Democracy Archives

Taking Steps Toward Gender Equality

After The Hill published our piece about the need to increase the number of women experts testifying on foreign policy, we received questions about what other concrete steps Members of Congress and their staffs can take to promote gender inequality.

As we noted, gender equality is not just about women. It’s about changing the gender norms and roles that affect us all at work home, and in public life. We need both men and women, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, to actively address these norms, gender biases and systemic structural causes to make sustainable change.

On Capitol Hill, concrete steps include 1) co-sponsoring, supporting and advancing legislation that supports gender equality and women’s empowerment in the U.S. and abroad, 2) requesting a gender analysis of every piece of legislation introduced and considered, and 3) ensuring a gender balance of experts called to testify before committees.

There are Members of Congress and staff who lead on women’s rights. But, there are times when having another Member introduce or lead on a bill or amendment is more effective. Members should consider where they can lead and where they can support others’ efforts. Key questions are: What is needed to move a legislative agenda item or policy? Is it more strategic to lead or support another Member’s effort? How can I amplify, rather than replace or usurp, existing gender equality and women’s empowerment efforts?

In addition to being a legislative champion for women and girls, Members of Congress can actively address gender inequities every day at work and in society, speak up for their colleagues, treat everyone fairly, and understand the social privilege they hold.

Here are four other specific actions to take:

Listen and learn from colleagues, staff, constituents, and experts about gender issues or the gendered aspects of other issues you work on, such as veterans affairs, education reform, transportation, agriculture or international development assistance. There is a gender dimension shaping virtually every issue, and understanding it will ensure that policy is more effective. Issues around gender, equality, and rights, as well as gender aspects of other issues can be complicated. Gender is not just about women and it affects all aspects of life.
Use a gender lens when planning every visit to your state or district and/or Congressional delegation abroad. Plan to meet with women leaders of all kinds of organizations (public, private, for- and not-for-profit). Visit organizations that provide services to women constituents or can speak to the gender aspects of other issues. Make sure that there are women invited to every meeting you hold, no matter what the topic. Ask to see lists of meeting attendees.
Question speaking on a panel that is composed of all men or all women. When receiving an invitation to speak, ask who else is speaking. If you are asked to speak on a panel, and the only person of another sex is a moderator, ask if it possible to change the mix of speakers. As we noted in our earlier piece, there are women and men capable of speaking to every issue.
Run a diverse and gender equal office with equitable numbers of female and male staff, pay equity, zero tolerance of sexual harassment, and family leave. Members need to understand the gender aspects of everyday life for the people, men and women, who work in their offices, and address them.

Taken together, these steps will make a difference in addressing gender equality. The process for creating policy and legislation on the Hill – whether in Members’ offices, in committee hearings or in public – impacts the lives of women and girls in the U.S. and around the world. Everyone has a role to play.

Foreign policy congressional committees need to call more women experts

It is imperative that those who make U.S. foreign policy reflect who we are as Americans. Today, most foreign policy and national security decisions are made in centralized and closely held processes. This is true across institutions. We recently reviewed the list of experts called to testify in Congress on foreign policy from 2017-2020 and found that most of them are men.

There are now discussions about what a feminist foreign policy would look like in the United States. Most recommendations have focused on the executive branch and, among other things, call for greater representation of women in the relevant institutions and decision-making processes. Yet, the legislative branch has a key role to play. As part of its constitutional responsibility, Congress holds hearings that include both government officials and outside experts.

In order to ascertain who is called upon for foreign policy expertise, we looked at 1,143 witnesses who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) and the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) in the 115th and 116th Congresses (between January 2017 and June 2020).

Overall, more men than women are called as non-government witnesses to testify about foreign policy. However, we are heartened by recent HFAC numbers outlined below and we expect that HFAC will continue to call witnesses at this rate. Further, SFRC should call at least this percentage of women to testify as experts going forward.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee: During both the 115th and 116th Congresses, the SFRC consisted of 22 men (96 percent) and one woman (4 percent). Of the 352 witnesses the committee called, 77 percent were men. Of the non-government witnesses, 75 percent of the experts were men and 25 percent were women.

House Foreign Affairs Committee: In the 115th Congress (2017-2019), the House of Representatives was controlled by the Republican Party; HFAC consisted of 38 men (81 percent) and nine women (19 percent). Since control of the House changed in January 2019, HFAC consists of 40 men (85 percent) and seven women (15 percent).

From January 2017 to June 2020, HFAC called 791 witnesses; 68 percent were men and 32 percent women. Of the non-government witnesses, 69 percent of the experts were men and 31 percent women. In the 115th Congress (2017-19), 76 percent of HFAC non-governmental witnesses were men and 24 percent were women. To date in the 116th Congress (2019-20), 58 percent of HFAC non-governmental witnesses were men and 42 percent were women.

