In the past few weeks, we — the collective, ubiquitous we — have spent a lot of time talking about the GOP tax bill and how it will negatively impact our futures. Since the Senate passed the bill at 2am last Saturday morning, I’ve been grumpy, sad, and angry. I fear for not only my financial future, but the financial future of our generation.
While the world is on fire and the Republicans may have finally achieved their dream of cutting taxes for the rich, there is still some good in the world. There are women out there fighting to help other women better their financial futures one step at a time — and one of those groups is She Spends.
She Spends was founded by Alicia McElhaney, a business journalist in NYC. She brought together Jemma Frost and Amanda Eisenberg, and together they run the weekly newsletter and blog, all geared towards bringing forward financial news, investment advice, and spending profiles of real women. It’s a group of women helping other women — which is the most important thing we can be doing in 2017.
She Spends is dedicated to “give you actionable tools to close the wage, investing and board seat gaps.” The goal is simple: help women take on personal finance problems and the big picture money issues, two areas where women have rarely been taught the necessary skills to step into the ring. And they have an awesome statement of values and statement of inclusion listed on their website, which you can find here.
In addition to the weekly newsletter (which can hit your inbox at 8:30am every Friday, too, by clicking here to subscribe), there is a She Spends Facebook group full of engaged women ready to ask the tough questions about money and eager to hear advice and stories from other women. She Spends is actively working to build both a platform and a community. It’s women helping other women at its finest. You can join the Facebook group here.
I’m a sucker for women lead organizations and companies, women helping women, learning from other women, and communities. (See a trend here?) She Spends brings it all together, building windows and doors in areas where women have traditionally been locked out of the room. I love reading the newsletter every Friday morning, seeing the top financial news of the week, and learning how other women spend and manage their money. Additionally, I’ve known Alicia for years and know first hand the product she’s creating is top-notch quality.
To read more on She Spends, you can read Talking Biz News’ interview with Alicia here.
Interested in diving in with She Spends? Well, you can subscribe to the newsletter here, learn more about their partnership with Ellevest here, and check out the website here!
It’s a small club with exclusive membership — even smaller than the boys club that makes up the United States Congress. The Women of the Senate ended up in this exclusive club that they were never meant to join, that men never intended for them to join. But here we are, in 2017, with 21 female Senators. A record high for the number of women serving in this chamber.
(Most) of the Women of the Senate in the 115th Congress
Only fifty women have ever served in the United States Senate — 33 Democrats and 17 Republicans. This seems like such a large number… until you realize there have been almost 2,000 individuals who have served in the United States since 1787. Less than 3% of all Senators have been women. CRAZY.
Although they are few, they are mighty — and they champion bipartisanship, friendship, and supporting one another over party divides. Women Senators want to get shit done. They come to Congress with the intent to make the country a better place. They want to put aside the petty drama that plays out on CSPAN and save some lives. Instead, they are saddled with the baggage of years of a male-dominated chamber — the ultimate pissing contest between men who want to follow their party platforms to the letter.
But it took almost 200 years for women to be independently elected to the highest chamber of the United States Congress. Elected in 1978, Nancy Landon Kassebaum (R-KS) was the first woman elected to the Senate without her husband having previously held a Senate seat. Then in 1987, Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was elected to the high office — and she was the first woman elected in her own right whose husband nor father served in government before her. Mikulski became the longest serving female Senator, ending her tenure at the end of the 114th Congress in 2017.
In addition to being the longest serving woman Senator, Mikulski was known as the Dean of Senate Women. She was the gatekeeper, the champion, the teacher, and the mentor. She was ambitious, a seat on the Appropriations Committee her prize. She shocked male Senators by treating them as her equal, and ultimately gaining respect from them.
Senators huddled in Senator Mikulski’s office
But she did something else — she waited for other women to be elected to the Senate and created a space that women could occupy in the Senate chambers. Senator Barbara Boxer once described Mikulski as “never [being] satisfied just making history herself — she wanted to blaze a trail wide enough for all of us to follow. As she said: ‘Some women stare out the window waiting for Prince Charming. I stare out the window waiting for more women senators!’”And she blazed a wide trail. Once the women were there, she helped them, regardless of political affiliation. She held crash courses in Senate procedure. She provided lessons on setting up your office and how to get on committees. She handed out a guidebook called “Getting Started in the Senate” that she wrote herself.
