 months and I’m not discouraged. I believe strongly in what I’m doing and I have no problem about the world knowing.” Of her relationship with MADD, she says, the disagreement is with the blood-alcohol level and nothing more. “I oppose .08 and I advocate escalated penalties. I haven’t switched to the ‘other side.’ The ‘other side’ is being a defense attorney for drunk drivers.”
Koenenn, Connie. “The Company She Keeps : Drunk driving: Candy Lightner says she still wants reforms. But now that the MADD founder works for restaurants, some wonder whose side she’s really on.” Los Angeles Times. January 29, 1994. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-01-26-vw-15591-story.html.
Guiding Questions
- Based on this article, what is the disagreement over 0.08?
- According to this article, do laws alone help change drunk driving?
Title IX
Title IX Timeline
Title IX Timeline:
1928: Betty Robinson becomes the first woman to win Gold in the 100 meter dash after women are allowed to compete in non-aesthetic events.
1936: A federal appeals court effectively says doctors can prescribe women birth control.
1947: The first Truman Commission report pushes for more equal access to higher education, including ending race and religious discrimination.
1953: Toni Stone becomes the first woman to regularly play professional baseball (Negro Leagues).
1954: U.S. Supreme Court rules “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” in landmark Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision.
1960: Wilma Rudolph becomes the first American woman to win three gold medals in an Olympics. The star Black sprinter becomes a prominent advocate for civil rights.
1963: The Commission on the Status of Women, headed by Eleanor Roosevelt, finds widespread discrimination against women in the U.S.. Congress passes the Equal Pay Act.
1964: The Civil Rights Act prevents sex discrimination and establishes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Patsy Mink becomes the first woman of color in the U.S. House.
1966: Bobbi Gibb becomes the first woman to run the Boston Marathon violating a rule preventing women’s participation.
1967: Katherine Switzer registered for the Boston Marathon as K.V. Switzer and was forcibly attacked by the race director.
1971: The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) is founded to govern collegiate women’s athletics and administer national championships.
1972: Congress passes Title IX co-authored by Mink. Women are allowed to run in the Boston Marathon.
1973: The Supreme Court issues its Roe v. Wade opinion establishing the right to an abortion. Billie Jean King beats Bobby Riggs in the “The Battle of the Sexes” tennis exhibition match.
1974: The Women’s Educational Equity Act provides grants and contracts to help with “nonsexist curricula,” as well as to help institutions meet Title IX requirements.
1976: NCAA challenges the legality of Title IX regarding athletics in a lawsuit that is dismissed.
1977: Three female students at Yale, two graduates and a male faculty member become the first to sue over sexual harassment under Title IX (Alexander v. Yale). It would fail on appeal.
1979: U.S. officials put into effect the important three-prong test for Title IX compliance when it comes to athletics.
1984: Democrat Geraldine Ferraro becomes first woman to earn a vice presidential nomination from a major political party. The U.S. wins its first Olympic gold medal in basketball.
1991: Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her.
1994: The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act is passed requiring schools with federal financial aid programs to provide annual information regarding gender equity.
1996: Female athletes win a lawsuit and force Brown to restore funding for women’s sports. The NBA clears the way for the WNBA.
1999: Brandi Chastain scores winning goal of World Cup final in a shootout. This image is one of the most iconic images in sports history.
2005: In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the Supreme Court rules that individuals, including coaches and teachers, have a “right of action” under Title IX if they’re retaliated against for protesting sex discrimination.
2015: The United States’ 5-2 win over Japan in the World Cup final becomes the most viewed soccer game in the history of American television.
2016: The Obama administration says transgender students should be allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, rescinded by the Trump administration.
2017: Serena Williams wins her 23rd Grand Slam title, second-most of all time.
2020: New Title IX amendments take effect, largely regarding sexual harassment.
2021: Report rips NCAA for failing to uphold its commitment to gender equity.
2022: The U.S. women’s national soccer team reaches a milestone agreement to be paid equally to the men’s national team. U.S. Gymnastics athletes win 1 billion dollar lawsuit against the FBI mishandling of sexual assault by former coach.
Guiding Questions
1928: Betty Robinson becomes the first woman to win Gold in the 100 meter dash after women are allowed to compete in non-aesthetic events.
1936: A federal appeals court effectively says doctors can prescribe women birth control.
1947: The first Truman Commission report pushes for more equal access to higher education, including ending race and religious discrimination.
1953: Toni Stone becomes the first woman to regularly play professional baseball (Negro Leagues).
1954: U.S. Supreme Court rules “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” in landmark Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision.
1960: Wilma Rudolph becomes the first American woman to win three gold medals in an Olympics. The star Black sprinter becomes a prominent advocate for civil rights.
1963: The Commission on the Status of Women, headed by Eleanor Roosevelt, finds widespread discrimination against women in the U.S.. Congress passes the Equal Pay Act.
1964: The Civil Rights Act prevents sex discrimination and establishes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Patsy Mink becomes the first woman of color in the U.S. House.
1966: Bobbi Gibb becomes the first woman to run the Boston Marathon violating a rule preventing women’s participation.
1967: Katherine Switzer registered for the Boston Marathon as K.V. Switzer and was forcibly attacked by the race director.
1971: The Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) is founded to govern collegiate women’s athletics and administer national championships.
1972: Congress passes Title IX co-authored by Mink. Women are allowed to run in the Boston Marathon.
1973: The Supreme Court issues its Roe v. Wade opinion establishing the right to an abortion. Billie Jean King beats Bobby Riggs in the “The Battle of the Sexes” tennis exhibition match.
1974: The Women’s Educational Equity Act provides grants and contracts to help with “nonsexist curricula,” as well as to help institutions meet Title IX requirements.
1976: NCAA challenges the legality of Title IX regarding athletics in a lawsuit that is dismissed.
1977: Three female students at Yale, two graduates and a male faculty member become the first to sue over sexual harassment under Title IX (Alexander v. Yale). It would fail on appeal.
1979: U.S. officials put into effect the important three-prong test for Title IX compliance when it comes to athletics.
1984: Democrat Geraldine Ferraro becomes first woman to earn a vice presidential nomination from a major political party. The U.S. wins its first Olympic gold medal in basketball.
1991: Anita Hill testified that Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her.
1994: The Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act is passed requiring schools with federal financial aid programs to provide annual information regarding gender equity.
1996: Female athletes win a lawsuit and force Brown to restore funding for women’s sports. The NBA clears the way for the WNBA.
1999: Brandi Chastain scores winning goal of World Cup final in a shootout. This image is one of the most iconic images in sports history.
2005: In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the Supreme Court rules that individuals, including coaches and teachers, have a “right of action” under Title IX if they’re retaliated against for protesting sex discrimination.
2015: The United States’ 5-2 win over Japan in the World Cup final becomes the most viewed soccer game in the history of American television.
2016: The Obama administration says transgender students should be allowed to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity, rescinded by the Trump administration.
2017: Serena Williams wins her 23rd Grand Slam title, second-most of all time.
2020: New Title IX amendments take effect, largely regarding sexual harassment.
2021: Report rips NCAA for failing to uphold its commitment to gender equity.
2022: The U.S. women’s national soccer team reaches a milestone agreement to be paid equally to the men’s national team. U.S. Gymnastics athletes win 1 billion dollar lawsuit against the FBI mishandling of sexual assault by former coach.
Guiding Questions
- Based the timeline, why might this law have been necessary in 1972?