In an effort to close this clear gap in representation, we recommend that the Senate and House leadership require a gender balance in witnesses called to testify. Informally, committee leaders should call equal numbers of male and female witnesses. At the same time, foreign policy experts who are often called to testify could pledge not to serve on a panel of three or more witnesses when no women are included.

Further, these committees must examine hearing topics with a gender lens and choose witnesses to include that point of view. Such an analysis will broaden and deepen an understanding of the policy landscape and the solutions considered. The committees must call more women to testify as foreign policy experts, on all subjects not just those related to gender. Policymakers need to understand that even “traditional” security issues, like force readiness, can be analyzed with a gender lens. Such an analysis will show how men and women are impacted differently by U.S. foreign policy interventions.

While increasing the number of women experts testifying doesn’t ensure a full gender analysis on foreign policy topics, it would be a great start to better ensure that policy is formulated and debated by a more diverse group of experts and policymakers with a broader range of expertise.

Molly Opinsky is an intern at Smash Strategies and a rising senior at Tulane University studying international relations and economics. She contributed to the research of this piece.

Is U.S. Foreign Policy Feminist?

This is a year of milestones for women: the 25th Anniversary of the Beijing Conference on Women, the 20th Anniversary of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, and the 100th Anniversary of women’s suffrage in the United States. In this context, Our Secure Future commissioned a poll of 1,500 registered voters in the U.S. to get a sense of how they view foreign policy decision-makers, whether they see themselves represented in that arena, and whether they consider themselves to be a feminist. The results illuminate some thinking on these issues and are useful to decision-makers and advocates alike as they develop and debate foreign and national security policy.

According to the poll, almost 60 percent of respondents do NOT think that those who have made U.S. foreign policy and national security decisions over the last decade generally share their beliefs and interests. 22 percent were unsure. Here are some more details:

There was a gap between women (55%) and men (64%).
There was a wider gap between Democrats (50%) and Republicans (67%)/Independents (64%).
There was an even wider gap between those who frequently watch MSNBC (44%) and Fox News (68%).
Surprisingly, a greater percentage of white respondents (62%) do not feel represented in U.S. foreign policy and national security institutions than black (49%) or Hispanic (51%) respondents.

The same poll showed that less than half (48%) of those surveyed think that women are sufficiently represented in the U.S. government when it comes to making decisions about foreign policy and national security. Additional details:

The largest gap was based on political party affiliation with 10 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of Republicans believing that women are sufficiently represented. Independents were split (42% yes/41% no)
There was also a gap between women (35%) and men (44%).
The widest gap was between those who frequently watch MSNBC (5%) and Fox News (74%).

The survey also found that party affiliation and age were affiliated with whether a respondent thinks of her/himself as a “feminist”.

59 percent of Democrats said they consider themselves a feminist (62% for frequent MSNBC viewers), but just 7 percent of Republicans and frequent Fox News viewers did.
50 percent of 18-34 year-olds said “yes” to the feminist label while 29 percent of those over 65 years did.
Black (47%) and Hispanic (49%) respondents were more likely to think of themselves as feminists than white ones (30%).

This information — while preliminary — can help guide discussions and provide background for work being done to advance policy proposals around Women, Peace and Security, and a more inclusive foreign policy.

Toward a Feminist Foreign Policy in the U.S. – a starting point

A new paper, Toward a Feminist Foreign Policy in the United States, was recently released. With the launch of Sweden’s Feminist Foreign Policy in 2014, Canada’s Feminist Foreign Assistance Policy in 2017 and France’s Feminist Foreign Policy in 2019, a group of Washington-based foreign policy experts and advocates for global gender equality came together over the course of three days in August to sketch out what such an effort might look like for the U.S. I was happy to take part in the gathering.

Our discussion built off of a research review of feminist foreign policy as expressed by other countries, ideas surfaced from consultations with more than 100 feminist activists from over 30 countries and a paper Smash Strategies recently released. This paper is much broader covering policy ideas in the following areas: diplomacy, defense, foreign assistance and trade, as well as in the cross-cutting issue areas of climate change and sexual and reproductive health and rights.

This paper is just a starting point. A final policy agenda will be refined through global consultations and input of additional experts and organizations, and will be published ahead of events marking the 25th anniversary of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing and resulting Declaration and Platform for Action. This document elucidates a vision for the highest standard of U.S. foreign policy that promotes gender equality, human rights, peace and environmental integrity. It includes a proposed definition, key principles and policy recommendations that will be expanded and refined over coming months.