And she started the tradition of holding quarterly dinners for all the women in the Senate. These dinners are a way to build bridges across the aisle, allow the women to form bonds and friendships that are stronger than partisan politics. There are four simple rules to the dinners: no staff, no memos, no leaks and no men. Since the start of these dinners in the 1990s, the women have maintained their civility pact — think, do you ever seen the women Senators going after one another? No. You don’t. But within their self-created safe zone, they have the freedom to talk about their families and the struggles of being a woman on Capitol Hill. They discuss issues they can work together on, give life advice, and and champion each others’ triumphs. It’s women helping women, raising them up, and aiming to succeed.
Just because there are more women in the Senate today does not mean they aren’t acutely aware of their outsider status or the structural sexism built within the Congressional chamber. Until 2008, the Senate pool was considered “men only” because some of the male Senators liked to swim, you guessed it, naked. They weren’t going to let any woman into the pool because it would change their routine, change their norm. Senator Chuck Schumer had to fight for this policy change. Until 2013, the closest women’s restroom to the Senate chamber only had two stalls — at the end of that year, two more stalls were added, bringing the grand total of women’s toilets near the Senate floor to four.
Women of the Senate meeting with President Obama, 2013
But that doesn’t mean things aren’t changing, albeit slowly. The women in the Senate are a group of badass women who are tirelessly working to improve America through cooperation and smart politics. Women “are living, breathing history climbing the stairs — and sending a signal.” The signal is to all of the girls and young women out there who now see themselves represented in government. The signal is that you can do anything you set your mind to — including running for a seat in the United States Senate.
In addition to the aforementioned cracks in the ceiling, the women Senators have done many other badass things — and some of my favorites are below.
Claire McCaskill once put one million dollars of her own campaign funds into Todd Aiken’s campaign (yes, the Todd Aiken, as in the “legitimate rape” Todd Aiken) so he would win the nomination… just because she wanted to beat him in the general election.
Senators Mikulski, Ayotte, and Collins during the Government Shutdown of 2013
Senator Susan Collins stepped up during the infamous government shutdown of 2013 to right the ship. She took the Senate floor and suggested they find a solution — she didn’t bring partisan politics into it, she just wanted to find a solution. Senators Mikulski, Murkowski, Ayotte, and other women senators amplified her message. With Collins leadership, they brokered the agreement that would bring the government back to life.
Senator Dianne Feinstein fought against the leader of her party — Barack Obama — and publicly released a once classified report on post-9/11 enhanced interrogation tactics by the United States.
The women also play on a Congressional softball league — like the men — but the women of the United States Congress play on the same team and compete against the press. Softball brings the women together on the same team.
Debbie Stabenow basically used a “your mom” joke to make a jab at a male senator who said his health insurance plan should not cover contraception.
Tammy Duckworth was a Black Hawk pilot, lost both of her legs when her helicopter was hit by a grenade, and has since run the Chicago marathon.
The women of the United States Senate — past and present — are the head bitches in charge, the definition of badass, and fantastic legislators. We should elevate their voices, challenge them, and remind young women that they, too, can kick ass on the Senate floor. So, in the words of the great Senator Barbara Mikulski — square your shoulders, put your lipstick on, and fight the revolution.
Three things happened this week to spark a conversation amongst some friends about how a woman president would revolutionize fashion.
First, a coworker texted me the following:
Two, I watched this week’s episode of Scandal. It’s the first episode I’ve seen in a few years and I am obviously behind, but it was on after Grey’s Anatomy so I kept watching. I heard Mellie called Madam President for the first time and it felt like I was simultaneously punched in the stomach and stabbed in the heart. It was the same feeling I had last December when I watched the episode of Madam Secretary where Elizabeth McCord was sworn in as President temporarily. It was weeks after the 2016 election and it hurt all over again… but it also got me thinking about the idea of a woman President.
Three, I listened to the War Powers episode of the podcast What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law, where they talk about the Biscuit and the time Reagan was without it while having surgery at GW Hospital Post-gunshot wound. The nurses had to cut his suit jacket off, and the Biscuit was in his suit jacket pocket.