- Are there any events in this timeline that surprise you? Why or why not?
Ray Levy-Uyeda: Yale Women Crew Protest
In the spring of 1976, four years after the signing of Title IX, the landmark equity-in-education legislation, and eight years after Yale University voted to admit women applicants, 19 college-athletes marched into the office of the director of physical education and peeled away their Yale training uniforms to reveal their bare bodies. Across their chests and backs they had written, “Title IX.” A photo of the day’s protest taken by a Yale Daily News photographer shows Joni Barnett, physical education director, gawping at captain Chris Ernst as she read a prepared statement decrying the conditions of the women’s rowing program. They protested because the women’s rowing team, newly formed and already better than the men’s, could barely qualify as a program: the team had no locker rooms, no bathrooms, no equipment manager, and no one to wash their uniforms. Either because of a supposed lack of money or because they were women, the university didn’t think the team was worth the investment. "I think women were theoretical to them, but not real,” Ernst told me recently, reflecting on the women's treatment as athletes. After practice, the women athletes would wait on the bus that they shared with the men’s team, still soaked with cold river water, while the men athletes showered away any evidence of their training. Their conditions were a violation of Title IX, and the athletes wanted to do something about it.
The protest was successful by a number of measures: the Yale women’s rowing program got the showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms they demanded; the university hired a faculty member to oversee Title IX compliance; nationwide, universities hurried away to engender Title IX equitability within their own athletic programming. “They found, magically, the money,” Ernst told me. “The university finally had to realize they're gonna have to have a program for women; they're gonna have to actually acknowledge and obey Title IX.” Revealing themselves had worked, and the Yale women produced a kind of public-facing vulnerability that’s often needed to create broader social change.
Levy-Uyeda, Ray. “Yale Rowers Broke Barries Thanks to Title IX.” Global Sport Matters, June 21, 2022. https://globalsportmatters.com/culture/2020/09/24/women-broke-barriers-bodies-title-ix/.
Questions:
The protest was successful by a number of measures: the Yale women’s rowing program got the showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms they demanded; the university hired a faculty member to oversee Title IX compliance; nationwide, universities hurried away to engender Title IX equitability within their own athletic programming. “They found, magically, the money,” Ernst told me. “The university finally had to realize they're gonna have to have a program for women; they're gonna have to actually acknowledge and obey Title IX.” Revealing themselves had worked, and the Yale women produced a kind of public-facing vulnerability that’s often needed to create broader social change.
Levy-Uyeda, Ray. “Yale Rowers Broke Barries Thanks to Title IX.” Global Sport Matters, June 21, 2022. https://globalsportmatters.com/culture/2020/09/24/women-broke-barriers-bodies-title-ix/.
Questions:
- Based on this explanation of events, how was Title IX used?
Julie Johnson: Grove City Bill
[E]ven with popular legislation, benefiting women, minorities, older Americans and people with physical disabilities, many lawmakers, particularly Republicans up for re-election, face a tough choice: A vote to override places them squarely against a still-popular President, and against other interest groups that are also powerful.
The bill passed Congress overwhelmingly… Mr. Reagan, who has introduced an alternative civil rights package, acknowledges that the Supreme Court ruling went too far in limiting Federal antidiscrimination laws, but he contends that the Congressional remedy goes too far in the other direction. The Supreme Court ruled that antidiscrimination provisions on the use of Federal aid apply only to specific programs, not to an entire institution. It held that discrimination in a Grove City College sports program did not justify the denial of Federal aid outside that program.
Although the four-year liberal arts institution did not receive any direct Federal funds, it did enroll students who received federally-backed stipends or grants. The college became entangled in a legal battle with the Government when it separated boys and girls in the school's intramural sports program and refused to file a statement of compliance with Title IX.. The High Court stipulated that it was only the school's financial aid program that was covered by discrimination statutes.
That logic, critics feared, would leave huge loopholes for institutions, and not only schools, to discriminate on the basis of sex, age, race or physical handicaps. The debate has only intensified since 1984…
The conservative Christian groups offer two main objections. For one, they say provisions of the law that bar discrimination against the handicapped are unclear, and some evangelicals assert that the definition could be interpreted to include homosexuals and other groups without physical or mental disabilities. They are also worried about exemptions for religious schools… A widely distributed lobbying letter mailed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell states: “Because of the pressure brought on by the homosexual movement in this country, Congress has caved in to this pressure and passed a law that, combined with present court cases, would qualify drug addicts, alcoholics, active homosexuals, transvestites, among others, for Federal protection as handicapped.”
Johnson, Julie. “Washington Talk: Congress; Foes of Civil Rights Bill Mount 11th-Hour Drive.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 22, 1988. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/22/us/washington-talk-congress-foes-of-civil-rights-bill-mount-11th-hour-drive.html?searchResultPosition=7.
Questions:
The bill passed Congress overwhelmingly… Mr. Reagan, who has introduced an alternative civil rights package, acknowledges that the Supreme Court ruling went too far in limiting Federal antidiscrimination laws, but he contends that the Congressional remedy goes too far in the other direction. The Supreme Court ruled that antidiscrimination provisions on the use of Federal aid apply only to specific programs, not to an entire institution. It held that discrimination in a Grove City College sports program did not justify the denial of Federal aid outside that program.
Although the four-year liberal arts institution did not receive any direct Federal funds, it did enroll students who received federally-backed stipends or grants. The college became entangled in a legal battle with the Government when it separated boys and girls in the school's intramural sports program and refused to file a statement of compliance with Title IX.. The High Court stipulated that it was only the school's financial aid program that was covered by discrimination statutes.
That logic, critics feared, would leave huge loopholes for institutions, and not only schools, to discriminate on the basis of sex, age, race or physical handicaps. The debate has only intensified since 1984…
The conservative Christian groups offer two main objections. For one, they say provisions of the law that bar discrimination against the handicapped are unclear, and some evangelicals assert that the definition could be interpreted to include homosexuals and other groups without physical or mental disabilities. They are also worried about exemptions for religious schools… A widely distributed lobbying letter mailed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell states: “Because of the pressure brought on by the homosexual movement in this country, Congress has caved in to this pressure and passed a law that, combined with present court cases, would qualify drug addicts, alcoholics, active homosexuals, transvestites, among others, for Federal protection as handicapped.”
Johnson, Julie. “Washington Talk: Congress; Foes of Civil Rights Bill Mount 11th-Hour Drive.” The New York Times. The New York Times, March 22, 1988. https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/22/us/washington-talk-congress-foes-of-civil-rights-bill-mount-11th-hour-drive.html?searchResultPosition=7.
Questions:
- Based on this document, how did this event change the way Title IX was handled?
Linda Greenhouse: Court Opens A Path For Students in Sex-Bias cases
The Supreme Court ruled today that the Federal law barring sex discrimination in schools and colleges permits students to sue for damages for sexual harassment and other forms of sex discrimination. In a surprisingly broad 9-to-0 decision, the Court rejected the Bush Administration's argument that the law, Title IX of a 1972 education law, did not authorize monetary damages as a remedy for illegal discrimination.
In several recent cases, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of Federal civil rights laws, so lawyers for women's groups expressed relief about today's decision and praised it. They predicted that it would convert the little-used 20-year-old law into a powerful new weapon against sex discrimination on campus. "Having a real remedy will give an enormous push for equity," Marcia Greenberger, director of the National Women's Law Center, said in an interview. She saw the decision as a victory "that opens up Title IX dramatically" and will promote more fairness in schools and colleges.
