In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Glass Slippers

Reshma Saujani is a 34-year-old attorney running against Carolyn Maloney in New York’s 14th Congressional district. She’s a new-comer to politics; she’s Indian-American; she’s socially liberal but pro-Wall Street; and she’s running against a faithful liberal feminist. If elected, Saujani would be the youngest woman in Congress. No one really expects Saujani to win, but it’s still an interesting race.

The narrative surrounding her election, though, has been less about policy and more about a Bright Young Thing vs. The Woman Who Paid Her Dues. The Times coverage this week has been particularly bad. A reporter was apparently assigned to cover the Saujani campaign, and instead of writing about anything substantive, she wrote about Saujani’s shoes.

Reshma Saujani has a lot to say about her bid to challenge Representative Carolyn B. Maloney in the Sept. 14 Democratic primary, and I listened carefully as I accompanied her while she canvassed in Astoria, Queens, on Saturday afternoon.

But as Ms. Saujani, a 34-year-old lawyer, described some of her passions — a public-private partnership to finance start-up costs for worthy entrepreneurs, the passage of the Dream Act for talented illegal immigrants aspiring to college — I found myself increasingly, and in spite of myself, wondering about her shoes.

It’s just downhill from there. The shoes, for the curious, are Kate Spade wedges — wedges typically being more comfortable than heels when you’re walking around all day canvassing, and trying to show a New York Times reporter what it is that you’re doing to get elected.

The reporter does point out that focusing on what a woman wears is sexist; no one ever asks Chuck Schumer about his footwear choices. And women are criticized no matter what they wear — they’re “mannish” if they wear drab suits like their male counterparts, or unfashionable if they wear brighter suits, or elitist and not serious if they’re fashionable (see: Nancy Pelosi, Michelle Obama). Saujani, the reporter points out, risks losing credibility because of her footwear:

Ms. Maloney, who declined to name her footwear of choice, has tried to draw a contrast between her own track record in Congress and Ms. Saujani’s lack of experience in an elected position. Those hip heels run the risk of undercutting Ms. Saujani’s credibility with the people she needs to convince of her gravitas (a wedge issue, even?). It is a concern no man has to consider when choosing loafers or lace-ups.

No, it’s not. And male politicians also don’t typically worry that a Times reporter is going to write about their wardrobe instead of their positions.

Thanks, Jan, for the link.


13 thoughts on Glass Slippers

  1. “she’s socially liberal but pro-Wall Street”

    But? Pro-Wall st is usually liberal, as in “China is less oppressive today due to the liberalization of their economy.”

  2. In the past, when wealthy Wall Street types say they are “socially liberal but pro-Wall Street,” that means Rockefeller Republicans who despise religious conservatives, but don’t care if laws get enacted that limit poor people’s ability to do stuff like get abortions, cause if you’re a loaded Wall Street banker/lawyer/etc you can buy your way around those laws.

    Which, honestly, is what I thought Saujani was (a Republican, that is) since September seems awfully late for a primary election, so close to the general election.

  3. Thank you so much for writing about this! I just posted on it too – similar take, made more serious by fact that the New York Daily News published, today, a hard news story about these two candidates and this race.

    http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/2010/08/24/nope-no-media-bias-in-nyt-can-women-in-expensive-high-heels-really-be-taken-as-serious-politicians-article/

    Soooo lucky I’m not in NYC. lol

    Going to link to this post by you. Thanks again.

  4. Manju, pro-Wall Street I interpreted to be “capitalist.” You’ll find that many left wingers feel that it is impossible to be both socially liberal and a capitalist. This has come up a few times on this site, though I disagree.

    As far as this candidate – I know nothing about her (except for how I want to borrow her shoes), so I can’t tell you how it plays out for her.

    1. Manju, pro-Wall Street I interpreted to be “capitalist.” You’ll find that many left wingers feel that it is impossible to be both socially liberal and a capitalist. This has come up a few times on this site, though I disagree.

      I didn’t mean it as capitalist — most Congresspeople are capitalists, including Carolyn Maloney. I’m a capitalist, and I don’t think it’s impossible to be both socially liberal and a capitalist. But I do think it’s possible to be a socially liberal capitalist who also believes it’s necessary to have some regulations on the banking industry. Maloney has advocated for stronger regulations on credit card companies and the banking industry. Saujani has not; she has worked at several hedge funds, and is against many proposed financial reforms. Her policy positions are very much in line with the banking industry’s interests. Which is why she is pro-Wall Street.

  5. Ah, sorry. I considered that it could be anti-finreg, but decided that not all banks are equally affected by it. That said, the bank I thought of initially was Edward Jones (who actually doesn’t need to make ANY changes in light of regulations), but Jones doesn’t really have a Wall Street presence, to be fair.

    Sorry! Thanks for clarifying! I do hope you didn’t assume I meant you when I said many left-wingers think those are in opposition – I can see how you might interpret it that way, but that’s not what I intended. My b.

  6. In fact, the New York Times interviewed Ms. Saujani about a week ago — it was a video, and the interviewer could scarcely hide his contempt for her. Unlike the PD, the NY Times will sometimes entice candidates whom they dislike into making stupid remarks about their lifestyles. Like the ill-fated Harold Ford Jr. (not to mention Caroline Kennedy, who was knocked out of the box for making ridiculous statements to a NYT reporter), whose challenge to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand fell by the wayside thanks to a series of extremely foolish comments, Saujani is getting exactly what she deserves. The Daily News story — which you seem to find preferable to the one in the Times –is about a non-issue. Carolyn Maloney spoke out in support of the mosque ages ago, probably before Reshma Saujani read about it in the newspaper. Maloney has been a great Congresswoman, and Saujani’s candidacy really has no reason to exist, unless you agree with her that conceited Wall Street princesses are great hot stuff, far better than an experienced congresswoman who has taken the right positions on issues that matter, and now has the seniority to give the district she represents considerable clout.

  7. It’s worth discussing whether it’s positive when women with different politics/ideologies are elected into powerful positions. Personally, I just want more women (especially women of color) in these positions- economics, law, finance, politics, etc. As of now, it’s still “Jane Doe, a black woman” or “the first black woman” or “a Hispanic woman.” No one ever says “John Doe, a white man.” Men, especially white men are the default. I want to see the day when women aren’t policed for their shoes, or hair, or dresses. No one worried about Obama’s outfit, but Michelle is policed. No one worried about Bill Clinton’s tie, but Hilary was trashed for her attire. If we had more women in these positions in the first place… well they would be treated like white men. People would ask about their policies, education, ideas as opposed to their hairstyles, shoes, and handbags.

  8. In reference to Miss S’s comment. Yes we need more women in office.
    I am currently running for office (ohio4jbrown.com), and I have to say that not only do more men hold office, but I think its a shame that women don’t receive the contributions men receive, by a long shot! And yes women we are to blame for part of this!
    Quoted from “SheShouldRun.com” – The United States ranks 86th in the world for womens political involvement. With women holding only 17% of all seats in Congress, less than 25% of state elected legislators and officials are women, and of our 50 Governors, only 6 are women.
    I have personally seen companies give $2000 to a male candidate and then turn around and give only $200 to a female.
    I have heard people say that they planned on voting for a women because her issues were strong, but refuse to give her contributions because they didn’t want anyone to know they supported women.
    We supposedly “earned the right” for equal voting rights. So when do we finally earn the right to be voted for equally?

Comments are currently closed.