NOW Now
Back and Forth: Marcia Pappas
Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:11:00
With domestic violence charges at the center of two high-profile political scandals in Albany, politicians on both sides of the aisle have responded by trumpeting their records on women’s issues, using the episodes as opportunities to declare themselves leaders against domestic violence.
Marcia Pappas has a message for them: She is not buying it.
Pappas, the president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, has been fighting to raise the profile of domestic violence as a social and political issue for years. Legislators’ press releases in the wake of the troubles faced by former State Sen. Hiram Monserrate and Gov. David Paterson are no substitute, Pappas said, for political leaders addressing domestic violence as a systemic problem. More women need to be recruited to run for elected office, she said, and women’s issues need to get more attention from the state’s male-dominated political structure.
In a wide-ranging interview this month, Pappas also discussed the broader agenda for women’s rights groups in Albany, listed the issues she would like to see Attorney General Andrew Cuomo take up before leaving office and considered what it means to be a “feminist” in the year 2010.
What follows is an edited tran scri pt.
The Capitol: What is NOW working on now?
Marcia Pappas: We defeated the “no-fault divorce” legislation that was voted on in the [Senate Judiciary Committee], so that was very important to us. The other thing was the Reproductive Health Act, which was very important to us, which would take abortion rights out of the penal code and put it into the health laws where it belongs. Another issue that’s just recently come up is the Strangulation Prevention Act, which was introduced by [State Sen. Eric Schneiderman], because strangulation is not necessarily a crime in New York State. And then the other thing that’s important to us is the Constitutional Equality Act. It would basically put the word “sex” into the New York State Constitution, meaning that no one could discriminate against someone because of their sex.
TC: What do you make of the fact that domestic violence has been at the center of at least two high-profile political scandals in recent months? What does that say?
MP: People are not admitting to the fact that domestic violence is systemic in our society. It is an offshoot, but it stems from sexism and misogyny. It is historically something that has been going on from the beginning of time, and so they fail to look at it as something as serious as issues like racism or antisemitism or all those “isms” … They’re hate crimes against women. But therein lies the difficulty, because just as white people do not want to face the fact that they are racist, the males in our society do not want to face the fact that they are sexist. And so it is going to take many, many years, I believe, to get people to understand that this is not just something that happens to the woman down the street. It is a systemic problem in our society. And in order to deal with it properly, people have to admit to it.
TC: Do you think that has gotten lost in the fallout from the scandals?
MP: Our society has become more Jerry Springer-ish. You know, they want this drama rather than looking at the real problem. They want to see the drama behind it. Or if you’re a politician, you want to see the politics behind it. But for us it’s not just about politics. It’s not just about that one person. It’s about how that situation falls in the greater picture. … So if you look at how the woman was treated in the [Hiram Monserrate] situation, how the woman was treated in the [David Paterson] situation, these are just examples of what’s going on for millions of women out there. And so we try and bring that aspect into it.
TC: Why do you think political leaders in Albany are neglecting these issues?
MP: If we look at who most of the politicians are, look at their gender. You do the math. People said to me, “What do you make of the fact that eight people voted against expelling Monserrate?” And I guess 53 voted to expel him. And I said, “Well, one in four women are assaulted everyday by someone they know. You do the math.”
TC: Have high-profile incidents like these in some way allowed politicians to claim they’re taking action on domestic violence, without actually addressing the problem as a whole?
MP: I think politicians want to be judged on their voting record, so what they basically do is point to their voting record on the issues. Do we see those same people actually doing something in the communities? Not necessarily. … We see a lot of legislation that could be really good for women that is not passed because they use women as bargaining chips. That’s really disheartening. We know that there’s lots of legislation that could be passed and that’s really good, and you have to scratch your head and wonder why it’s not happening.
TC: David Paterson says he has a side to the story, and he would like to get it out. Do you believe him?