Until now, there have been few lawsuits under Title IX. Although it is impossible to predict whether today's ruling will increase the number significantly, there is no doubt that it offers a specific new remedy to students -- men as well as women -- who feel they have been the victims of sex bias. But it was not immediately clear whether the ruling can be applied retroactively.
The new civil rights law that was passed in the last session of Congress made damages for sex discrimination available for the first time. But that law applies only in the context of employment discrimination and so does not apply to students.
The decision today overturned a ruling by a Federal appeals court in Atlanta. That court had dismissed a Title IX suit against a Georgia school district brought by a high school student who charged that school officials had failed to stop a teacher from forcing unwanted sexual attention on her for more than a year.
Greenhouse, Linda. “Court Opens Path for Student Suits in Sex-Bias Cases.” The New York Times. The New York Times, February 27, 1992. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/27/us/court-opens-path-for-student-suits-in-sex-bias-cases.html#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled%20today,other%20forms%20of%20sex%20discrimination.
Questions:
In several recent cases, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of Federal civil rights laws, so lawyers for women's groups expressed relief about today's decision and praised it. They predicted that it would convert the little-used 20-year-old law into a powerful new weapon against sex discrimination on campus. "Having a real remedy will give an enormous push for equity," Marcia Greenberger, director of the National Women's Law Center, said in an interview. She saw the decision as a victory "that opens up Title IX dramatically" and will promote more fairness in schools and colleges.
Until now, there have been few lawsuits under Title IX. Although it is impossible to predict whether today's ruling will increase the number significantly, there is no doubt that it offers a specific new remedy to students -- men as well as women -- who feel they have been the victims of sex bias. But it was not immediately clear whether the ruling can be applied retroactively.
The new civil rights law that was passed in the last session of Congress made damages for sex discrimination available for the first time. But that law applies only in the context of employment discrimination and so does not apply to students.
The decision today overturned a ruling by a Federal appeals court in Atlanta. That court had dismissed a Title IX suit against a Georgia school district brought by a high school student who charged that school officials had failed to stop a teacher from forcing unwanted sexual attention on her for more than a year.
Greenhouse, Linda. “Court Opens Path for Student Suits in Sex-Bias Cases.” The New York Times. The New York Times, February 27, 1992. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/27/us/court-opens-path-for-student-suits-in-sex-bias-cases.html#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20ruled%20today,other%20forms%20of%20sex%20discrimination.
Questions:
- Based on this document, how did this event change the way Title IX was handled?
Alan Blinder and Erik Eckholm: Federal Judge Blocks Transgender Bathroom Access
A federal judge has blocked the Obama administration from enforcing new guidelines that were intended to expand restroom access for transgender students across the country.
Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas said in a 38-page ruling, which he said should apply nationwide, that the government had not complied with federal law when it issued “directives which contradict the existing legislative and regulatory text.”
The judge’s order on Sunday, in a case brought by officials from more than a dozen states, was a victory for social conservatives in the continuing legal battles over the restroom guidelines, which the federal government issued this year. The culture war over the rights of transgender people, and especially their right to use public bathrooms consistent with their gender identities, has emerged as an emotional cause among social conservatives.
The Obama administration’s assertion that the rights of transgender people in public schools and workplaces are protected under existing laws against sex discrimination has been condemned by social conservatives, who said the administration was illegally intruding into local affairs and promoting a policy that would jeopardize the privacy and safety of schoolchildren.
Eckholm, Erik, and Alan Blinder. “Federal Transgender Bathroom Access Guidelines Blocked by Judge.” The New York Times. The New York Times, August 22, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/transgender-bathroom-access-guidelines-blocked-by-judge.html.
Questions:
Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas said in a 38-page ruling, which he said should apply nationwide, that the government had not complied with federal law when it issued “directives which contradict the existing legislative and regulatory text.”
The judge’s order on Sunday, in a case brought by officials from more than a dozen states, was a victory for social conservatives in the continuing legal battles over the restroom guidelines, which the federal government issued this year. The culture war over the rights of transgender people, and especially their right to use public bathrooms consistent with their gender identities, has emerged as an emotional cause among social conservatives.
The Obama administration’s assertion that the rights of transgender people in public schools and workplaces are protected under existing laws against sex discrimination has been condemned by social conservatives, who said the administration was illegally intruding into local affairs and promoting a policy that would jeopardize the privacy and safety of schoolchildren.
Eckholm, Erik, and Alan Blinder. “Federal Transgender Bathroom Access Guidelines Blocked by Judge.” The New York Times. The New York Times, August 22, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/transgender-bathroom-access-guidelines-blocked-by-judge.html.
Questions:
- Based on this document, how did this event change the way Title IX was handled?
Bianca Quilantan: Devos Reveals Rules That Boost Rights For Students Accused Of Sexual-Misconduct
Schools and colleges face a major overhaul in how they handle sexual misconduct allegations after Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Wednesday rebuffed calls to delay the sweeping regulation until the conclusion of the national coronavirus emergency. The Title IX rule will offer new rights to accused assailants, and require colleges to respond to formal complaints with courtroom-like hearings. The hearings, which will allow representatives for alleged offenders and victims to call witnesses and challenge their credibility, can occur live or virtually. Students and staff would also have a right to appeal a school’s decisions.
President Donald Trump, conservatives and some civil liberties groups praised the changes as a boon to due process. But the new rule prompted hostile rebukes from Democrats, prominent higher education leaders and advocacy groups who promised a fight, including in the courts.
To investigate and make decisions on complaints, schools will have to use trained personnel to evaluate evidence, though they could offer “informal resolution” options to involved individuals. Schools will also have their choice of using two standards of evidence to make decisions: a “clear and convincing” standard or a less-restrictive standard that relies on the “preponderance of evidence.”
DeVos said that the rule came after years of research and input, and will ensure a process for deciding claims that is fair to all students. “We can and must continue to fight sexual misconduct in our nation’s schools, and this rule makes certain that fight continues,” DeVos said.
The Obama administration had laid out guidance pushing schools to resolve an epidemic of complaints of sexual assault and harassment. But DeVos scrapped the Obama-era policies, saying they were unfair to everyone involved, and she now wants to balance the scales of justice with clear, formal rules.
The White House described the policy change as a way to"restore fairness and due process to our campuses,” arguing that colleges and universities “have often stacked the deck against the accused, failing to offer protections such as a presumption of innocence or adequate ability to rebut allegations.” “With today’s action and every action to come, the Trump administration will fight for America’s students,” Trump said in a statement. The regulations are effective Aug. 14, 2020.
Quilantan , Bianca. “Devos Unveils Rule That Boosts Rights for Students Accused of Sexual Misconduct.” POLITICO, May 6, 2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/betsy-devos-sexual-misconduct-rule-schools-240131.
Questions:
President Donald Trump, conservatives and some civil liberties groups praised the changes as a boon to due process. But the new rule prompted hostile rebukes from Democrats, prominent higher education leaders and advocacy groups who promised a fight, including in the courts.
To investigate and make decisions on complaints, schools will have to use trained personnel to evaluate evidence, though they could offer “informal resolution” options to involved individuals. Schools will also have their choice of using two standards of evidence to make decisions: a “clear and convincing” standard or a less-restrictive standard that relies on the “preponderance of evidence.”