Defining a Feminist Foreign Policy for the United States

A country’s foreign policy is a statement of its values and priorities. The implementation of foreign policy, across all of its various levers, is one demonstration of how a nation lives its values. Now more than ever, the United States needs a feminist approach—one that fundamentally alters the way the nation conducts itself, prioritizing the importance of diplomatic solutions, cooperating with allies and international institutions, embracing a progressive, inclusive and rights-based agenda, valuing the voices of the most marginalized and addressing racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic and patriarchal and/or male-dominated systems of power.

Foreign policy shapes how a government defines and prioritizes peace and security, structures trade, provides humanitarian aid and development assistance and works with other nations and non-state actors. Coherence across all aspects of foreign policy is paramount for a feminist approach; so too should coherence extend across domestic and foreign policy, with both embracing the same feminist values.

To clarify the goals of a feminist foreign policy and to promote coherence of a feminist approach across policy domains, the following draft definition is proposed:

Feminist foreign policy is the policy of a state that defines its interactions with other states, as well as movements and other non-state actors, in a manner that prioritizes gender equality and environmental integrity, enshrines the human rights of all, seeks to disrupt colonial, racist, patriarchal and male-dominated power structures, and allocates significant resources, including research, to achieve that vision. Feminist foreign policy is coherent in its approach across all of its levers of influence, anchored by the exercise of those values at home and co-created with feminist activists, groups and movements, at home and abroad.

Taking that as the guiding vision for feminist foreign policy, there are a number of key principles and policy recommendations that apply across the whole of the U.S. government.

Key Principles for U.S. Feminist Foreign Policy

Given the complicated legacy of U.S. global engagement as both a colony and colonizer, as well as its associated history of struggles for racial, gender and environmental integrity both at home and abroad, a number of key principles should underpin a U.S. feminist foreign policy.

First, human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights. U.S. foreign policy must respect the rights recognized by international and domestic law and should place itself on the side of those seeking to defend and expand the rights and freedoms of individuals and groups around the world.

Second, U.S. policy should be representative, inclusive, responsive and accountable to stakeholders. Foreign policy has traditionally been informed by patriarchal and discriminatory social norms and implemented through male-dominated institutions. A feminist approach demands gender parity in representation, as well as active commitment to gender, racial and other forms of diversity, equity and inclusion. A U.S. government commitment to diversity and inclusion should not exclusively focus on rhetoric and internal processes, but also on the impact of its policies and public-private partnerships on diverse communities. As such, this principle includes a government-wide commitment to consultation with civil society and feminist movements outside of government, including and especially in the Global South.

Third, a feminist foreign policy should take an intersectional approach to feminism. This is an approach that takes into account and seeks to address the multiple and often intersecting forms of discrimination such as gender, race, age, class, socioeconomic status, physical or mental ability, gender or sexual identity, religion or ethnicity.

Fourth, a feminist foreign policy should promote and protect bodily autonomy. Recognizing that the oppression of women and gender-nonconforming individuals has traditionally been expressed in the regulation and restriction of bodies and rights, a feminist approach would model its inverse, starting with the basic principle of bodily autonomy. A feminist approach embraces sexual and reproductive health and rights, which according to the Guttmacher Institute is defined as: “A state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to all aspects of sexuality and reproduction, not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction, or infirmity. Therefore, a positive approach to sexuality and reproduction should recognize the part played by pleasurable sexual relationships, trust and communication in promoting self-esteem and overall well-being. All individuals have a right to make decisions governing their bodies and to access services that support that right.” This approach should also enshrine bodily autonomy, which the Blueprint for Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice defines as: “Achieving the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health and rights is based on the fundamental human rights of all individuals to: have their bodily integrity, privacy and personal autonomy respected; freely define their own sexuality; decide whether and when to be sexually active; choose their sexual partners; have safe and pleasurable sexual experiences; decide whether, when and whom to marry; decide whether, when and by what means to have a child or children and how many children to have; and have access over their lifetimes to the information, resources, services and support necessary to achieve all the above, free from discrimination, coercion, exploitation and violence.”

Fifth, environmental integrity. Here, environmental integrity is defined as the sustenance of biophysical processes that support all living organisms, by protecting diversity, ecological functions and resilience of all ecosystems. Climate change erodes human freedoms and limits choice. However, the impacts of climate change are not felt equally. Climate change affects everyone, but women and men experience the impacts differently, and women are often disproportionately negatively affected. Women, compared to men, often have limited access to resources, more restricted rights, limited mobility and a muted voice in shaping decisions and influencing policy. Climate change can also impact security, particularly for those who are already most vulnerable in a society, often women, girls, gender minorities and LGBTQIA+ persons, those with disabilities and most especially those with intersecting marginalized identities. Threats related to the climate crisis generally viewed as a “threat multiplier- a phenomenon that can worsen or exacerbate other sources of instability and conflict, such as competition for natural resources and ethnic tensions.” By way of just one example, following extreme climate-related flooding in Bangladesh, child marriage rates soared. All efforts to adapt to and mitigate climate change must include specific protections for and acknowledgment of the harm to communities of color, indigenous peoples and other frontline and marginalized communities around the world, while seeking to address gender inequality.