All of this got me thinking about how a woman President would carry the Biscuit.
Before I go any further, let’s talk about the Biscuit. The Biscuit is a credit card sized piece of plastic with the Gold Codes, or the verification codes that confirm the identity of the president. It is used in conjunction with the Football, a black briefcase that contains important information and communication technology to be used to communicate the president’s plan and launch a strike. The president is to carry this card with them at all times. However, there have been a variety of mishaps that have lead to that not always being the case — like the time President Bill Clinton misplaced the Biscuit for months.
If there were ever a time that the president would have to launch nuclear weapons, there is an established, complex system in place that requires the president to confirm their identity using this code. If they do not confirm their identity, the nuclear weapons are not deployed. What happens if the president loses their card or is otherwise incapacitated? You can read more about the hypothetical situation here.
(We can have a separate conversation later about how calling the briefcase a Football is a holdover from a testosterone filled government in the 1960s… the name “The Football” comes from a nuclear war plan code-named “Dropkick” and in order to do a dropkick, you needed a football. Men.)
But anyway, yes. The Biscuit is an important item that the president must carry with them.
So… when a woman is elected president, she will have to keep it on her at all times. For any woman, the natural question is how to carry the Biscuit? Women’s clothing are rarely made with pockets capable of carrying anything larger than a tampon (if you’re lucky) — and that’s if the article of clothing has pockets at all! While I would just stick it in my bra, I recognize that may not be the most dignified place to keep the verification code that would allow you to launch the United States’ nuclear weapons.
How could a woman president carry the Biscuit — in her bra? In one of those travel pouches that hooks on your bra? (This would work fine, but can you imagine the press that would come out after the president needed an aide to help her get the Biscuit out of a pouch strapped to her chest? How the right would LAUNCH into how inappropriate it was that a woman had to reach into her shirt to pull out the codes?) She could also carry it in her purse, but purses are easy to leave behind or pass from person to person… and the Biscuit is not something that should be in the hands of random advance staffers who the team may or may not know well. Maybe she would settle on the pouch or suck it up and carry a purse everywhere, but I would hope the real answer is more transformative than that… I believe that a woman president would cause a fashion revolution. What is the revolution, you may ask?
Pockets.
Pockets is the fashion revolution.
Just think about it — a woman president has to carry the Biscuit on her at all times. She gets briefed and thinks “where the fuck am I going to keep this thing?” So she calls up a former president whom she’s friendly with (let’s say Barack Obama) and says, “Hey Barack — where did you keep the Biscuit?” and he responds “my suit jacket pocket… or pants pocket, depending on what I was wearing.” She opens her closet and pulls out outfit after outfit, evaluating her wardrobe for pockets. She’s not shocked at her findings, women’s clothing never has pockets.
So she calls together her team and says from now on, all of her clothing will have pockets in them. She has pockets added to her favorite blazers, she finds designers who will make her favorite suits with pockets in them — and pockets large enough to carry her iPhone, too.
And then she starts talking about the misogyny of the fashion industry in a random profile piece, saying that there are things she has to carry with her, but do you know how hard it is to do that when your clothing does not have pockets? She highlights the effort she went through to get pockets added to her clothing. Fox News will run some piece about how the president isn’t doing anything but talking about pockets… but pockets in clothing is something that women along the entire political spectrum can get behind.
Designers and department stores start releasing their line for the upcoming season and women are elated to find that everything has pockets — the pants, jeans, dresses, skirts. Everything has pockets. Pockets large enough to fit a cell phone. Girls who aspire to be president one day will go prom dress shopping and find that all the dresses have pockets in the skirt. Women will go out dress shopping for weddings or galas or whatever they may need a dress for and find that all of the dresses have pockets.
Pockets, my friends, will be the fashion revolution of a woman presidency. If it could have a pocket, it should have a pocket.