DeVos said that the rule came after years of research and input, and will ensure a process for deciding claims that is fair to all students. “We can and must continue to fight sexual misconduct in our nation’s schools, and this rule makes certain that fight continues,” DeVos said.
The Obama administration had laid out guidance pushing schools to resolve an epidemic of complaints of sexual assault and harassment. But DeVos scrapped the Obama-era policies, saying they were unfair to everyone involved, and she now wants to balance the scales of justice with clear, formal rules.
The White House described the policy change as a way to"restore fairness and due process to our campuses,” arguing that colleges and universities “have often stacked the deck against the accused, failing to offer protections such as a presumption of innocence or adequate ability to rebut allegations.” “With today’s action and every action to come, the Trump administration will fight for America’s students,” Trump said in a statement. The regulations are effective Aug. 14, 2020.
Quilantan , Bianca. “Devos Unveils Rule That Boosts Rights for Students Accused of Sexual Misconduct.” POLITICO, May 6, 2020. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/betsy-devos-sexual-misconduct-rule-schools-240131.
Questions:
- Based on this document, how did this event change the way Title IX was handled?
Dustin Jones: Biden's Title IX Reforms Would Roll Back Trump-Era Rules, Expand Victim Protections
President Biden and the Department of Education announced proposed amendments to the legislation that would reinstate victim protections that were rolled back by President Donald Trump. The Department of Education said the amendments will include clarifying text to include protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity to strengthen the rights of LGBTQI+ students. "They would make clear that preventing someone from participating in school programs and activities consistent with their gender identity would cause harm in violation of Title IX, except in some limited areas set out in the statute or regulations," the department said.
The department also said it plans to issue a separate notice of proposed rulemaking to address whether and how the agency should amend the Title IX regulations to address students' eligibility to participate on a particular male or female athletics team. Amendments will also include language to prevent discrimination base on sex stereotypes and pregnancy, the department said. It would require schools to provide reasonable modifications for pregnant students and reasonable break time for pregnant employees as well as lactation spaces.
And parents, guardians and a student's authorized legal representative would have greater protections to act on a student's behalf. That would allow these parties to seek assistance under Title IX and participate in grievance procedures, the department said…
Under the Trump-era regulations, some forms of sex-based harassment weren't considered to be Title IX violations. But the proposed changes, which will undergo a public comment period before being finalized, will include all "unwelcome sex-based conduct that creates a hostile environment by denying or limiting a person's ability to participate in or benefit from a school's education program or activity."
The Trump administration's version of Title IX, which remains in place until the amendments are approved, only requires educational institutions to investigate formal sexual harassment complaints. The Department of Education said it would keep as much of the current regulation as possible to ensure consistency, but Biden's changes would require schools to investigate all complaints.
Jones, Dustin. “Biden's Title IX Reforms Would Roll Back Trump-Era Rules, Expand Victim Protections.” NPR. NPR, June 23, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107045291/title-ix-9-biden-expand-victim-protections-discrimination.
Questions:
The department also said it plans to issue a separate notice of proposed rulemaking to address whether and how the agency should amend the Title IX regulations to address students' eligibility to participate on a particular male or female athletics team. Amendments will also include language to prevent discrimination base on sex stereotypes and pregnancy, the department said. It would require schools to provide reasonable modifications for pregnant students and reasonable break time for pregnant employees as well as lactation spaces.
And parents, guardians and a student's authorized legal representative would have greater protections to act on a student's behalf. That would allow these parties to seek assistance under Title IX and participate in grievance procedures, the department said…
Under the Trump-era regulations, some forms of sex-based harassment weren't considered to be Title IX violations. But the proposed changes, which will undergo a public comment period before being finalized, will include all "unwelcome sex-based conduct that creates a hostile environment by denying or limiting a person's ability to participate in or benefit from a school's education program or activity."
The Trump administration's version of Title IX, which remains in place until the amendments are approved, only requires educational institutions to investigate formal sexual harassment complaints. The Department of Education said it would keep as much of the current regulation as possible to ensure consistency, but Biden's changes would require schools to investigate all complaints.
Jones, Dustin. “Biden's Title IX Reforms Would Roll Back Trump-Era Rules, Expand Victim Protections.” NPR. NPR, June 23, 2022. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/23/1107045291/title-ix-9-biden-expand-victim-protections-discrimination.
Questions:
- Based on this document, how did this event change the way Title IX was handled?
Remy Tumin: Title IX Gave Women Greater Access to Education
On June 23, 1972, President Richard M. Nixon signed an omnibus education bill that would change the paths of millions of women and girls in the United States. At first glance, the sweep conveyed by the words themselves can be hard to recognize. Title IX was part of a long list of education amendments in the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, buried amid antibusing policies and outlines of federal financial aid funding. In just 37 words, the statute guaranteed a means to ensure equal access for women to education…
Lawmakers used the Civil Rights Act for framing but intentionally downplayed the policy’s significance to assure its passage through Congress. Fifty years later, Title IX continues to reverberate around the country, ushering in a new era of women’s sports and a framework for handling sexual misconduct complaints on campus.
“Part of the beauty of Title IX is its breadth and comprehensiveness. It’s a ban without creating an exhaustive list,” said Wendy Mink, whose mother, Rep. Patsy Mink, Democrat of Hawaii, was one of the lawmakers to spearhead the policy. The official name of Title IX was changed to the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act after Mink’s death in 2002. “It’s open to interpretation and application,” Wendy Mink said. “She wanted to make sure each of the interpretations would not only be applied but enforced.”
The most visible changes were seen in gymnasiums, fields and courts across the United States — young women were entitled to the same athletic opportunities as their male counterparts at schools. According to a study by the Women’s Sports Foundation, high school participation rose from 294,015 in the 1971-72 school year to 3.4 million in 2018-19 (participation by boys was 3.67 million in 1971-72 and 4.53 million in 2018-19). At the collegiate level, participation at N.C.A.A. schools rose from 29,977 athletes in women’s sports in 1971-72 to 215,486 in 2020-21. Men’s sports had 275,769 athletes in 2020-21.
What’s missing from Title IX?
While Title IX’s intentions to be broad and encompassing have ensured rights for many women and girls, white women have benefited the most. Title IX does not directly address race, gender identity, disabilities or other characteristics besides sex. The Women’s Sports Foundation found that Asian, Black, Indigenous, Hispanic and other girls and women of color participate in sport at lower levels than white women do. The same was true for women with disabilities compared with men who had disabilities. Women of color are also underrepresented in athletic leadership.
A new interpretation of Title IX includes transgender students and new sexual assault guidelines. Title IX falls under the executive branch and therefore is subject to interpretation by each administration. The Biden administration proposed new rules on Thursday that would extend Title IX protections to transgender students by expanding the definition of “sex” to include “stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” The new language, which is still subject to a commentary period, also rolled back a Trump administration policy that narrowed the scope of campus sexual misconduct investigations. The Biden administration maintained that the current rules “weakened protections for survivors of sexual assault and diminished the promise of an education free from discrimination.”
As proposed, the guidance would officially make protecting transgender students a federal legal requirement of Title IX. However, the Education Department said its guidelines for sports would be crafted separately. Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, said Thursday that its goal was to create rules for how schools can determine eligibility for sports teams “while upholding Title IX’s nondiscrimination guarantee.” But he declined to give details about how those rules would be determined.
