Sexism in American political elections

Last updated

Sexism in American political elections refers to how sexism impacts elections in the United States, ranging from influences on the supply, demand, and selection of candidates to electoral outcomes. Sexism is inherently a product of culture, as culture instills a certain set of beliefs or expectations for what constitutes appropriate behavior, appearance, or mannerisms based on a person's sex. [1] Sexism in American political elections is generally cited as a socially-driven obstacle to female political candidates, especially for non-incumbents, raising concerns about the representation of women in the politics of the United States. [2] Such prejudice can take varying forms, such as benevolent or hostile sexism—the latter stemming from fears of women threatening the power or leadership of men. [3]

Contents

Sexism and politics

Out of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, a total of 126 are women (blue). Women in the US house.svg
Out of the 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, a total of 126 are women (blue).
Out of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate, a total of 24 are women (pink). Women in the United States Senate.svg
Out of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate, a total of 24 are women (pink).

Sexism in the United States functions as a way to distribute power based on an individual's ability to meet gender expectations, and sexism typically rewards men over women—granting men more power and opportunities. [4] Although patriarchy is the dominant cultural practice in the United States, sexism exists as a process within this system that can also function separately and reward feminine behavior or appearance. [5] Sexism affects politics in broad ways that both reflect societal norms and influence social and political outcomes. Particularly when considering pushes for gender equality and other forms of social equality, achieving equal representation in political arenas has been viewed by some as a necessary prerequisite to change. [6] However, this goal is often challenged by a variety of societal gender roles, such as the expectation that women should be responsible for a disproportionate amount of household labor—a responsibility that has been termed the "Second Shift" by some scholars. [7] The current over-representation of men in elected offices can also embody sexism in politics. For some people, this may create the perception that men are naturally better leaders, thereby dissuading some women from considering running for office; conversely, the lack of equal representation can also be a strong motivating factor that has been partially attributed to election cycles with larger-than-normal numbers of women candidacies, like during the Year of the Woman. [8]

Although social factors can greatly influence the relationship between women and politics, institutions and systemic processes can also enable gendered results, and the election context also affects behavior. [9] Other politically marginalized groups in the United States, specifically racial and ethnic minorities, face similar obstacles as women when trying to achieve proportionate representation. While there are some electoral mechanisms, such as gerrymandering, that can offer a higher likelihood of at least some representation for these groups, this benefit does not extend to women as a demographic, as they are not similarly concentrated in certain geographic areas. [10] Moreover, the types of barriers faced by women are perceived differently by people of different political leanings. Democrats have been noted as more likely to consider systemic barriers as an issue for women, whereas Republicans are more likely to focus on individual-level barriers. [11]

Political recruitment model

The political recruitment model is often used to describe how women face sexism at different stages of the electoral process. The model first includes women that are 'eligible' to become prospective candidates, then those who actually consider becoming a candidate, followed by candidates themselves, and then, finally, those who successfully win an election and become a legislator or other elected official. Although studies have noted that the negative effects of gender for women gradually decrease across each stage of the model, fewer women than men progress all the way from being a person eligible to run to being an elected official. [12] Daniel M. Thomsen and Aaron S. King also make notes on the candidate political pool that there are nearly triple the amount of men running for candidacy in each party versus women. [13]

Sexism and aspirant candidates

Sexism has also been identified as having several impacts on aspirant candidates, ranging from their supply, to party demand, and internalized sexism. Studies have found that a person's sex is one of many significant predictors of likelihood to consider running for office, with men 50% more likely than women to engage in pre-campaign activities, such as learning about registration and other candidacy basics, even when accounting for differences in careers. [14] This disparity stems from a variety of factors, including perceptions among women that they would be more likely to face hostile sexism in the forms of voter hesitancy, lack of fair media coverage, or fundraising issues. [15] Women are also less likely to be encouraged to run for office, which can reduce the likelihood of moving from being an aspirant to an actual candidate. [16] The lack of equal representation for women also creates shortcomings in the availability of role models for aspirant candidates, which can be particularly detrimental for women of color. [17]

