In an election cycle characterized by bombastic if deluded rhetoric, it can be difficult to isolate the signal in the noise. Truthfully, I could sit here and type thousand after thousand after thousand words on the communication strategies of players on both sides of the aisle. I could talk about how Dems continue to exhibit cowardice (to quote McAvoy: how come we lose so goddamn always?) or the Republican commitment to a perverted version of hari-kari on behalf of a man who should be receiving treatment for dementia instead of the white glove treatment the party has offered. Maybe I will. But that’s not today’s conversation.
Instead, I’d like to talk about Nancy Mace on the Sunday morning talk show circuit this weekend, because what she said and did had implications far beyond her polling or Trump’s.
Mace has been transparent and vocal about her personal experience with sexual assault. George Stephanopoulus asked her this weekend how, as a survivor of assault, she could throw her support behind a man (Trump) who had been found liable for sexual assault in a court of law. Here was her response.
There are two ways to look at this, both of which matter. We’ll start with the kindest
We Are Not a Label
I’m going to pivot back to Newsroom for a second, and you’re going to have to stomach it, because it’s probably the most appropriate reference.
In the show, McAvoy goes after a Black male Republican who happens to be gay. Moreover, he’s a Republican supporting Santorum for president. If you don’t remember how potent Santorum was for about two minutes, you’re forgiven. But he was known as a very religious, highly conservative, surprisingly competitive candidate during the cycle that nominated Mitt Romney. In Newsroom, McAvoy goes after the fictional Black gay man hard, demanding how he could possibly support a candidate who views him as an abomination. The man’s response? Both the video and transcript of the comments are below.
WALL: Stop – just stop! I believe in the sanctity of life. And if that word is too vague for you, then look it up. I support the senator because, of all the candidates in the field, I believe his the only one whose passion on the issue of abortion equals my own. And I believe he has the skills to make a fantastic president.
MCAVOY: I’m not talking- that’s not what I’m talking-
WALL: Do not interrupt me again, sir! I am more than one thing. How dare you reduce me to the color of my skin or my sexual orientation. There are people who look just like me – thousands and thousands who have died for the freedom to define their own lives for themselves. How dare you presume to decide what I should think is important. Yes, when it comes to equality for the gay community, Senator Santorum is wrong. But I am far more insulted by your high-handed implication that I need your protection.
MCAVOY: Sir, I-
WALL: Shut up! I’ll let you know when I’ve finished. I came on this program because Rick Santorum believes that the right to kill an unborn child is not inalienable, and I stand with Rick Santorum, and I stand with the Catholic Church.
I am not defined by my blackness. I am not defined by my gayness. And if that doesn’t fit your narrow-minded expectation of who I’m supposed to be, I don’t give a damn, because I’m not defined by you, either.
I want to be really clear, because between the people I love and the litany of scholars I respect on the same level, I get identity politics probably better than most (without assuming full comprehension, because duh). And as a woman who has had the great misfortune of being sexually assaulted twice in her life, I struggle to identify with both the fictional Mr. Wall and real-life Representative Mace.
But as a neurodivergent woman with more years of therapy and my own experiences counseling women in dire straits, I also understand the argument that we should not be defined by our traumas. We’re more than that.
And I don’t want anyone else reading this to use this writing as a measuring stick for where they’re at or a prescription for getting to good. I know better, and I need you to know that too.
Except that’s not what happened this weekend with Mace, is it?
Exploiting Trauma
I’m never, ever, going to tell a sexual violence survivor how to process their trauma. Each trauma and person who has shouldered it is unique, no matter how many parallels might exist.
But where I draw the line is the exploitation of the basic shared trauma of millions of women to try and score political points on behalf of a proven and unapologetic assailant.
Mace co-opted the language survivors often use to defend themselves in the face of misogynist and abusive language for just that end. We know all too well what it means to have to defend ourselves when people ask how much we had to drink, what we were wearing, how we acted during interactions with our assailant, and – arguably most disgustingly – the impact of an allegation of the assailants so-bright future.
But Mace wasn’t defending herself or other survivors. She used the language most of us use as armor – not to protect herself, but a known and remorseless criminal.
I use that word deliberately.
Stephanopoulus was 1000% correct in calling her out. McAvoy might have gotten it wrong in terms of approach and tone, but he didn’t. He wasn’t shaming her. He was interrogating the integrity of a political position relative to what she made into a political talking point.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Should sexual assault be made political?
