The author, Clarissa-Jan Lim (pictured above from her Twitter profile), has got it all figured out, y’all.
She cites recent stats from the Nation Conference of State Legislatures which show that currently, women account for around 25% of the seats in state legislatures, which is an all-time high. And she writes, “While nothing may seem impressive about this overwhelming imbalance, the slight increase in women serving in state legislatures lines up with the growing political engagement among women in America, spurred first by a tumultuous election campaign, then later by an election result that stunned the country.”
She notes that “Having more women in state legislatures is hugely important; local legislatures vote on issues like reproductive rights, childcare policies, and welfare programs, which particularly affect women of color.”
In other words, she doesn’t hide her progressive ideology. Which is fine, and in fact it makes the conclusion she draws (and then fails to draw) about this all the more delicious.
In reckoning with yet another white male president — one who has been subject to controversy — reports of women in America stepping up their political game may be one of the few silver linings. The day after President Trump’s inauguration, a women-led demonstration took place in hundreds of cities across the world. Women led the charge in the resistance against the administration’s actions in its first weeks. Women are going to town hall meetings, hounding their representatives’ offices with calls, and most importantly, learning to run for office themselves.
EMILY’s List, an organization that works to put pro-choice, Democratic women in office, have been training women interested in joining the next wave of female lawmakers. In the weeks following the election, EMILY’s List saw an unprecedented swell in interest from women across the country getting in touch about running for office themselves.
“Since Election Day, we’ve heard from over 6,500 pro-choice Democratic women looking to run for office — nearly seven times the number of women who reached out to us in the 22 months prior,” Alexandra De Luca of EMILY’s List told A Plus. Founded 32 years ago, it seems EMILY’s List’s purpose has taken on even more urgency in recent times. De Luca said part of what they do is quash misconceptions many women have about running for office.
“You don’t need to be a lawyer with an advanced degree or a massive network,” she added. “Running for office is accessible for all women who are passionate about their communities, who have the energy and drive, and who want to make a difference. We’re here to help them learn how to run for office — and how to win.”
So, Clarissa-Jan seems pretty stoked about EMILY’s List’s efforts. Neat.
She goes on (emphasis mine):
The lack of women in politics sets America apart from other developing countries, where there are more female lawmakers, as well as heads of state. America came close to breaking that highest, hardest glass ceiling, too, but the election result dealt a huge blow to those who believed they were ready for a female president. This surge in women exploring political positions, however, should be heartening news to those who want to be represented by people who share their values and priorities — it could well signal a change in the tide.
“We aren’t seeing a real increase in the number of women running every cycle. That’s reflected in the number of officeholders at the end of the day,” Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics, told Reid Wilson at The Hill. “We need more women running. That falls somewhat on the women themselves, to run, and that falls somewhat on the gatekeepers, in the recruiting of candidates.”
So it’s not that women in America are disproportionately losing elections to their male counterparts. “Experts agree,” wrote Wilson, “that the reason more women aren’t winning elections is because few women choose to run.”
The solution, it turns out, is that simple.
Are you seeing the hilarity of her conclusion yet?
Clarissa-Jan, in all of her wisdom, has determined that the best way to get women to win elections is to get women to run for office. It’s just that simple, she says. Women aren’t choosing to run for office, while men are. And that’s causing a discrepancy in representation in state legislatures.
And yet, Clarissa-Jan and her liberal leftist friends cannot apply that same logic to their stupid mythical wage gap. It doesn’t occur to them, even though it’s been pointed out a zillion times (like here and here and here and here and here and here) that the famous 23-cent wage gap is based on the average earnings of all men and women working full time, and doesn’t take into account that people choose the types of jobs they end up in. It also doesn’t take into account things like education, tenure, part vs full time. Once you factor in those things, the wage gap is essentially non-existent.
In short, a good part of what accounts for the difference in wages between men and women all boils down to WHAT JOBS THEY CHOOSE. Kinda like how more men choose to run for office than women. Clarissa-Jan takes no issue with the fact that that’s clearly happening. She says so in her write-up. She accepts it completely and without question. So why, then, is it so difficult for her to accept when it happens ACROSS THE JOB SPECTRUM?
Men and women are drawn to different types of jobs for different reasons. It doesn’t make men right and women wrong or vice versa. It makes them different, which is a beautiful and wonderful thing. If more women decide to run for office, GREAT! If they choose not to, ALSO GREAT! It’s freaking 2017, and women get to make those choices freely. That’s something to be celebrated.
Women often don’t choose the same high paying jobs as men do. They often don’t choose the same dangerous jobs that men do. And as it turns out, they also don’t run for office as often as men do.
I can’t believe this requires spelling out, but clearly, liberals are still having a tough time with the whole wage gap thing, so hopefully this helps them connect the dots.