Lauren is right. Thank you for acknowledging what she wrote — we’re all working on being better, you perhaps more than most. If Katrina were a man, I doubt you’d be inferring she think about adopting a more grandmotherly vibe. I remember introducing Katrina at a Central OC Dems meeting once as a warrior goddess. Had I been completely genuine and authentic, I would have said what I was really thinking, which is she is a FUCKING WARRIOR GODDESS.
To be clear, I was not suggesting she be grandmotherly. I'm saying Dixon has that vibe, and it works. Also, and I've thought about this a lot—to me, it DOES apply to men. For me. Human touch matters. Small words matter. Patting a back, flicking an ear, a joke, a nod. Man or woman. Politics is about human connection.
Agree that human connection is what it’s all about. It’s why her fellow Supervisor Vince Sarmiento is so beloved as well as respected. And. There’s this uphill climb every woman in politics, business — in every aspect of life, for that matter — has to climb. I’m at a loss about how to articulate this, and I’m trying to parse your column for the obvious thing that’s wrong, and I can’t find it because you’re fair and kind. It’s between the lines, and it’s not you being a chauvinist — you’re not — but there’s something in there that reflects how our society works that makes me feel tired. Maybe another woman reading this can help me out and say it better. When I run across women like Katrina who are not afraid of or apologetic about their sharp edges, I feel such gratitude toward them. She’s fighting for the poor and the underserved and she’s winning many of those battles. That’s a vibe.
Maybe the term you want is "structural bias"? No individual has to be actually sexist (or racist, or ableist, etc.) for the entire system to work against a group.
It is a hard thing for me to conceptualize, because it *seems* like it erases personal, individual experiences or choices. I try to think of it as the background conditions of what someone experiences or does. It isn't deterministic. Individuals are all different and act or react in individual ways.
But the groups that people get forced into, or are assumed to be in, or even put themselves in has a big effect on outcomes. Like the kid who is put into a "problem" category and goes through the rest of school with a disadvantage. And the kid who is charming and gets away with things and is always chosen to be the captain of the team has an advantage. Society lumps whole groups together based on single traits even when it is a terrible fit.
It isn't even always clear when structural bias affects an individual, which is super frustrating. It is like stochastic terrorism, which happens whenever the orange one spews his hate. It isn't deterministic, but it happens, and we try to make it happen less.
6/8/26 column: “And, to reiterate: Katrina Foley is great at her job. But she’s not smooth, or warm and cuddly. Which you sorta need to be, especially in local races. Hell, you at least need to fake it a bit. Dixon sucks, but she comes off grandmotherly. People love grandmothers.”
Unfortunately campaigning and governing are different skill sets. (As are getting a job and performing any job). I read the original post as a criticism of Foley’s campaigning so she can continue to govern.
Campaigns are job interviews, and interviewing is a fundamentally different skill from doing the job. Who hasn't hired or had a coworker who interviewed well and was terrible at their job? The reverse can also be true.
I personally don't think Foley's campaign is bad, but it isn't particularly great either. So many campaigns these days are vibes (God help us), so it can seem like a decent, but not spectacular, campaigner feels kind of... meh.
I do get Ms. Johnson-Norris's point. Women are held to a different standard, and I do think a man's campaign might receive a different critique, even when the personality criticism is similar (wooden/cold). Women are told to be pleasant and warm, and men are told to be a good hang. One is nurturing, and the other is fun. Those are definitely gendered structural buckets.
Women have been dissed since Day One - that much is undeniable - so I understand the defensive reaction from the Dem chair. Still, I'm not sure that pointing out an official's weakness at spreading word of all she's done for her constituents - which has a direct effect on her ability to remain in office - should be reflexively interpreted as an attack.
I get it - a Cassandra is rarely popular and easy to dismiss - but delineating these problems presents an opportunity to fix them, so maybe the Dem chair should concentrate on helping her candidate improve her public communication skills rather than yelling at the bearer of the bad news.
Of course I voted for Katrina. I vote for the right policies and the competence to enact them. What I think what you and Jeff are wrestling with is not a person’s competence, ability to be successful at their job
Unfortunately for women, this is conflated with certain ‘feminine’ traits that a lot of people add (unfairly) to the perception of women’s competence. Men do not have this added hurdle to overcome. I think the point Jeff may be trying to address, is that especially in the public service sphere, you have to get elected to do all the great things these women are able to do. For example, I donated and voted several times for Katie Porter. I attended some small candidate meetings with her and experienced and saw her interactions with folks. Her manner can at times be off-putting (I would say the same if she were male). I think this element is what Jeff is referring to. Part of the job of an elected official is to be able to connect with the voters/constituents/colleagues to be successful. Unfortunately, there may be a higher bar for women, but I think it applies nonetheless.