Cross-Cutting Recommendations for Implementation of Key Principles

There are five cross-cutting elements that are necessary to advance feminist foreign policy across the whole-of-government: (1) High level leadership with mandate to promote feminist foreign policy; (2) Commitment to gender parity, diversity and inclusion both internally, among leadership and staff, and externally, co-created with feminists outside government; (3) Training and capacity-building to ensure robust implementation; (4) Gender analysis underlying all aspects of foreign policy; and (5) Adequate resourcing to ensure all of the above.

Following this in the paper, specific policy recommendations are made for each of the major levers of foreign policy—aid, trade, diplomacy and defense. This is not yet a complete policy package; additional consultations and efforts will augment, refine and supplement this opening salvo over the course of ensuing months. However, it is a solid start.

If you are interested in taking part in an upcoming consultation or would like to send written feedback, please contact me at smash@smashstrategies.com.

Operationalizing a Feminist Foreign Policy – Recommendations for the U.S. Government

This document focuses on how to operationalize a new feminist foreign policy within the U.S. context. The complete document can be found HERE. Current events and conversations challenge us to consider a new way of thinking. They take place at a unique time when the U.S. leadership role is being transformed in part due to the rise of China and other powers. The use of cyber weapons, the greater role of non-state actors, and the ability of technology to give citizens access to their governments and demand greater transparency are upending the way diplomacy works. Further, the Trump Administration has thrown away the rule book by antagonizing allies, pulling out of international accords, and shattering traditional foreign policy thinking. It has “hyper-masculinized” the U.S. approach to national security. Finally, Sweden’s groundbreaking adoption of a feminist foreign policy has spurred a deeper consideration of how a feminist policy applies in other countries.

As we ground the principles of human rights and equality in foreign and national security policy, we must envision how a country as unique as the United States with a bureaucracy as large as the U.S. government can turn these ideas into practice. These recommendations will help the U.S. foreign policy establishment actors and officials promote gender equality, defend human rights, and protect fundamental freedoms by addressing power imbalances, utilizing gender analysis to increase the range of issues and solutions considered, increasing the number of feminist voices promoting gender equality, and increasing the number of women leaders.

CHANGE THE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
In envisioning a feminist foreign policy, it is important to note the unique role of the United States and its large footprint in global economic and political affairs. The US federal government is large and complex. With a population of 327 million people, the U.S. government employs over 2 million people,14 includes 15 executive departments or agencies, and has an annual budget of about $4 trillion. There must be thought given to how to best integrate this policy across the executive branch agencies. Further, the coordination mechanism, and the individual leading that work, must be at the highest level and only dedicated to implementing this policy.

Example: There have been far-reaching structural changes made in the US government in the past. Following the attacks on the United States in September 2001, President Bush established the Department of Homeland Security, transforming the federal government by combining 22 federal departments and agencies into a unified cabinet agency to respond to threats. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) was created by Congress in 2004 to apply a new approach to U.S. foreign aid.

HOLD INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS ACCOUNTABLE
As part of transforming government institutions, the people implementing policy need to change the way they do business. Promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment should be a shared responsibility of all who work in foreign policy and national security: staff, contractors, military members, and appointees. This work must be championed by leaders, carried out at every level, and not only be the purview of “gender offices” and “gender experts.” Performance evaluations and promotion criteria should be changed to reflect this priority.

Example: Promoting women’s empowerment and equality is not new to the US government. At USAID, the 2013 Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy set forth the policy’s goals and principles and included roles and responsibilities for all of its staff, including the regional, functional, and administrative offices in Washington and in the field. Moreover, Gender 101, a mandatory online training course, was launched to increase the understanding of gender in development. Every USAID staff person involved in the program cycle was required to take it within their first two years of employment.

DIVERSIFY REPRESENTATION
As noted above, there are not currently enough women in senior-level positions. Given the slow speed at which the number of women in foreign policy and national security is growing, US government institutions should consider the following to reach gender balance. The President must commit to a gender-balanced cabinet and instruct the head of each executive branch agency that she wants a gender balance in political appointees at every level.

An overhaul of the civil service and foreign service recruitment and selection processes is needed to more easily recruit and promote qualified women already working in think tanks. Nongovernmental organizations and other parts of the government should focus on increasing the number of women in leadership positions across foreign policy and national security fields, including arms control, counter-terrorism, intelligence and analysis, and military strategy.