To better categorize these factors, researchers often refer to them as affecting the supply of, or demand for, women candidates. However, this kind of framing has also been found to be itself impactful on aspirant women. For women overall, framing the lack of equal representation as a supply issue has been found to decrease levels of political ambition, while framing this topic as a demand issue actually increases levels of ambition; notably, this trend has variations among racial and ethnic subsets of women. [18]

Supply of candidates

When considering the supply of women candidates, factors other than sexism and gender norms can also be influential. Some scholars have argued that a smaller supply of women candidates may partially stem from women making more strategic considerations about running in certain elections, such as if they view themselves as having a higher or lower likelihood of success. [19] However, other explanations of supply issues relate more explicitly to how gender socialization and segregated gender roles can limit the opportunities that women perceive as available. [20] These gendered perceptions can also influence how women perceive their own potential qualifications for elected office. In relation to men, women are more likely to both view themselves as less-qualified and consider qualifications very important for those who are considering becoming a candidate; together, these factors decrease the likelihood that a woman may choose to move beyond being just an aspirant—even if they are actually qualified—thereby reducing the supply of women candidates. [21]

Demand for candidates

The demand for women candidates is often described as factors that are external to women. Political parties and their leaders can act as gatekeepers that determine which aspirant candidates receive the most support—potentially resulting in sexist discrimination against women—and institutions can have similar limiting effects on prospective women candidates. [22] Demand issues also have pronounced impacts on the levels of political ambition among women. One study found that White and Asian women were more likely to have increased levels of political ambition when presented with demand explanations, while Black women were effected conversely, as their levels of ambition decreased in response to this kind of explanation; no significant effect was determined for Latinas. [23]

Sexism and transgender candidates

Transgender persons are significantly underrepresented in political positions, and only 0.1% of elected officials in the US openly identify as LGBTQ. [24] Given the scientifically proven psychological importance of role models, this shortage of LGBTQ officials may discourage trans and other members of the LGBTQ community from running for political offices in the future. [25]

Sexism and candidates

Former 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin Sarah Palin portrait.jpg
Former 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin

For women that become electoral candidates, sexism can effect them in both perceived and tangible ways, including direct forms of discrimination and sexual objectification that stem from expected behavioral and appearance standards for women. [26] These forms of sexism can manifest in several different ways, such as when former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton were subjected to social expectations of beauty and stereotypically negative female traits. [27] Support provided by party elites and political networking are other areas where sexism may result in tangible impacts on the candidacies of women. Some studies have found that even though women believe that party elites will support them, the level of support may not be comparable to men; conversely, men were not found to believe that there are gendered differences in support from elites. [28] Given that elites in the US provide social and political capital to the candidates they support, this distinction can have significant implications for men and women candidates. [29] Moreover, women perceive male, as well as white, candidates as more easily navigating political networks and fundraising for their campaigns. [30] For women of color, intersectional barriers and stereotypes specific to their racial or ethnic group are viewed as particularly difficult to overcome. [31] These perceptions have been at least partially validated by related studies, which have found that women tend to receive less overall fundraising in comparison to white men and that men are more likely to be recruited by party elites. [32] [31]

Former 2008 Democratic presidential candidate and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg
Former 2008 Democratic presidential candidate and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton

Female candidates tend to also be viewed as more caring compared to their male counterparts on certain issues, such as defense and the military, which can result in disadvantages for women when a topic is thought of as 'owned' by men. For example, in the 2016 presidential election, terrorism and national security were top priorities to the American public—possibly making it more difficult for female candidates to gain support around these issues. [33] Furthermore, women that reject traditional gender roles can be viewed as competent for executive positions but lacking in emotions, creating an unappealing image; when this image is reversed, women candidates that are viewed as caring and full of emotions subsequently become viewed as incompetent. This can result in a paradoxical situation where the women that follow traditional gender stereotypes, as well as those that reject them, end up struggling in political elections. [34] These stereotypes also become more prominent when women pursue executive-level elected positions that are higher-profile and seen as 'masculine.' [35] Benevolent sexism, or the view that women should be cared for by men, holds more positive stereotypes towards women but still places them in subordination to men, which can uphold perceptions that men should occupy political positions of power. [36]

