A commentary on Haley Stevens and Elizabeth Holmes examines how public discussion can shift blame for women’s decisions onto the men in their lives. It argues that treating either woman as controlled by a partner risks overlooking her own agency.
Stevens, a Democratic congresswoman, withdrew her endorsement of Michigan Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed and backed his Republican opponent, Mike Rogers, in the midterms. The article says the dispute was partly connected to differing views on Israel. In the backlash that followed, former campaign spokesperson Caitlin Legacki and other former staffers pointed to Stevens’s fiancé, attorney Jason Turkish, as an influence on her campaign. Their claims included allegations that he sent Stevens negative social media posts about herself and affected her mood. These are allegations attributed to former colleagues.
The article draws a parallel with the documentary You Can See Everything, in which Elizabeth Holmes’s fiancé, Billy Evans, is portrayed as having influence over aspects of their life, including finances and social media. Evans rejected the idea that he controls Holmes in a response on X, describing her as independent and strong-willed.
The commentary cautions against casting Stevens or Holmes as “useful idiots” manipulated by their partners. It notes that a person can be manipulative and also be manipulated, but argues that blaming Turkish for Stevens’s decision would call into question the independence of a congresswoman who has served in the House for seven years.
In a statement posted to X on Monday, Stevens said she had made the decision herself and objected to suggestions that someone else was directing her. The article uses her response to question whether women in public life are more readily assumed to be acting under another person’s influence when they make choices that others oppose.
Sources: Vogue.