Example: Increasing the number of women in leadership is possible. During Secretary of State John Kerry’s tenure, one of the two Deputy Secretaries was a woman; the majority of Undersecretaries were women, and all but one of the regional Assistant Secretaries were women.

ENSURE INPUT FROM THOSE AFFECTED
Beyond the women who work for the U.S. government, foreign policy and national security decision-makers must listen to, and consider, the voices and views of those most affected. By consistently reaching out and listening to these individuals and organizations, these professionals will have a better understanding of not only how actions and interventions will affect people but how those actions will be perceived. This can build stronger relationships at the grassroots level that are not tied to those in power, who often say what they think the US government wants to hear or diminish flash points that should be factored into decisions. Memos and reports must include the perspectives of those outside of government and powerful elite.

Example: There are fierce internal battles about how the principals and other high-level US government officials spend their time, especially when they travel. As a result, whom they meet with has a disproportionate impact on how they understand a place or an issue. On Secretary Kerry’s first trip to Afghanistan as Secretary of State, he met a group of eight Afghan businesswomen. After that, his speeches often recounted those interactions as a basis for reaffirming the importance of Afghan women to the future of the country.

PRIORITIZE INFORMATION AND INTELLIGENCE
Those who provide analysis for the intelligence community, and others in the foreign policy and national security agencies, must make it a priority to gather information about what is happening in a country with respect to women and other gender issues. Incorporating a gender analysis provides a broad and deep understanding of the situation. Beyond the standard “F” indicators at the U.S. State Department, there must be new ways to measure accountability regarding the participation of women in security, political, and economic processes; track US government budget expenditures to implement feminist foreign policy; and measure outcomes. Collecting sex-disaggregated data allows issues to be seen, measured, and addressed.

Example: Through its gender policy, adopted in 2006, the MCC requires that gender issues and metrics are integrated throughout the threshold and compact cycle, from the initial country selection and assessment to the development and design of programs, project implementation, the monitoring of program results, and evaluation of program impacts. More recently, the US Overseas Private Investment Corporation has started to apply a gender lens to all its investment projects to help ensure women will benefit.

INCREASE RESOURCES
Along with setting a new policy framework, it is critical that there are sufficient funds and other resources to support the implementation of these laws and policies. This includes funds to hire specific gender experts as well as educating all US foreign service, development, and military professionals about this policy framework. This means everything from equal access to development assistance for women and men, to increasing the number of women in security forces abroad by funding slots for women in professional foreign military education. This all costs money and takes time. The US government, both the executive and legislative branches, must be willing to put the needed resources toward this new way of doing business.

Example: Successful and lasting initiatives are backed by resources. The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is widely considered the most consequential initiative ever launched against HIV/AIDS. Through 2017, the United States had spent more than $70 billion on PEPFAR activities, dwarfing that spent by other donors to eradicate HIV/AIDS.

UTILIZE TECHNOLOGY
The use of technology, from social media to online banking, is transforming the lives of millions of people in developing and high-risk parts of the world. It can deliver information, connect people, and close gender gaps in information and employment. Like any other tool, technology used for foreign policy will not be as efficient or effective without planning that ensures a diverse set of users has access to the technology and frameworks that collect usable and informative data.

In the foreign policy arena, technology can help us gather data and information and analyze it in a way that informs policy decisions. This can encompass the use and collection of both macro-level data (i.e., about changes caused by climate change) and micro-level data (i.e., about the incidence of violence).

Example: New technologies have been used by the government through the Presidential Innovation Fellows program, which makes it possible for technologists to take on temporary projects within government to help agencies take advantage of technological advances.

We are at an inflection point both within the United States and in the world. Rethinking U.S. foreign and national security policies is critical to restructuring the role of the United States as a global leader and to creating a safer and more stable world. These policies will be more effective if we infuse them with the principles outlined in this paper. This paper provides a road map for those within the U.S. government to operationalize a feminist foreign policy.

Honor the Suffragists by Fighting for Women’s Rights

Today, more women than men vote in the United States. For example, in the 2016 election, 55 percent of American women voted; only 52 percent of men voted. Women voters are courted by both political parties and by candidates, and our voting behavior is constantly scrutinized. More women are also running for office than ever before. Currently, 24 percent of members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 25 percent of U.S. Senators are women. Both major political parties have nominated women for either president or vice president.

American women did not always have the right to vote. Women gained that right 99 years ago — in 1920 — when the 19th Amendment was ratified. As we mark this anniversary, there are numerous programs and exhibits illustrating the struggle for women’s suffrage, which isn’t often taught in school or widely known. The fight spanned over 70 years, culminating in the passage and ratification of the 19th Amendment. The struggle here in the U.S. took place as women across the globe also fought for their right to vote. Between 1918 and 1921, women gained the right to vote in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Women in the U.S. began fighting for the right to vote in the mid-1800s, after passage of the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which granted African American men the right to vote. Make no mistake, the women who fought for suffrage were held back by legal barriers to their participation in public life as well as social norms about their role in society. Despite this, American women organized, marched, went to prison, committed civil disobedience, lobbied office holders and candidates at every level and in both political parties, and navigated complex political and legal terrain.