MP: It’s going to be interesting to hear his side. But again, any appearance of impropriety does put a dark cloud over the governor’s administration. And we don’t really see how he’s going to govern in an appropriate manner from this point on. He will be distracted by this investigation, and the appearance of impropriety is there.
TC: Do you still think he should resign?
MP: Absolutely.
TC: So Andrew Cuomo will be the Democratic nominee in all likelihood. NOW endorsed him in 2006. Do you feel he has been active on women’s issue as attorney general?
MP: Well, let me just say that we haven’t seen any red flags.
TC: What more would you want to see out of him?
MP: We would love to see the attorney general push more for the Equal Rights Amendment for women—because that legislation does go to his office for an opinion, and so therefore we’d love to see him do that.
TC: Has the ERA gone to the attorney general for an opinion yet?
MP: It has gone, and I believe when Eliot Spitzer was [attorney general], I believe he sent it back with an opinion that there was no problem with it. And I have not seen the opinion yet of Andrew Cuomo’s office.
TC: Should there be a more intensive effort by Democratic leaders to recruit women candidates?
MP: Absolutely. We need many, many more women running. There’s a lot of women out there that are very qualified and able to hold office. I think what happens for women is that it’s very difficult for them to raise money, so that obviously gives them the disadvantage in terms of visibility and being out there to let people know who they are. But I think it has to happen, women have to start stepping up to the plate and running for office and challenging the status quo.
TC: You call yourself a “feminist.” What does it mean to be a feminist in 2010? Has that term been warped and co-opted beyond recognition?
MP: Well, you know, the word “feminism” has been given a dirty definition. And I think it’s because the right wing has been very successful at making women feel like if you call yourself a feminist then there’s something wrong with you. And that’s been typically their strategy all along. You know, if you step outside the box, if you speak out against inequality … then what’s wrong with you, you must be some radical lesbian man-hating person. I’ve been called that many times. I don’t have a response to that! And I say that if my fighting for women’s equality, my fighting for women’s safety on the street, if my fighting for women to have control over their own bodies, makes me a lesbian, then you can name it whatever you want. I’m just going to still do it.
photo by Barry Sloan
Marcia Pappas has a message for them: She is not buying it.
Pappas, the president of the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women, has been fighting to raise the profile of domestic violence as a social and political issue for years. Legislators’ press releases in the wake of the troubles faced by former State Sen. Hiram Monserrate and Gov. David Paterson are no substitute, Pappas said, for political leaders addressing domestic violence as a systemic problem. More women need to be recruited to run for elected office, she said, and women’s issues need to get more attention from the state’s male-dominated political structure.
In a wide-ranging interview this month, Pappas also discussed the broader agenda for women’s rights groups in Albany, listed the issues she would like to see Attorney General Andrew Cuomo take up before leaving office and considered what it means to be a “feminist” in the year 2010.
What follows is an edited tran scri pt.
The Capitol: What is NOW working on now?Marcia Pappas: We defeated the “no-fault divorce” legislation that was voted on in the [Senate Judiciary Committee], so that was very important to us. The other thing was the Reproductive Health Act, which was very important to us, which would take abortion rights out of the penal code and put it into the health laws where it belongs. Another issue that’s just recently come up is the Strangulation Prevention Act, which was introduced by [State Sen. Eric Schneiderman], because strangulation is not necessarily a crime in New York State. And then the other thing that’s important to us is the Constitutional Equality Act. It would basically put the word “sex” into the New York State Constitution, meaning that no one could discriminate against someone because of their sex.
TC: What do you make of the fact that domestic violence has been at the center of at least two high-profile political scandals in recent months? What does that say?
MP: People are not admitting to the fact that domestic violence is systemic in our society. It is an offshoot, but it stems from sexism and misogyny. It is historically something that has been going on from the beginning of time, and so they fail to look at it as something as serious as issues like racism or antisemitism or all those “isms” … They’re hate crimes against women. But therein lies the difficulty, because just as white people do not want to face the fact that they are racist, the males in our society do not want to face the fact that they are sexist. And so it is going to take many, many years, I believe, to get people to understand that this is not just something that happens to the woman down the street. It is a systemic problem in our society. And in order to deal with it properly, people have to admit to it.