Likability

A key component of political campaigns is a candidate's likability. [37] Although likability applies to candidates of all gender identities, female candidates are disproportionately affected. [38] As of September 2019, women are underrepresented in Congress (24% of House and Senate seats are held by women, but they comprise over 50% of the United States population). Hurdles can exist in electing more women. Sociologist Marianne Cooper writes that women are judged in different ways than their male counterparts because “their very success violates our expectations about how women are supposed to behave." [39] She adds that the simple under-representation of women means that people do not have the ability to expect women in authority positions. This concept can be applied to government as well: because of female under-representation in government, female candidates are held to preexisting, oftentimes toxic, expectations, which in turn damage a candidate's likability. [40]

These expectations are oftentimes not straightforward. [37] Sexism can be expressed through both implicit and explicit means; this is reflected in how people view women in positions of authority, including female political candidates. [41] For example, explicit bias against women can be seen in attack ads that deride candidates for being feminists, as seen with former House candidate Amy McGrath. [42] An example of implicit gender bias is challenging a woman's credentials and qualifications, as seen in attacks against Senator Jacky Rosen's campaign. [42]

Sexism and elections

During elections, sexism can harm women candidates across a variety of key areas. When considering voter biases, party identification has been identified as one of the best predictors for whether or not a person will vote for a woman instead of a man. [43] This point has been bolstered by the fact that partisans have an extremely low probability of voting for candidates from the other party. [44] As a result, party preferences can override some potential avenues for increasing the descriptive representation of women. Additionally, one study noted that among independent voters, women candidates are more likely to receive support if they have a higher valence—which refers to non-policy characteristics, such as personality traits or skills—compared to their male competitors; without a higher perceived valence, women were found to have less support. [45] The study also noted that, in general, male independents seemed to prefer men candidates, while female independents did not have a clear gender preference—potentially indicating that in close elections where independents can determine the outcome, gender may be a particularly influential factor. [45]

Sexism and distributions of power are also increasingly present in high-stakes elections, such as presidential elections. [46] As the head of the Executive Branch, presidents have access to an extraordinary number of governmental abilities, including nominating Supreme Court Justices and vetoing bills passed by Congress; moreover, this position carries with it a symbolic and legitimate connection to the informal establishment of patriarchy. [47] [48]

Though equal representation has still not been achieved, women are being elected more frequently than in the past, yet women of color remain underrepresented. [49] An exception to this trend comes from district racial composition. In districts with higher minority populations, women of color are more likely to be elected in comparison to white women—though these kinds of districts are a relatively small proportion of all congressional districts. [49]

Media coverage

Presidential nominees Senator John F. Kennedy (left) and Vice-president Richard Nixon (right), prior to the first televised presidential debate Kennedy Nixon debate first Chicago 1960.jpg
Presidential nominees Senator John F. Kennedy (left) and Vice-president Richard Nixon (right), prior to the first televised presidential debate

Since the first televised presidential debate in 1960, the rise of media, especially visual media, has had increased importance in political elections. By televising elections, more emphasis has been placed on the physical appearance of the candidates and how that reflected their perceived ability or skill. Furthermore, the idea of what a president looked like was cemented in American minds as a white male. [50] This type of coverage has only increased since the rise of social media, posing additional challenges to female candidates. They have difficulties getting equal news coverage compared to their male counterparts, receiving 50% less coverage. [51] When covered, the information emphasizes the personal traits of female candidates, such as physical appearance, rather than their positions on political issues. [52]

