When we think of the term nasty woman, Trump’s interruption during the final presidential debate of 2016 when he called his opponent Hillary Clinton one, still rings in our ears. What followed was the launching point for countless feminists to band together. It served as the last straw for many women in terms of tolerating any of Trump’s biting, hateful rhetoric. Moments after those words were heard across television sets throughout America, “nasty woman” started trending on Twitter, with thousands of women calling themselves the same. In short, Clinton’s unwavering stance after his words inspired nasty women everywhere. Ever since, the term has become a call for solidarity, even inspiring “#NastyWoman” shirts and other merchandise.
Perhaps as a nod to these remarks, Massachusetts senators passed a bill that would effectively repeal outdated laws that infringe upon women’s rights and reproductive freedoms Thursday. The name for the bill, entitled the “NASTY Women Act,” stands for “Negating Archaic Statutes Targeting Young Women” — and it does exactly that. Many of the archaic bills were written in the 1800s and restricted women’s access to contraceptives, including a requirement which restricted the use of contraceptives for unmarried women. Though these laws are no longer enforced today, the bill — which still requires a vote from House and approval from Gov. Charlie Baker — would take these archaic and unnecessary laws off the books.
While a symbolic gesture, the action is an effective way for the state of Massachusetts to take a stand against the rising tide of anti-feminist ideals that resonate with current administration. Symbolic resistance might be one of the most effective tools we have right now at a time when there feels like nothing else can be done. As a flood of backwards thought sweeps the nation right now, the only thing some state legislators — particularly blue ones — can do is stand united and remind Trump and his supporters that these laws will not be tolerated in 2018.
Another item of note was that the bill was sponsored by Acting Senate President Harriette Chandler, who took the title after former Senate President Stan Rosenberg stepped down due to sexual assault allegations against his husband. Chandler, who recused herself from the investigation, took on the position. Considering where the bill comes from, the gesture must not just be a symbolic one, but rather have a more meaningful purpose. With the Time’s Up movement on the rise, repealing these laws speaks to the larger resistance against those in power telling us what to do and how to act. While the Time’s Up movement is of course applicable to both men and women, it could be particularly empowering for women who need to see their rights recognized.
Moreover, the measures that criminalized contraception remind us of Trump’s health care policies that jeopardize female reproductive health. New policies withholding funding from Planned Parenthood threaten to make it difficult for women getting access to contraceptives. The passage of this law could ensure we don’t go down the same path, at least in Massachusetts. Moreover, we need to set precedents to ensure women’s rights for the future. Members of Congress have even discussed trying to reverse the Roe v. Wade bill that was a monumental decision in granting women abortion rights.
Perhaps the most significant point of contention against the name of the NASTY Women Act is the politicization of women’s rights. Nasty women is a motto often used by Democrats to point fingers at Trump’s sexist attitude. Language like this could lead people to think that women’s right is a liberal issue — one that does not concern conservatives. In reality, women’s rights are human’s rights. If we want to see progress in women’s rights, we have to remind ourselves that we must unite both forces to see actual change.
In the grander scheme of things, symbolic gestures, while encouraging and uplifting, do not institute actual change. If we want to see real progress, then state legislators should work and focus their energy on more important issues. Perhaps, they could look towards impacting women of today rather than passing laws that only really impacted women of many decades ago.