The proposed changes come amid highly contentious debate throughout the sports world about whether transgender women should be allowed to compete in women’s divisions. Some major sports federations have heavily restricted transgender women from competing in women’s divisions. FINA, the world governing body for swimming, voted to prohibit transgender women from competing unless they began medical treatments to suppress production of testosterone before going through one of the early stages of puberty, or by age 12, whichever occurred later. It established one of the strictest rules against transgender participation in international sports.
Nearly 20 states have enacted laws or issued statewide rules that bar or limit transgender sports participation. Title IX, for now, is unlikely to be used specifically by lawmakers either to push for more inclusion or exclusion of transgender women in women’s divisions. The law, an education policy at its core, enjoys broad support by the public and both Republican and Democrat lawmakers.
Tumin, Remy. “Title IX Gave Women Greater Access to Education. Here’s What It Says and Does. The law has grown participation for women and girls in sports and has had other significant ramifications, too.” New York Times. June 22, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/sports/what-is-title-ix.html.
Questions:
Lawmakers used the Civil Rights Act for framing but intentionally downplayed the policy’s significance to assure its passage through Congress. Fifty years later, Title IX continues to reverberate around the country, ushering in a new era of women’s sports and a framework for handling sexual misconduct complaints on campus.
“Part of the beauty of Title IX is its breadth and comprehensiveness. It’s a ban without creating an exhaustive list,” said Wendy Mink, whose mother, Rep. Patsy Mink, Democrat of Hawaii, was one of the lawmakers to spearhead the policy. The official name of Title IX was changed to the Patsy T. Mink Equal Opportunity in Education Act after Mink’s death in 2002. “It’s open to interpretation and application,” Wendy Mink said. “She wanted to make sure each of the interpretations would not only be applied but enforced.”
The most visible changes were seen in gymnasiums, fields and courts across the United States — young women were entitled to the same athletic opportunities as their male counterparts at schools. According to a study by the Women’s Sports Foundation, high school participation rose from 294,015 in the 1971-72 school year to 3.4 million in 2018-19 (participation by boys was 3.67 million in 1971-72 and 4.53 million in 2018-19). At the collegiate level, participation at N.C.A.A. schools rose from 29,977 athletes in women’s sports in 1971-72 to 215,486 in 2020-21. Men’s sports had 275,769 athletes in 2020-21.
What’s missing from Title IX?
While Title IX’s intentions to be broad and encompassing have ensured rights for many women and girls, white women have benefited the most. Title IX does not directly address race, gender identity, disabilities or other characteristics besides sex. The Women’s Sports Foundation found that Asian, Black, Indigenous, Hispanic and other girls and women of color participate in sport at lower levels than white women do. The same was true for women with disabilities compared with men who had disabilities. Women of color are also underrepresented in athletic leadership.
A new interpretation of Title IX includes transgender students and new sexual assault guidelines. Title IX falls under the executive branch and therefore is subject to interpretation by each administration. The Biden administration proposed new rules on Thursday that would extend Title IX protections to transgender students by expanding the definition of “sex” to include “stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” The new language, which is still subject to a commentary period, also rolled back a Trump administration policy that narrowed the scope of campus sexual misconduct investigations. The Biden administration maintained that the current rules “weakened protections for survivors of sexual assault and diminished the promise of an education free from discrimination.”
As proposed, the guidance would officially make protecting transgender students a federal legal requirement of Title IX. However, the Education Department said its guidelines for sports would be crafted separately. Miguel A. Cardona, the education secretary, said Thursday that its goal was to create rules for how schools can determine eligibility for sports teams “while upholding Title IX’s nondiscrimination guarantee.” But he declined to give details about how those rules would be determined.
The proposed changes come amid highly contentious debate throughout the sports world about whether transgender women should be allowed to compete in women’s divisions. Some major sports federations have heavily restricted transgender women from competing in women’s divisions. FINA, the world governing body for swimming, voted to prohibit transgender women from competing unless they began medical treatments to suppress production of testosterone before going through one of the early stages of puberty, or by age 12, whichever occurred later. It established one of the strictest rules against transgender participation in international sports.
Nearly 20 states have enacted laws or issued statewide rules that bar or limit transgender sports participation. Title IX, for now, is unlikely to be used specifically by lawmakers either to push for more inclusion or exclusion of transgender women in women’s divisions. The law, an education policy at its core, enjoys broad support by the public and both Republican and Democrat lawmakers.
Tumin, Remy. “Title IX Gave Women Greater Access to Education. Here’s What It Says and Does. The law has grown participation for women and girls in sports and has had other significant ramifications, too.” New York Times. June 22, 2022. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/sports/what-is-title-ix.html.
Questions:
- Based on the primary and secondary material, how has TITLE IX changed overtime?
DOMA
Defense of Marriage Act
Andrea Bernstein: Hilary Clinton’s Gay Marriage Evolution
In the midst of her senate campaign in 2000, Hilary Clinton’s position on DOMA, a law her husband signed into effect, came under fire. In this document, a reporter who interviewed her then and over the course of her career as a Senator, Secretary of State, and presidential candidate described her early position.
I found myself covering Hillary Clinton’s run for U.S. Senate in New York, the birthplace of the gay rights movement. And her views on DOMA were a lingering mystery.
Hillary… held her first extended question-and-answer session with reporters in a cold January day. The first question was about a custody dispute involving a Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez. The second was mine: If she were a senator, would she vote for DOMA?
"The Defense of Marriage Act has already been before the Senate," Clinton pushed back. "What I’m concerned about is what’s going to happen at the state level." She went on to express her support for partnership benefits, not marriage. I pressed. Did you agree with Mr. Clinton on DOMA or not?
"He was against it, yeah, I agree with that. But it's moot. It’s already been through the Senate." Then The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and I shot back. "But he signed it. He signed it."
"He signed it," Clinton agreed. "But he signed it because it was something the Congress said, 'Take it or leave it. You’re going to have to do it.' They would have passed it over his veto."
Listening back to that tape — recorded on a long-gone cassette recorder — it's hard to believe how many questions Clinton took on the issue, until she eventually cried uncle. "I would have voted for it at that time but I think to go back and talk about DOMA now especially...is something that is divisive."
So then, why was she against gay marriage? Here's the part of her answer that later became famous. "Because I believe marriage means something different. Marriage is about a historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been between a man and a woman."
To be fair, at the time, not one major elected official in either party supported gay marriage, including Bernie Sanders.
Bernstein, Andrea. “The Tale of the Tape: Hillary Clinton's Gay Marriage Evolution.” WNYC News. November 3, 2015. https://www.wnyc.org/story/tale-tape-hillary-clintons-gay-evolution/.
I found myself covering Hillary Clinton’s run for U.S. Senate in New York, the birthplace of the gay rights movement. And her views on DOMA were a lingering mystery.
Hillary… held her first extended question-and-answer session with reporters in a cold January day. The first question was about a custody dispute involving a Cuban boy, Elian Gonzalez. The second was mine: If she were a senator, would she vote for DOMA?
"The Defense of Marriage Act has already been before the Senate," Clinton pushed back. "What I’m concerned about is what’s going to happen at the state level." She went on to express her support for partnership benefits, not marriage. I pressed. Did you agree with Mr. Clinton on DOMA or not?
"He was against it, yeah, I agree with that. But it's moot. It’s already been through the Senate." Then The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and I shot back. "But he signed it. He signed it."
"He signed it," Clinton agreed. "But he signed it because it was something the Congress said, 'Take it or leave it. You’re going to have to do it.' They would have passed it over his veto."