Research has also found that voters put more value in qualities seen as masculine and rank male candidates as more effective than their female counterparts who are similarly qualified. [53] But, when women try to use more traditionally masculine approaches, they are portrayed in the media as too angry or aggressive. This also crosses over into a female candidate's physical appearance. The Barbara Lee Family Foundation advised a “powerful yet approachable” look in a guidebook meant for female candidates, pointing to women's need to balance traits viewed as masculine and feminine. [54] Women politicians are also scrutinized in the media for their family lives. Female candidates without families are portrayed as not able to understand the average American family, while women with kids are seen as distracted by their additional responsibilities of motherhood. [53]

The prominence of presidential elections also enables a large amount of sexist media and discriminatory attack ads. The presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton has been considered a model for the effect of sexism in presidential election. Clinton, as the first female candidate to be nominated by one of the two major political parties, received a great deal of sexist portrayals and rhetoric from the media, as well as Trump's Campaign. [55]

Through media coverage, sexist tropes against female candidates can be amplified. Media platforms give pundits with sexism-laced rhetoric an opportunity to spread their messages. [56] During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Hillary Clinton began to tear up when speaking about her experiences running. In response, comedian Bill Maher said, “The first thing a woman does, of course, is cry,” despite all of the other campaign moments in which Clinton did not cry. [56]

Sexism and electoral outcomes

Given that sexism occurs throughout the electoral process, it influences not only the quality of elected women, but also the types of issues that become prioritized. In a study of US congresswomen, it was found that women secure almost 9% more federal spending for their districts than when those same districts were represented by men. [57] While several factors can explain this difference, the researchers argue that it is a result of how sexism pushes the most ambitious and talented women to pursue, and subsequently win, elected office. [58] Other scholars have noted that the increased representation of women can affect government spending levels. One study found that when increased representation occurred alongside greater female labor force participation, there was an association with higher levels of spending on family benefits. [59]

In addition to what was described in the last paragraph, additional scholars continue to research how sexism and the perception of women affects electoral outcomes. An article by Peter Bucchianeri discusses how Republican women lose general elections slightly more than Republican men, with no difference in outcomes among Democratic candidates. [60] Throughout the article, he theorizes that a lack in elite support in campaign funding is contributing to this gap, since Republican women on average fundraise slightly less money than their male counterparts. Bucchianeri suggests as a possible explanation that campaign donors are less likely to support female candidates on the Republican side, which perhaps denotes some sort of gender bias. With similar findings that support Bucchianeri's work, an article by Danielle Thomsen and Michael Sewers also concludes that women running electoral campaigns tend to have smaller donor networks than men. [61]

Another article by Ashley Sorenson and Philip Chen takes the analysis even further as it relates to campaign funding. [62] They argue that, "Women of color are systematically disadvantaged by the campaign finance system compared with white women and male candidates of color." This statement is made after an analysis of campaign finance receipts, in which they find women of color are systematically receiving less funding. This gap in funding likely has an impact on electoral outcomes for these women, and is theorized by Sorenson and Chen to be a result of sexism and racism.

Strategic Behavior and Electoral Outcomes for Female Candidates

Recent research highlights the strategic behavior of female candidates in navigating electoral processes shaped by gender norms and sexism. Studies indicate that women are not only less likely to run for office but also make highly strategic decisions when they do choose to run. For instance, Lawless and Fox (2018) discuss how perceived electoral environments influence women's decisions to enter races, particularly highlighting the impact of sexism on these perceptions. [63] This aligns with findings from Bucchianeri (2018), who notes that female candidates, especially in the Republican Party, tend to encounter and must navigate additional challenges such as reduced fundraising and support from political elites. [64] In a study conducted by Jordan Mansell, Allison Harell, Melanee Thomas, and Tania Gosselin, we also see obstacles with men having a negative reaction towards women when they are more successful than them. Resorting to hostile behavior and sexism toward women. [65]

Furthermore, Thomsen and Swers (2017) explore the gendered nature of candidate donor networks, revealing that women often face a narrower pathway to securing necessary campaign funds, which are crucial for electoral success. [66] This financial discrepancy underscores the broader systemic barriers that women encounter, which are not solely limited to individual instances of sexism but are embedded within the political recruitment and campaign finance systems.