And, they organized across the country, riding trains, sending telegrams, having no access to social media and cell phones. They were called names, castigated as agitators who would tear apart society and family, and their appearances often mocked. They dealt with the legacy of the Civil War and racism, which was often used by those opposing suffrage and at times, by those favoring it.

From the time of the first bitter referendum in 1867 to ratification of the 19th Amendment, the suffragists undertook 480 petition and lobbying drives to get state legislatures to submit suffrage amendments to voters; 277 campaigns to get state party conventions to include women’s suffrage planks in their platforms; and, 56 state referendum campaigns. Women in the Western U.S. gained rights to vote before the rest of the country and in many places, women could vote for some, but not all, offices.

The ratification of the 19th Amendment came down to one state (Tennessee) and the vote of Harry Burn (the youngest member of the Tennessee General Assembly, who changed his vote because of a note from his pro-suffrage mother). It’s an iconic and heartwarming story.

As I moderated a panel last month on this topic, the lesson I took away was that women’s suffrage was not inevitable, and neither is any social change. Change happens because citizens organize and fight for it. As Casey Cep recently wrote in the New Yorker: “Apart from inaccuracy, one of the greatest flaws in any historical account is a sense of inevitability. The idea that women were always going to get the right to vote in the U.S. ignores the reality that women only got that right in Switzerland in 1971 and Saudi Arabia in 2015. It also fails to explain why the right was granted to American women in 1920, as opposed to 1919 or 1918, or perhaps more pointedly in 1776.”

It is easy to look back and see women’s suffrage, and Harry Burn’s vote, or the passage of civil rights, or the election of women to office, as inevitable. They aren’t. They happen because committed individuals and organizations lay the groundwork, take risks, challenge norms, revise laws and policies, and work to convince others. The suffragists did just that, so that each of us can participate in American politics and public life. We owe it to them and their struggle to keep working towards a society where everyone can fully participate.

Ensuring Women’s Participation in Upcoming Afghan Elections

Afghanistan has two elections scheduled in the next six months: Parliamentary and district council elections on October 20, 2018 and the Presidential election on April 20, 2019. These elections, the first in almost five years, will be watched closely by Afghans and the international community. Women must have every opportunity to participate fully in every phase of the electoral process: as candidates, election administrators, observers, and voters.

In order to ensure high levels of participation and engagement, Afghan women must be at the table as election planning occurs. The Afghan government, international donors, and Afghan civil society must ensure that they weave women’s perspectives and input into the strategies and tactics they are using to drive maximum participation. Electoral and governmental authorities must take concrete steps to ensure that women and men are equal participants in the Afghan political process, and must address electoral-related violence. This is essential to the credibility and transparency of the electoral process and is especially important as the Taliban is asserting itself across the country and apparently engaged in negotiations with U.S. officials.

Women in Afghanistan have made substantial progress since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, but that progress is tenuous. Women have demonstrated their commitment to public life: in the 2014 presidential run-off, 2.4 million Afghan women voted (38 percent of all voters), the highest number in Afghanistan’s history. According to the Asia Foundation, over 78,000 women have been appointed to government positions since 2001. Currently, women hold twenty-eight percent of Parliamentary seats, several cabinet positions, and numerous judicial positions. However, Afghanistan remains an insecure and dangerous environment, which is difficult for all Afghans, but particularly for women and girls.

Across the globe, violence against women in the electoral process is a threat to electoral integrity. It affects women’s ability and interest in participation at every level of the political process. Women can be targeted because of their political affiliations, or because they are active in politics and public life, or exercising their right to vote, still often seen as places for men.

In past Afghan elections, there have been substantial reports of violence, and threats of violence, targeted at women voters and candidates. There have been continual challenges finding enough women willing to work at polling stations, as well as a lack of women “body searchers,” to ensure that individuals entering women’s polling places are indeed women and not armed. There have been numerous efforts to address these issues: from electoral hotlines to extra security for women candidates to decreased fees for women seeking to run. But, these issues remain prevalent as Afghanistan enters this upcoming set of elections.

What can be done?: The Afghan Independent Election Commission (IEC) must focus on recruiting women for positions throughout the electoral administration system — from headquarters to polling centers and local electoral bodies — and for both permanent and temporary positions. At the same time, registration and polling centers must be accessible, safe and secure to ensure the full participation of women voters. Voter registration processes must reach women throughout the country and ensure that the act of registering or voting does not put them in harm’s way. The IEC and other relevant government entities must ensure there is sufficient security staff at women’s polling centers. Women candidates, throughout the country, must feel safe as they campaign. Finally, international and domestic electoral observation missions deployed across Afghanistan must be gender-balanced to ensure that they are able to fully report on the elections and reflect the different experiences of men and women in the process. Finally, there must also be a way to capture the lessons learned from the October elections and use them in the lead-up to those in April.