Lauren is right. Thank you for acknowledging what she wrote — we’re all working on being better, you perhaps more than most. If Katrina were a man, I doubt you’d be inferring she think about adopting a more grandmotherly vibe. I remember introducing Katrina at a Central OC Dems meeting once as a warrior goddess. Had I been completely genuine and authentic, I would have said what I was really thinking, which is she is a FUCKING WARRIOR GODDESS.
To be clear, I was not suggesting she be grandmotherly. I'm saying Dixon has that vibe, and it works. Also, and I've thought about this a lot—to me, it DOES apply to men. For me. Human touch matters. Small words matter. Patting a back, flicking an ear, a joke, a nod. Man or woman. Politics is about human connection.
Agree that human connection is what it’s all about. It’s why her fellow Supervisor Vince Sarmiento is so beloved as well as respected. And. There’s this uphill climb every woman in politics, business — in every aspect of life, for that matter — has to climb. I’m at a loss about how to articulate this, and I’m trying to parse your column for the obvious thing that’s wrong, and I can’t find it because you’re fair and kind. It’s between the lines, and it’s not you being a chauvinist — you’re not — but there’s something in there that reflects how our society works that makes me feel tired. Maybe another woman reading this can help me out and say it better. When I run across women like Katrina who are not afraid of or apologetic about their sharp edges, I feel such gratitude toward them. She’s fighting for the poor and the underserved and she’s winning many of those battles. That’s a vibe.
Maybe the term you want is "structural bias"? No individual has to be actually sexist (or racist, or ableist, etc.) for the entire system to work against a group.
It is a hard thing for me to conceptualize, because it *seems* like it erases personal, individual experiences or choices. I try to think of it as the background conditions of what someone experiences or does. It isn't deterministic. Individuals are all different and act or react in individual ways.
But the groups that people get forced into, or are assumed to be in, or even put themselves in has a big effect on outcomes. Like the kid who is put into a "problem" category and goes through the rest of school with a disadvantage. And the kid who is charming and gets away with things and is always chosen to be the captain of the team has an advantage. Society lumps whole groups together based on single traits even when it is a terrible fit.
It isn't even always clear when structural bias affects an individual, which is super frustrating. It is like stochastic terrorism, which happens whenever the orange one spews his hate. It isn't deterministic, but it happens, and we try to make it happen less.
That’s it. Thank you Jenny.
Where specifically did Pearlman say grandmotherly? Unless it was deleted, I don’t see it currently.
6/8/26 column: “And, to reiterate: Katrina Foley is great at her job. But she’s not smooth, or warm and cuddly. Which you sorta need to be, especially in local races. Hell, you at least need to fake it a bit. Dixon sucks, but she comes off grandmotherly. People love grandmothers.”
Thanks for your reply. Only met Foley once, and she was warm and friendly, no more so than a male politician, but i realize that is subjective.
Unfortunately campaigning and governing are different skill sets. (As are getting a job and performing any job). I read the original post as a criticism of Foley’s campaigning so she can continue to govern.
That video of Katie Porter has been around since she ran for Senate.
Campaigns are job interviews, and interviewing is a fundamentally different skill from doing the job. Who hasn't hired or had a coworker who interviewed well and was terrible at their job? The reverse can also be true.
I personally don't think Foley's campaign is bad, but it isn't particularly great either. So many campaigns these days are vibes (God help us), so it can seem like a decent, but not spectacular, campaigner feels kind of... meh.
I do get Ms. Johnson-Norris's point. Women are held to a different standard, and I do think a man's campaign might receive a different critique, even when the personality criticism is similar (wooden/cold). Women are told to be pleasant and warm, and men are told to be a good hang. One is nurturing, and the other is fun. Those are definitely gendered structural buckets.
Women have been dissed since Day One - that much is undeniable - so I understand the defensive reaction from the Dem chair. Still, I'm not sure that pointing out an official's weakness at spreading word of all she's done for her constituents - which has a direct effect on her ability to remain in office - should be reflexively interpreted as an attack.
I get it - a Cassandra is rarely popular and easy to dismiss - but delineating these problems presents an opportunity to fix them, so maybe the Dem chair should concentrate on helping her candidate improve her public communication skills rather than yelling at the bearer of the bad news.
Of course I voted for Katrina. I vote for the right policies and the competence to enact them. What I think what you and Jeff are wrestling with is not a person’s competence, ability to be successful at their job
Unfortunately for women, this is conflated with certain ‘feminine’ traits that a lot of people add (unfairly) to the perception of women’s competence. Men do not have this added hurdle to overcome. I think the point Jeff may be trying to address, is that especially in the public service sphere, you have to get elected to do all the great things these women are able to do. For example, I donated and voted several times for Katie Porter. I attended some small candidate meetings with her and experienced and saw her interactions with folks. Her manner can at times be off-putting (I would say the same if she were male). I think this element is what Jeff is referring to. Part of the job of an elected official is to be able to connect with the voters/constituents/colleagues to be successful. Unfortunately, there may be a higher bar for women, but I think it applies nonetheless.