By Samantha Weideman
In 1991, Anita Hilltestified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, a panel of white men, detailingallegations of Judge Clarence Thomas’s sexual harassment.
The following year,a record number of women ran for public office at local and national levels,effectively making 1992 “the year of the woman.” Unfortunately, while more women were electedthan years prior, the impact didn’t have a lasting effect.
In response to the 2016 election and the #MeToo movement, a record number of women ran for public office in the 2018 midterms. Media outlets referred to the record-breaking election cycle as the “year of the woman 2.0,” and the potential for women to overwhelmingly win seats in the House and Senate as the “pink wave.”
Depending on the worldview of individual female voters, the media’s emphasis on “the year of the woman 2.0,” can lead to frustration.
“When they put a name to something, it makes it trendy, and it’s not trendy,” said Kathryn Nizzi, a senior at theUniversity of Nebraska at Omaha. “I wish it wasn’t as media-focused as it is because that means it’s newsworthy. It shouldn’t be newsworthy. This should be a norm; that women are running and taking a stance.”
Perhaps higher numbers of female candidates is the new norm.
Well-known female officeholders positively impact female candidates seeking state legislature offices “on average, seven additional women on state legislative ballots,” according to the American Journal ofPolitical Science.
If the 2018 election results give way to a“pink wave,” more women will be on the 2020 ballot.
“It’s the idea of seeing role models,” saidDr. Barbara Pickering, UNO communication studies professor. “That’s not just true in politics, that’s true in every walk of life. If you see people who look like you in those capacities, then that makes it more possible to you.”
However, Representation isn’t an issue that appeals to all women. Women who adhere to traditional gender roles or are more conservative are less likely to support female candidates.
RepublicanSen. Deb Fischer, an incumbent in historically red Nebraska, has done little toreach across the aisle, which may result in fewer votes from female Democratsand Independents.
“She hasn’t needed the women’s vote who are looking to be more progressive or more middle of the road because she’s won the other portion of the populous,” Pickering said. “For those people who want to see more bipartisan work, it’s frustrating, but that’s why she won.”
Fischer has “run away” from the hard conversations, and female challengers such as Kara Eastman, Megan Hunt and Jane Raybould have been willing to start them, Nizzi said.
“I think it’s time we have the hard conversations,” Nizzi said. “The hard conversations are the ones that have the ability to change the direction of everything around us.”
Regardless of the results, female voters see momentum and continued engagement as crucial to progress.
“This has to continue to be an on going motivation, momentum and conversation,” Nizzi said. “If it’s not, you get what happened in 2016 when every part of the U.S. government went red. Our government works best when there is a nice, even split.”
MichelleZych, executive director of the Women’s Fund of Omaha, said she hopes themidterm election results encourage more women to become engaged and involvedwherever they can.
“I would hope that the results encourage all of us to get more engaged and involved in whatever ways we can,” Zych said. “Dig into what you’re passionate about, make sure that you’re educating yourself and that you’re holding your elected officials accountable.”