As internet access and the use of social media (mostly Facebook) increases in Afghanistan, there must be special attention paid to how social media is being used to shame and threaten women who are activists and candidates, and to share false information. The Afghan government and the international community must take steps to address election-related violence which deters women from voting, working at polling stations, campaigning for office, and serving as elected officials.

Protecting the hard-won gains that women have made since 2001 is critical. This is also an opportunity to reaffirm support for women’s participation and take concrete steps to increase women’s ability to fully participate in these elections. The Afghan government, the international community, Afghan civil society, and Afghan citizens all have a role to play.

Women’s Political Underrepresentation in the United States

There is a fascinating new book out by Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox entitled “Women, Men & U.S. Politics: Ten Big Questions.” It covers topics that range from contemporary feminism to campaign finance to reproductive rights in the United States.

Of course, the chapter that caught my attention is “Falling Further Behind: Women’s Underrepresentation in U.S. Politics” which focuses on the question of why the U.S. ranks 100th globally for the number of women elected at the national level. As it lays out, Rwanda (61.3%), Bolivia (53.1%), Cuba (48.9%), Iceland (47.6%) and 90+ other countries have more women serving in their national legislature than does the United States (19.1%).

As I have traveled around the world, I have created my own theories about why this is the case and this book tends to back up my ideas. First, while quota laws have been shown to be the best tool used to increase women’s political participation, the U.S. “first past the post” rather than proportional representative system makes it very difficult to initiate a quota law for women. Not surprisingly, 15 of the top 20 countries for women’s representation have instituted some type of quota. Moreover, political parties in the U.S. are considered weak institutionally, as voters, rather than the parties create the candidate lists. So while candidates running for Congress do receive some help from their political party, they must also create their own political organizations, raise money, build coalitions, and deliver their own message both the primary and general elections. In other countries, a strong central committee of the party selects the candidates for the party list and in what order they will appear. Finally, what is strong in the U.S. system is the power of incumbency. Overall, in the last 10 election cycles, 95 percent of the House incumbents who wanted to keep their posts were re-elected. In 2016, 394 of 435 incumbents from the House of Representatives chose not to run for reelection. Of those who ran, only 13 lost their races.

If that isn’t daunting enough, Lawless and Rich discuss barriers that exist at the individual level for women seeking public office in the U.S. First, as they have documented for over a decade, there is a gap in the political ambition of women and men. “Deeply embedded patterns of traditional gender socialization make it far less likely, even today, for women to emerge as candidates.” Because of the attitudes and norms of men AND women about what is “appropriate” for women, men are considerably more likely than women to think about seeking elective office. The 16 percentage point gap existed in 2001 and continues today. Moreover, the “work-family” balance that Anne-Marie Slaughter and others have written about is even further out of whack for women thinking about running for office. Often women have jobs outside of the home that are necessary for their family’s income. Next, they are in charge of the household duties and are taking care of the majority of the childcare, cleaning, etc. at home. And now, we’re asking women to take on a “third shift” of politics – attending community meanings and fundraisers in order to run a viable campaign. For many women, there are just not enough hours in the day.

Where I part with Lawless and Rich is in the conclusion of this chapter where they say “even an optimist would be hard-pressed” to see major increases in women’s representation in the U.S. in the near future. In addition to the outpouring of increased interest of women in running for office (SF article) I believe that here in the U.S. we may be thinking too narrowly about how to increase women’s political participation. While I can name a half dozen groups that are recruiting women to run for office, we aren’t working on the larger structural issues that keep the numbers low. We might not get constitutional amendments passed, but we can address factors that can change over time: the political parties, time use and attitudes about women’s leadership.

First, although the role of political parties in the U.S. is not as strong as those in other countries, the Democratic and Republican parties here are not doing all they could do to recruit and support women candidates. Until they understand and value the role women can play in the party and in Congress, these outside groups will be on the outside looking in. When I worked to increase the number of women in politics in other countries as diverse as Kosovo and Zambia, no training program for female candidates was complete until we met with the (largely male) party leadership to talk about the benefits of women candidates on their party lists. Secondly, we must step out of the political sphere and address the issues of time use and public attitudes about women’s leadership. Both of these issues are not only keeping women out of Congress but also out of the Boardrooms and C-suites of companies across the country. According to Pew Research, the share of Fortune 500 chief executives who are female remains very small, reaching a record 5.4 percent in the first quarter of 2017 and women hold just 20.2 percent of the seats on boards of Fortune 500 companies – very similar to the political statistics. We need to change that social norms that exist that have women spending about six hours more than men doing household work and about three additional hours taking care of the children each week. And finally, we must help men and women, boys and girls in the U.S. see the value of women’s leadership. In a 2014 poll, 57 percent of respondents said that it made no difference to them if a female were elected president in their lifetimes.

