I was quoted in an article in the Washington Post last week on the topic of women’s progress in the workplace. I said, “We’ve made a lot more noise than we’ve made progress.”
One week after the 2024 presidential election — one long week later — that quote sounds right, doesn’t it? Well, that line was something I said in an interview eight years ago, after Hillary Clinton’s loss. Eight years ago. It’s gutting, but it still holds today. No one will be in the Oval Office who understands the lived experiences of women and may thus work to advance them. Quite the opposite.
So what do we know?
We know that women’s economic future is likely bleaker today than it was a week ago.
We also know that elections are about money, in every way that they can be about money. How the economy is doing, how high inflation is, what tax cuts are promised. It’s also about who has the money, who donates the money, who will use that money to ensure they get more money, who gets to jump around on stage at a rally. (Answer: the world’s richest man.) It’s also about women in positions of power, controlling the money.
As people search for answers to “what really happened?” and “how did we get to where women’s and the LGBTQIA+ community’s essential rights are under attack?”, I can’t help but think of the glass cliff. About how, in times of crisis, women and/or people of color are shoved to the forefront to lead with the odds stacked against them. About how women are called to step up when the risk of failure is highest. About how, even when they are asked to step up, they are still saddled with the baggage of their predecessors and asked to make up for their failures, too.
And then, when they fail, it’s represented as incompetence — and not the result of their circumstances. And this failure not only fuels old media’s myths about women, money, and power — like that women can’t capably lead, or that women are “bad at money” — but these myths are also used to explain why she failed. These myths are so powerful they permeate our lives on a personal level; for example, most women married to men even today cede control and management of the money to their husbands. Even though money is power.
And perhaps autonomy. And perhaps independence.
So we live in a world in which women have less money and less power. And many women may be staring down the barrel of having even less, if and as reproductive rights are further constrained.
At the same time, perhaps counterintuitively, we live in a world in which many Americans are feeling disenfranchised and thus angry. And in which they see fewer opportunities for themselves than their parents had.
So what do we collectively do?
We mobilize our communities and networks to support disenfranchised people. We donate to mutual aid groups and reproductive rights funds. We advocate for and uplift women in the workplace. We vote for women in local elections.
And meanwhile, at Ellevest: We keep working to get more money in the hands of women. When women have more money (and thus, power) — when the people have more money (and thus, power) — we can do more to demand a more inclusive and robust economy.
That, I think, is the ultimate answer to creating more progress.