We often talk about “power dressing,” the idea that women dress like men, but with brighter colors or more “feminine” touches. We see this in how women in leadership roles dress today. Angela Merkel and Elizabeth Warren are both known for their black pants and bright, pantone colored blazers. Hillary Clinton wore basically the same outfit everyday on the campaign trail in 2008. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Women can — and should — be able to branch out and wear a variety of business clothes that are different than pantsuits (as much as I love pantsuits and wear them with as much regularity as a 20-something can).
Theresa May, whether you like her or not, has been outspoken on the issue of fashion for women in politics. She likes to wear fashionable shoe that are typically out of the norm for women politicians. She has told stories of women coming up to hear, letting her know that they got into politics because she was not afraid to express herself with what she wore — and that was different, and that spoke to them.
Madeleine Albright, the first woman Secretary of State, regularly talks about how she “used jewelry as a diplomatic tool” during her tenure. She used jewelry to her advantage, similar to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent collar, when dealing with different nations or political actors. Secretary Albright said that it “all started when I was ambassador at the U.N. and Saddam Hussein called me a serpent. I had this wonderful antique snake pin. So when we were dealing with Iraq, I wore the snake pin.” She continued to purchase costume jewelry and pins to signify her mood or the agenda of the day.
Jewelry, pantsuits, statement shoes — all of these are great ways for women to show their own personal flair while on the world state. But you know what else they still need? Fucking pockets.
Even the suit that Hillary Clinton wore to the Democratic National Convention did not have pockets. The woman who should have been the leader of the free world didn’t even have pockets on what was arguably one of the biggest days of her political career! A woman president could change this precedent. She could make a statement by always having pockets. She wouldn’t have to tuck her phone into the waistband of her skirt or pants, wouldn’t have to tuck the Biscuit into her bra. She could have pockets like everyone fucking should.
Pockets are political, and a woman president could have revolutionized this seemingly simple amenity into a staple for all.
On Thursday, the Women’s March announced that Senator Bernie Sanders would be the Friday night speaker (opener? headliner?) at the Women’s Convention in a few weeks and Twitter exploded.
In the days since, news organizations have mischaracterized Sanders’ participation, everyone has had their own hot take, and the Women’s March and its leaders have defended and clarified and apologized.
The Women’s Convention bills itself as “a weekend of workshops, strategy sessions, inspiring forums and intersectional movement building” as we gear up to the 2018 midterm elections. Where the Women’s March in January was an emotional gathering, the convention positions itself as leadership training and strategizing.
I was excited when the convention was announced. If October 27–29 wasn’t one of my only free weekends since the end of August, I likely would have crunched numbers, pinched my pennies, and tried to go. I love learning from other women. It’s part of why I joined a sorority and remained active as an alumna after graduating. It’s part of why I brag about how in my professional career, I have only ever worked for majority-women companies with women founders and CEOs. And it’s part of why I was so disappointed when I saw the Sanders announcement.
Women face daunting odds in any area traditionally dominated by men, and so we make our own spaces. We found our own companies, create our own organizations, plan our own protests. We learn from those who came before us, share with our peers, and pass on what we’ve learned to the women coming up behind us.
And yes, sometimes our mentors are men who recognize the mountain women climb and who share their advice as we try to creep ever closer to equal footing.
But more often, from classrooms to boardrooms, men dominate the conversation. Their suggestions are given more time, even when it’s the exact same idea from his woman colleague. And when women and men share speaking time evenly, women are perceived as speaking more.
It’s worth asking why the announcement of Senator Sanders got such widespread mainstream coverage, when many other speaker announcements, including that of Representative Maxine Waters, did not. But it’s also worth asking why the prominent opening night speaking spot at the Women’s Convention was given to a man. I’m not calling for men to be excluded from the conversation and the Convention entirely. I am however, saying we should all acknowledge that women’s voices have been excluded for much of history and that the Women’s Convention should be one place we shouldn’t have to worry about being preempted.
In this time when it feels as if women are facing attacks from every direction, we should expect to be featured in the spaces we have created. This is a convention that grew out of the largest single-day protest in history. We spread the word and planned and created and dragged our friends out on a cold January day and met new friends as we stood in streets and came out in the hundreds of thousands across the world. There are plenty of women who are ready and eager to do more, to take on leadership roles, and to keep the fight alive. A woman should have spoken in this slot.
TNP-TEMP 