What a shame that despite evidence that a diversity of views in decision-making roles can help drive innovation and a recent poll that showed that only 33 percent of likely U.S. voters now think the country is heading in the right direction, we in the United States are not willing to ask the big questions and increase women’s political representation in order to improve our communities and the everyday lives of our citizens.

Women’s Political Empowerment Benefits Democracy in the U.S. and Around the World

Last week there were two events held in Washington, DC and focused on women’s political participation: NDI’s Madeleine K. Albright event focusing abroad and the EMILY’s List’s national conference focusing on politics in the U.S. Although the events focused differently, I was struck by the similarities of issues highlighted.

Those attending both agreed that women’s meaningful participation in politics affects the range of policy issues seriously considered and the solutions proposed. As elected officials, women can impact the legislative body itself, the way issues are addressed, and public attitudes about women in leadership. Yet women remain underrepresented in almost every country and at every level of elective politics.

According to a recent report, just over 23 percent of the world’s parliamentarians are women. The United States ranks 100th; women comprise 19.3 percent of the House of Representatives and 21 percent of the U.S. Senate. Based on progress to date, women in the U.S. are not likely reach political parity until 2121.

Why do women remain underrepresented in elected politics around the world?

Globally, women face similar challenges.

Attitudes and norms regarding the role of women in public life can dissuade a woman from running for office. In the United States, numerous polls from Gallup and Pew reflect that men and women believe that women and men are equally good political leaders. Around the world, public opinion towards women’s political leadership varies. In a Pew Research Poll, researchers found that majorities in many countries including Mali (65 percent), the Palestinian territories (64 percent), and say that men make better political leaders than women.

Because of the low number of women in public office, there are disproportionately fewer role models for women. Studies in the U.S. and abroad show the positive impact role models can have. A recent U.S. study concluded that young women voters were more engaged when new, viable female candidates run. In a much-cited MIT study in India, the presence of long-serving female leaders in local government closed the gender gap in adolescent education.

Around the world, the threat of or actual physical and emotional violence is a tactic discouraging women from political participation. Women in politics around the world have experienced violence, including aggression, harassment, or threats of death, rape, or beatings, and that their experiences have implications for their ability and willingness to participate actively in public life. This is true in the U.S. as well; in 2016, some supporters of the Republican nominee for President threatened to assassinate Hillary Clinton, “hang that b*tch,” or shoot her for treason.

Women often lack the same access to resources as men, specifically the funds that are necessary to run a campaign. While the gender gap in overall campaign finances may have closed in the U.S., differences remain in the types of donors who give to women, the level of contributions and the amount women contribute to their own campaigns. While the amount of funds a candidate needs to seek office in other countries is much smaller than in the U.S. because of political party support, there are still gaps in the amount of support received by women candidates, and in access to other resources, such as media time, materials and campaign staff assistance.

Beyond the social barriers to women’s political participation (or perhaps because of them), at the individual level, many women in both the U.S. and abroad lack the confidence or ambition to run. A 2016 poll found that nearly half of the American men polled believed they are very or somewhat qualified to run for public office, while only about a quarter of women believed the same about themselves.

Outside of the political system itself, women thinking about running for office, like women in general, face the burden of a disproportionate portion of the home and caregiving responsibilities. Around the world, women spend two to ten times more time on unpaid care work than men. Time is a limited resource. Every minute more that a woman spends on unpaid work represents one minute less that she could be potentially active in public life.

While there is some overlap between the strategies used to support women running for office in the United States and abroad, there are also key differences. In the U.S., non-profit organizations and political action committees recruit and train women candidates and campaign staff. Because of the enormous need for campaign funds in the United States, some organizations also focus on raising money with and for women seeking public office. Largely, efforts in the U.S. are not focused on changing the political system, but to helping women succeed within it.

In the developing world, democracy programs, often funded by donor governments, work to recruit and train women candidates, however, there has also been an effort to pass and implement gender quota laws that set a minimum number (often 20-30 percent) of women that must appear on the party list for election to a legislative body. Over 130 countries around the world have some type of gender quota. Finally, in many countries, there are often media campaigns to change the public’s attitude about women in leadership and specifically in political office.

While neither conference in DC came up with all the answers, the message was clear: citizens and democracy itself benefit when there are more women in elected office and this important work must continue in the U.S. and around the world.