Listening back to that tape — recorded on a long-gone cassette recorder — it's hard to believe how many questions Clinton took on the issue, until she eventually cried uncle. "I would have voted for it at that time but I think to go back and talk about DOMA now especially...is something that is divisive."
So then, why was she against gay marriage? Here's the part of her answer that later became famous. "Because I believe marriage means something different. Marriage is about a historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been between a man and a woman."
To be fair, at the time, not one major elected official in either party supported gay marriage, including Bernie Sanders.
Bernstein, Andrea. “The Tale of the Tape: Hillary Clinton's Gay Marriage Evolution.” WNYC News. November 3, 2015. https://www.wnyc.org/story/tale-tape-hillary-clintons-gay-evolution/.
Anthony Kennedy: Excerpt From The Majority Opinion in US vs Windsor
In 2013, in a Supreme Court case, United States v. Windsor, the Court held that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied federal recognition of same-sex marriages, was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways.
The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Kennedy , Anthony. “United States vs Windsor .” Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf.
Question: What is Kennedy’s main argument?
DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives. Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways.
The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.
Kennedy , Anthony. “United States vs Windsor .” Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf.
Question: What is Kennedy’s main argument?
Antonin Scalia: Dissenting Opinion of Justice Scalia US vs Windsor
The Court is eager—hungry—to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case. Standing in the way is an obstacle, a technicality of little interest to anyone but the people of We the People, who created it as a barrier against judges’ intrusion into their lives. They gave judges, in Article III, only the “Judicial Power,” a power to decide not abstract questions but real, concrete “Cases” and “Controversies”… What, then, are we doing here? The answer lies at the heart of the jurisdictional portion of today’s opinion, where a single sentence lays bare the majority’s vision of our role. The Court says that we have the power to decide this case because if we did not, then our “primary role in determining the constitutionality of a law” … would “become only secondary to the President’s.” But wait, the reader wonders—Windsor won below, and so cured her injury, and the President was glad to see it. True, says the majority, but the judicial review must march on regardless, lest we “undermine the clear dictate of the separation-of-powers principle that when an Act of Congress is alleged to conflict with the Constitution, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction. Since both parties agreed with the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there.
Scalia , Antonin. “United States vs Windsor .” Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf.
Question:
Neither party sought to undo the judgment for Windsor, and so that court should have dismissed the appeal (just as we should dismiss) for lack of jurisdiction. Since both parties agreed with the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the suit should have ended there.
Scalia , Antonin. “United States vs Windsor .” Supreme Court of the United States, June 26, 2013. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf.
Question:
- What is Scalia’s main argument?
Edith Windsor: LGBTQ Advocate Who Fought The Defense Of Marriage Act, Dies At 88
Emmanuelle Levine: On Edith Windsor, SCOTUS, and the Joys of Becoming a Person
It was that fairly unromantic, upper-middle class issue that led Edie to sue. In 2013, she won, and DOMA was overturned. In 2015, “Obergefell v. Hodges” cracked open the marriage piñata for the 37 states plus the territories that were left. That was the end of the story as I heard it in high school Gay-Straight Alliance meetings. Edie helped us win marriage, end of discussion. But of course, marriage wasn’t and isn’t the Final Boss of queer civil rights.
Edie wasn’t a perfect icon — she wasn’t especially intersectional in her approach to the movement. You’ll notice I said “gay rights” and not “LGBT rights” or even “queer justice.” A lot of people will argue that the marriage fight wasn’t the best use of our resources as a queer community, that we should have focused on employment and housing discrimination, hate crimes against transgender people of color, Title IX protections, mass incarceration and homelessness. The particular privilege of marriage that Edie sued for benefited a lot of middle-and upper-class people — estate tax exemptions are regressive; that is, they benefit rich people more than everyone else…
It is a great privilege to have marked my childhood by civil rights battles won. A privilege of being born in the right place at the right time, sure, but mostly a privilege in that a lot of people poured a lot of resources into fighting for rights that would affect me… I’m grateful to Edie for Doing the Work on my behalf. She gave me the great joy and privilege of feeling like a person. Her death is a blow, but it also opens a vacancy for me — there’s an open spot to fill in the phalanx of those who defend civil rights. In gratitude to Edie, and in the hope that more of us get to experience the exhilaration of being seen as people, I recommit to trying to fill in the battle line.
Levine , Emmanuelle. “On Edith Windsor, Scotus, and the Joys of Becoming a Person .” Yale Daily News, September 29, 2017. https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/09/29/142220/.
Questions:
Edie wasn’t a perfect icon — she wasn’t especially intersectional in her approach to the movement. You’ll notice I said “gay rights” and not “LGBT rights” or even “queer justice.” A lot of people will argue that the marriage fight wasn’t the best use of our resources as a queer community, that we should have focused on employment and housing discrimination, hate crimes against transgender people of color, Title IX protections, mass incarceration and homelessness. The particular privilege of marriage that Edie sued for benefited a lot of middle-and upper-class people — estate tax exemptions are regressive; that is, they benefit rich people more than everyone else…
It is a great privilege to have marked my childhood by civil rights battles won. A privilege of being born in the right place at the right time, sure, but mostly a privilege in that a lot of people poured a lot of resources into fighting for rights that would affect me… I’m grateful to Edie for Doing the Work on my behalf. She gave me the great joy and privilege of feeling like a person. Her death is a blow, but it also opens a vacancy for me — there’s an open spot to fill in the phalanx of those who defend civil rights. In gratitude to Edie, and in the hope that more of us get to experience the exhilaration of being seen as people, I recommit to trying to fill in the battle line.
Levine , Emmanuelle. “On Edith Windsor, Scotus, and the Joys of Becoming a Person .” Yale Daily News, September 29, 2017. https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2017/09/29/142220/.
Questions:
- Why did Levine NOT consider Windsor a LGBTQ+ advocate and instead described her as a “gay rights” advocate?
- What other concerns did she have about Windsor’s limited advocacy?
- How long did Windsor live a rather closeted life?
- What impact did Windsor have on Levine’s life?
Remedial Herstory Editors. "26. MODERN WOMEN." The Remedial Herstory Project. July 12, 2023. www.remedialherstory.com.
Primary AUTHOR: |
Kelsie Brook Eckert
|
Primary ReviewerS: |
Dr. Barbara Tischler
|
Consulting TeamKelsie Brook Eckert, Project Director
Coordinator of Social Studies Ed at Plymouth State University Dr. Barbara Tischler Professor of History Hunter College and Columbia University Dr. Alicia Gutierrez-Romine Associate Professor of History California State University, San Bernardino Jacqui Nelson, Consultant Teaching Lecturer of Military History at Plymouth State University Rachel Perez Independent Historian |
EditorsAlice Stanley, Rachel Perez, Lauren Connolly
Reviewers18th Century
Dr. Margaret Huettl Hannah Dutton Dr. John Krueckeberg Matthew Cerjak 19th Century Dr. Rebecca Noel Michelle Stonis, MA Annabelle L. Blevins Pifer, MA Dr. Cony Marquez Dr. Deanna Beachley 20th Century Dr. Tanya Roth Dr. Jessica Frazier Mary Bezbatchenko, MA Dr. Alicia Gutierrez-Romine Davida Sawissa James |
"No matter how wise a mother's advice is, we listen to our peers." At least that's writer Naomi Wolf's take on the differences between her generation of feminists―the third wave―and the feminists who came before her and developed in the late '60s and '70s―the second wave. In Not My Mother's Sister, Astrid Henry agrees with Wolf that this has been the case with American feminism, but says there are problems inherent in drawing generational lines.