TC: Do you think that has gotten lost in the fallout from the scandals?
MP: Our society has become more Jerry Springer-ish. You know, they want this drama rather than looking at the real problem. They want to see the drama behind it. Or if you’re a politician, you want to see the politics behind it. But for us it’s not just about politics. It’s not just about that one person. It’s about how that situation falls in the greater picture. … So if you look at how the woman was treated in the [Hiram Monserrate] situation, how the woman was treated in the [David Paterson] situation, these are just examples of what’s going on for millions of women out there. And so we try and bring that aspect into it.
TC: Why do you think political leaders in Albany are neglecting these issues?
MP: If we look at who most of the politicians are, look at their gender. You do the math. People said to me, “What do you make of the fact that eight people voted against expelling Monserrate?” And I guess 53 voted to expel him. And I said, “Well, one in four women are assaulted everyday by someone they know. You do the math.”
TC: Have high-profile incidents like these in some way allowed politicians to claim they’re taking action on domestic violence, without actually addressing the problem as a whole?
MP: I think politicians want to be judged on their voting record, so what they basically do is point to their voting record on the issues. Do we see those same people actually doing something in the communities? Not necessarily. … We see a lot of legislation that could be really good for women that is not passed because they use women as bargaining chips. That’s really disheartening. We know that there’s lots of legislation that could be passed and that’s really good, and you have to scratch your head and wonder why it’s not happening.
TC: David Paterson says he has a side to the story, and he would like to get it out. Do you believe him?
MP: It’s going to be interesting to hear his side. But again, any appearance of impropriety does put a dark cloud over the governor’s administration. And we don’t really see how he’s going to govern in an appropriate manner from this point on. He will be distracted by this investigation, and the appearance of impropriety is there.
TC: Do you still think he should resign?
MP: Absolutely.
TC: So Andrew Cuomo will be the Democratic nominee in all likelihood. NOW endorsed him in 2006. Do you feel he has been active on women’s issue as attorney general?
MP: Well, let me just say that we haven’t seen any red flags.
TC: What more would you want to see out of him?
MP: We would love to see the attorney general push more for the Equal Rights Amendment for women—because that legislation does go to his office for an opinion, and so therefore we’d love to see him do that.
TC: Has the ERA gone to the attorney general for an opinion yet?
MP: It has gone, and I believe when Eliot Spitzer was [attorney general], I believe he sent it back with an opinion that there was no problem with it. And I have not seen the opinion yet of Andrew Cuomo’s office.
TC: Should there be a more intensive effort by Democratic leaders to recruit women candidates?
MP: Absolutely. We need many, many more women running. There’s a lot of women out there that are very qualified and able to hold office. I think what happens for women is that it’s very difficult for them to raise money, so that obviously gives them the disadvantage in terms of visibility and being out there to let people know who they are. But I think it has to happen, women have to start stepping up to the plate and running for office and challenging the status quo.
TC: You call yourself a “feminist.” What does it mean to be a feminist in 2010? Has that term been warped and co-opted beyond recognition?
MP: Well, you know, the word “feminism” has been given a dirty definition. And I think it’s because the right wing has been very successful at making women feel like if you call yourself a feminist then there’s something wrong with you. And that’s been typically their strategy all along. You know, if you step outside the box, if you speak out against inequality … then what’s wrong with you, you must be some radical lesbian man-hating person. I’ve been called that many times. I don’t have a response to that! And I say that if my fighting for women’s equality, my fighting for women’s safety on the street, if my fighting for women to have control over their own bodies, makes me a lesbian, then you can name it whatever you want. I’m just going to still do it.
photo by Barry Sloan