In 1970, the (imperfect) feminist activist Carol Hanisch published an essay called “The Personal is the Political.” It had been a rallying call in second-wave feminism, but Hanisch is largely (if not rightly) credited as bringing it into academic literature.
What does it mean? Basically: politics cannot be divorced for its impact on the human experience. On a personal level, we cannot divorce our political choices from its impact on us and those around us. Broadly speaking, such discussions are driven by narratives. That means that, in a wold where the political is personal, our understanding of the human experience must be informed by lived experiences.
I’m getting too academic. Let’s simplify things. While Representative Britt’s attempt at humanizing policy concerns came off as a pseudo-terrifying alien impression of a real-life person, she was at least attempting to rise to the challenge of effective argumentation. Ethos, Pathos. Logos. Otherwise understood (in a very basic way) as perceived authority, emotional resonance, and logical presentation.
Britt fell short. Mace most definitely fell short with her media appearances. I can say that objectively.
But that’s not the whole story.
Blame the Broads
Nancy Mace’s (and I hate to use this word) leverage of her trauma was inarguably disgusting. It wasn’t about advocating for survivors. It was about dodging a question.
BUT.
Both Mace and Representative Britt with her very deeply weird rebuttal(?) to Biden’s State of the Union speech have faced fierce backlash. I can’t disagree with it. What I can disagree with is the difference in treatment that they’ve received relative to their male counterparts.
I don’t even need to cite the word salad of Biden’s predecessor to make this argument. Instead, I point you towards the acceptance speech of the newly coronated male chair of the RNC.
I dare you to look up each of his claims. You’ll find that Biden’s policies have actually decreased the flow of undocumented migrants to the country. You’ll find that the proportion of crime committed by migrants is dwarfed by both the frequency and impact of straight, white, male, American-born citizens. You’ll find that the inflation spurred by the Covid era policies initiated by Trump were 1) necessary, and 2) mitigated by Biden policies since.
But MOST importantly, because apparently our standardized (if whitewashed) education system doesn’t actually cover this – THE PRESIDENT DOES NOT DIRECTLY CONTROL INFLATION.
I’m not going to sit here and say Biden is perfect. I disagree with him on many, many issues. But that’s not the point. It’s that – especially with Republican women – we expect perfection and write them off if they don’t rise to the challenge.
Don’t get it twisted. I’m never going to back Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace, or Katie Britt. I will actively donate my time and resources to keep them out of Congress. ,
But I can’t help noting that the new RNC chair – along with countless other male GOP figures – do not face the vitriol that GOP women see. I mean, they literally put a woman who clearly has had no voice and diction training in a kitchen under an impossible spotlight and then reveled in slamming her. It was a layup.
It’s not like any of this is new. From where I’m sitting, I cannot understand how – as a woman – you can support these other women working against us and the men who have been actively working to keep us in the kitchen for decades.
I also recognize what McAvoy got body-slammed by in that episode of Newsroom. I am not in a position to dictate people’s priorities, and neither is anyone else. None of us are one thing. I, specifically, am not just a survivor of sexual assault. I’m a lot more.
Where I struggle is a firm belief – backed by data and experience – that words have power. Narratives have power. If you are in a position of influence, the choices you make regarding your language and strategy come with higher stakes. That’s true for both men and women, but let’s be real.
The stakes are higher for women. Fair? No. Real? Yes.
What Next?
I heard a “favorite statistic” on the news the other day. Can’t remember the speaker, so I apologize. He pointed out that five minutes one-on-one with an undecided voter made them six times more likely to not only vote but vote for your candidate.
Once upon a time, I’d have believed that. The world has dramatically changed since those numbers were crunched. The calculus is different today.
Never in our (at least mine) lifetimes has narrative argumentation mattered more. Our polling methodologies were grounded in an era of ubiquitous landlines, limited youth engagement, and the absence of easily manipulated social media that is used by many to digest news.
This all means that we need more reasonable and informed voices speaking up. By all means, directly engage with your loved ones. But the best way to counter the AI-generated attempts to manipulate our newsfeeds on every platform is to speak truth to power on a broader basis – with the caveat of prioritizing individual safety.
I’ve said it a million times. I’ll say it a million more. I don’t believe in our country as an idea. I do believe in the country’s people and their humanity. THAT is how we save enough to move towards that elusive more perfect union.
We tell each other stories. And we listen.
Rethink the Rant 