Second Wave feminism collapsed in the early 1980s when a universal definition of women was abandoned. At the same time, as a reaction to the narcissism of white middle class feminism, "intersectionality" led to many different feminisms according to race, sexual preference and class. These ongoing segregations make it impossible for women to unite politically and they have not ended exclusion and discrimination among women, especially in the academy. In Inclusive Feminism, Naomi Zack provides a universal, relational definition of women, critically engages both Anglo and French feminists and shows how women can become a united historical force, with the political goal of ruling in place of men.
|
The sexual politics of television culture is the territory covered by this ground-breaking book - the first to demonstrate the ways in which third wave feminist television studies approaches and illuminates mainstream TV. The book offers an exuberant and accessible discussion of what television has to offer today's feminist fan. It also sets a new tone for future debate, turning away from a sober, near-pessimistic trend in much feminist media studies to reconnect with the roots of third wave feminism in riot grrrl culture, sex-radical feminism, and black feminism, tracing too the narratives provided by queer theory in which pleasure has a less contested place.
Why should feminists care about Christianity? Why should Christians care about feminism? In Feminism and Christianity Riswold presents a collection of concise answers to basic questions like these in order to generate discussion about how the two can challenge each other and can even work together in the twenty-first century. Situated firmly in the third wave of feminist activism and scholarship as well as in contemporary Christian theology, Riswold addresses issues such as race, class, gender, and sexuality with an affirmation of tradition alongside a push for change.
|
New Blood offers a fresh interdisciplinary look at feminism-in-flux. For over three decades, menstrual activists have questioned the safety and necessity of feminine care products while contesting menstruation as a deeply entrenched taboo. Chris Bobel shows how a little-known yet enduring force in the feminist health, environmental, and consumer rights movements lays bare tensions between second- and third-wave feminisms and reveals a complicated story of continuity and change within the women's movement.
This revised and expanded edition, new in paperback, provides a definitive collection on the current period in feminism known by many as the 'third wave'. Three sections - genealogies and generations, locales and locations, politics and popular culture - interrogate the wave metaphor and, through questioning the generational account of feminism, indicate possible future trajectories for the feminist movement.
|
Feminisms in Leisure Studies acknowledges and advances the contribution of feminist theories to leisure knowledge and research. Building upon the strong history of feminist leisure scholarship, the book reviews key feminist theories and offers an overview of a fourth wave of feminism and its relevance to leisure.
Kira Cochrane’s 'All the Rebel Women' is an irrepressible exploration of today’s feminist landscape, asking how far we have come over the past century – and how far there still is to go. Whether engaging with leading feminists, describing the fight against rape culture or bringing immediate, powerful life to vital theories such as intersectionality, 'All the Rebel Women' binds everything together into one unstoppable idea. This is modern feminism. This is the fourth wave.
|
This book addresses the current resurgence of interest in feminism–notably within popular culture and media–that has led some to announce the arrival of the fourth wave. Research explores where fourth-wave feminism sits in relation to those that preceded it, and in particular, how fourth-wave feminism intersects with differing understandings of postfeminism(s).
Hip Hop Womanist writer and theologian EbonyJanice’s book of essays center a fourth wave of Womanism, dreaming, the pursuit of softness, ancestral reverence, and radical wholeness as tools of liberation. All The Black Girls Are Activists is a love letter to Black girls and Black women, asking and attempting to offer some answers to “Who would black women get to be if we did not have to create from a place of resistance?” by naming Black women’s wellness, wholeness, and survival as the radical revolution we have been waiting for.
|
This book discusses the recent re-emergence of interest in feminism in popular culture and social media which has prompted many to celebrate the events as a new wave of feminism, the fourth wave. The book takes up the debate of postfeminism and /or fourth wave and studies how the new wave intersects with the previous feminist goals. It closely studies the hashtag campaigns to trace how a generation of women are drawn into (sl)activism (slacktivism) thereby surging the resurgence.
Networked Feminism tells the story of how activists have used media to reconfigure what feminist politics and organizing look like in the United States. Drawing on years spent participating in grassroots communities and observing viral campaigns, Rosemary Clark-Parsons argues that feminists engage in a do-it-ourselves feminism characterized by the use of everyday media technologies. Faced with an electoral system and a history of collective organizing that have failed to address complex systems of oppression, do-it-ourselves feminists do not rely on political organizations, institutions, or authorities. Instead, they use digital networks to build movements that reflect their values and meet the challenges of the current moment, all the while juggling the advantages and limitations of their media tools.
|
How to teach with Films:
Remember, teachers want the student to be the historian. What do historians do when they watch films?
- Before they watch, ask students to research the director and producers. These are the source of the information. How will their background and experience likely bias this film?
- Also, ask students to consider the context the film was created in. The film may be about history, but it was made recently. What was going on the year the film was made that could bias the film? In particular, how do you think the gains of feminism will impact the portrayal of the female characters?
- As they watch, ask students to research the historical accuracy of the film. What do online sources say about what the film gets right or wrong?
- Afterward, ask students to describe how the female characters were portrayed and what lessons they got from the film.
- Then, ask students to evaluate this film as a learning tool. Was it helpful to better understand this topic? Did the historical inaccuracies make it unhelpful? Make it clear any informed opinion is valid.
I, Tonya shows competitive ice skater Tonya Harding rise among the ranks at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships, but her future in the sport is thrown into doubt when her ex-husband intervenes.
IMDB. |
|
Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
A chronicle of the decade-long hunt for al-Qaeda terrorist leader Osama bin Laden after the September 2001 attacks, and his death at the hands of the Navy S.E.A.L.s Team 6 in May 2011. IMDB |
|
She said is the story of the two female reporters at the New York Times who broke the story about Harvey Weinstein's sexual violence and exploitation of young women and the system of Hollywood executives who protected him.
IMDB |
|
Bibliography
Cardin, Kelly M. and Evan B. Citron. “#MeToo and the Workplace: Five Years and a Pandemic Later.” OGLETREE. May 24, 2022. https://ogletree.com/insights/metoo-and-the-workplace-five-years-and-a-pandemic-later/#:~:text=A%20Decrease%20in%20Sexual%20Harassment%20Claims&text=The%20trend%20changed%20in%202020,the%202018%20and%202019%20numbers..
Gregg, Gary L. "George W. Bush: Impact and Legacy." Miller Center of Public Affairs. Accessed January 19, 2025. https://millercenter.org/president/gwbush/impact-and-legacy.
Greene, Peter. “New Hampshire and Moms for Liberty Put Bounty on Teachers’ Heads.” Forbes, November 12, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2021/11/12/new-hampshire-and-moms-for-liberty-put-bounty-on-teachers-heads/.
Guttmacher Institute. "Clear and Growing Evidence: Dobbs Is Harming Reproductive Health and Freedom." *Guttmacher Institute*, May 2024. https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/05/clear-and-growing-evidence-dobbs-harming-reproductive-health-and-freedom.
Frommer, F.. "Caitlin Clark." Encyclopedia Britannica, January 22, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Caitlin-Clark.
History.com Editors. “Women’s March.” HISTORY. January 19, 2021. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/womens-march.
Katersky, Aaron. “Judge sets 2024 date for Trump's criminal trial in Stormy Daniels case: The former president's criminal trial will begin on March 25, 2024.” ABC News. May 23, 2023. https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-sets-2024-date-trumps-criminal-trial-stormy/story?id=99546544.
Khardori, Ankush. “A Stunning Result in Trump’s Sexual Assault Trial: A new first — and a new low — for the former president.” Politico. May 9, 2023. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/09/verdict-trump-sexual-assault-trial-00096039.
Klich, Tanya. "The First Women of Wealth and the Policies That Paved Their Way." Forbes, March 8, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaklich/2017/03/08/the-first-women-of-wealth-and-the-policies-that-paved-their-way/.
Kunzelman, Michael. "Man Who Propped Feet on Nancy Pelosi’s Desk on Jan. 6 Found Guilty." PBS NewsHour, January 23, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/man-who-propped-feet-on-nancy-pelosis-desk-on-jan-6-found-guilty.
Lacdan, Joe. "First enlisted female to graduate from Ranger School reflects on experience." Army News. August 28, 2019. https://www.army.mil/article/226137/first_enlisted_female_to_graduate_from_ranger_school_reflects_on_experience.
Mascaro, Lisa. "Liz Cheney Faces Trump’s Wrath as She Pushes for Truth Behind Capitol Riot." Associated Press, June 8, 2022. https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-capitol-siege-donald-trump-wyoming-presidential-4fd397e5ba68de1924f52c79507eff2f.
Mayer, Jane. Dark Money, The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. New York: Anchor Books, 2017.
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. "About." Moms Demand Action. Accessed January 23, 2025. https://momsdemandaction.org/about/.
National Archives. “Melania Trump.” Trump White House. N.D. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/people/melania-trump/.
Naylor, Brian. "Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part Of Impeachment Trial." NPR, February 10, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial.
NBC Chicago. "Team USA Women Make History at Paris Olympics." NBC Chicago, accessed January 23, 2025. https://www.nbcchicago.com/paris-2024-summer-olympics/team-usa-women-history-paris-olympics/3521270/.
Neuman, Scott. "First Female Soldiers Graduate from Army Ranger School." NPR. August 21, 2015. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/21/433482186/first-female-soldiers-graduate-from-army-ranger-school.
PEW Research Center. “An Examination of the 2016 Electorate Based on Validated Voters.” PEW Research Center. August 9, 2018. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/.
Rannard, Georgina. "Kavanaugh Hearing: A Moment of Reckoning for American Women." BBC News, September 27, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45673858.
The White House. "Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Administration Advanced Gender Equity and Equality at Home and Abroad." The White House, January 14, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/14/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-advanced-gender-equity-and-equality-at-home-and-abroad/.
University of Nebraska Athletics. "Record-Breaking Crowd Packs Memorial Stadium for Volleyball Match." Huskers.com, accessed January 23, 2025. https://huskers.com/news/2023/08/31/record-breaking-crowd-packs-memorial-stadium-for-volleyball-match.
US Global Leadership Coalition. “COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Women and Girls.” Last updated May 2022. https://www.usglc.org/coronavirus/women-and-girls/#:~:text=The%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic%20has,that%20%E2%80%9Cas%20the%20impact%20of.
Gregg, Gary L. "George W. Bush: Impact and Legacy." Miller Center of Public Affairs. Accessed January 19, 2025. https://millercenter.org/president/gwbush/impact-and-legacy.
Greene, Peter. “New Hampshire and Moms for Liberty Put Bounty on Teachers’ Heads.” Forbes, November 12, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2021/11/12/new-hampshire-and-moms-for-liberty-put-bounty-on-teachers-heads/.
Guttmacher Institute. "Clear and Growing Evidence: Dobbs Is Harming Reproductive Health and Freedom." *Guttmacher Institute*, May 2024. https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/05/clear-and-growing-evidence-dobbs-harming-reproductive-health-and-freedom.
Frommer, F.. "Caitlin Clark." Encyclopedia Britannica, January 22, 2025. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Caitlin-Clark.
History.com Editors. “Women’s March.” HISTORY. January 19, 2021. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/womens-march.
Katersky, Aaron. “Judge sets 2024 date for Trump's criminal trial in Stormy Daniels case: The former president's criminal trial will begin on March 25, 2024.” ABC News. May 23, 2023. https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-sets-2024-date-trumps-criminal-trial-stormy/story?id=99546544.
Khardori, Ankush. “A Stunning Result in Trump’s Sexual Assault Trial: A new first — and a new low — for the former president.” Politico. May 9, 2023. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/05/09/verdict-trump-sexual-assault-trial-00096039.
Klich, Tanya. "The First Women of Wealth and the Policies That Paved Their Way." Forbes, March 8, 2017. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaklich/2017/03/08/the-first-women-of-wealth-and-the-policies-that-paved-their-way/.
Kunzelman, Michael. "Man Who Propped Feet on Nancy Pelosi’s Desk on Jan. 6 Found Guilty." PBS NewsHour, January 23, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/man-who-propped-feet-on-nancy-pelosis-desk-on-jan-6-found-guilty.
Lacdan, Joe. "First enlisted female to graduate from Ranger School reflects on experience." Army News. August 28, 2019. https://www.army.mil/article/226137/first_enlisted_female_to_graduate_from_ranger_school_reflects_on_experience.
Mascaro, Lisa. "Liz Cheney Faces Trump’s Wrath as She Pushes for Truth Behind Capitol Riot." Associated Press, June 8, 2022. https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-capitol-siege-donald-trump-wyoming-presidential-4fd397e5ba68de1924f52c79507eff2f.
Mayer, Jane. Dark Money, The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. New York: Anchor Books, 2017.
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. "About." Moms Demand Action. Accessed January 23, 2025. https://momsdemandaction.org/about/.
National Archives. “Melania Trump.” Trump White House. N.D. https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/people/melania-trump/.
Naylor, Brian. "Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part Of Impeachment Trial." NPR, February 10, 2021. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial.
NBC Chicago. "Team USA Women Make History at Paris Olympics." NBC Chicago, accessed January 23, 2025. https://www.nbcchicago.com/paris-2024-summer-olympics/team-usa-women-history-paris-olympics/3521270/.
Neuman, Scott. "First Female Soldiers Graduate from Army Ranger School." NPR. August 21, 2015. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/21/433482186/first-female-soldiers-graduate-from-army-ranger-school.
PEW Research Center. “An Examination of the 2016 Electorate Based on Validated Voters.” PEW Research Center. August 9, 2018. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/.
Rannard, Georgina. "Kavanaugh Hearing: A Moment of Reckoning for American Women." BBC News, September 27, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45673858.
The White House. "Fact Sheet: The Biden-Harris Administration Advanced Gender Equity and Equality at Home and Abroad." The White House, January 14, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2025/01/14/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-administration-advanced-gender-equity-and-equality-at-home-and-abroad/.
University of Nebraska Athletics. "Record-Breaking Crowd Packs Memorial Stadium for Volleyball Match." Huskers.com, accessed January 23, 2025. https://huskers.com/news/2023/08/31/record-breaking-crowd-packs-memorial-stadium-for-volleyball-match.
US Global Leadership Coalition. “COVID-19’s Disproportionate Impact on Women and Girls.” Last updated May 2022. https://www.usglc.org/coronavirus/women-and-girls/#:~:text=The%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic%20has,that%20%E2%80%9Cas%20the%20impact%20of.