The impact of these challenges is also evident in electoral outcomes. Sorenson and Chen (2022) provide a comprehensive analysis of campaign finance data, demonstrating that women of color are particularly disadvantaged, receiving less funding compared to their white and male counterparts, which affects their visibility and viability as candidates. [67] This systemic disadvantage is critical in understanding the intersectionality of sexism and racism in political elections.

Implications of outcomes

The increased representation of women also has broader implications for democracy, such as through an increased supply of political role models. Improved feelings of political efficacy, engagement, and attitudes toward government are also all associated with greater numbers of elected women. [68] These benefits are not limited to just one party, as elected women from both the Democratic and Republican Party have noted that electing more women provides a more diverse range of perspectives to Congress. [69]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of the United States</span>

In the United States, politics functions within a framework of a constitutional federal republic. The three distinct branches share powers: the U.S. Congress which forms the legislative branch, a bicameral legislative body comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate; the executive branch, which is headed by the president of the United States, who serves as the country's head of state and government; and the judicial branch, composed of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, and which exercises judicial power.

A gender role, or sex role, is a set of socially accepted behaviors and attitudes deemed appropriate or desirable for individuals based on their sex. Gender roles are usually centered on conceptions of masculinity and femininity, although there are exceptions and variations.

The glass cliff is a hypothesized phenomenon in which women are more likely to break the "glass ceiling" during periods of crisis or downturn when the risk of failure is highest. Other research has expanded the definition of the glass cliff phenomenon to include racial and ethnic minority groups.

The Wish List is a political action committee devoted to electing pro-abortion rights, also called pro-choice, Republican women to the House of Representatives and Senate. The Wish List was founded in 1992. The acronym "WISH" stands for Women In the Senate and House. The Wish List recruits candidates to run for federal office and state legislative offices.

Diversity within groups is a key concept in sociology and political science that refers to the degree of difference along socially significant identifying features among the members of a purposefully defined group, such as any group differences in racial or ethnic classifications, age, gender, religion, philosophy, politics, culture, language, physical abilities, socioeconomic background, sexual orientation, gender identity, intelligence, physical health, mental health, genetic attributes, personality, behavior, or attractiveness.

In many countries, women have been underrepresented in the government and different institutions. This historical tendency still persists, although women are increasingly being elected to be heads of state and government.

Gender inequality is the social phenomenon in which people are not treated equally on the basis of gender. This inequality can be caused by gender discrimination or sexism. The treatment may arise from distinctions regarding biology, psychology, or cultural norms prevalent in the society. Some of these distinctions are empirically grounded, while others appear to be social constructs. While current policies around the world cause inequality among individuals, it is women who are most affected. Gender inequality weakens women in many areas such as health, education, and business life. Studies show the different experiences of genders across many domains including education, life expectancy, personality, interests, family life, careers, and political affiliation. Gender inequality is experienced differently across different cultures.

Occupational segregation is the distribution of workers across and within occupations, based upon demographic characteristics, most often gender. Other types of occupational segregation include racial and ethnicity segregation, and sexual orientation segregation. These demographic characteristics often intersect. While a job refers to an actual position in a firm or industry, an occupation represents a group of similar jobs that require similar skill requirements and duties. Many occupations are segregated within themselves because of the differing jobs, but this is difficult to detect in terms of occupational data. Occupational segregation compares different groups and their occupations within the context of the entire labor force. The value or prestige of the jobs are typically not factored into the measurements.

Ambivalent sexism is a theoretical framework which posits that sexism has two sub-components: hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS). Hostile sexism reflects overtly negative evaluations and stereotypes about a gender. Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of gender that may appear subjectively positive, but are actually damaging to people and gender equality more broadly. For the most part, psychologists have studied hostile forms of sexism. However, theorists using the theoretical framework of ambivalent sexism have found extensive empirical evidence for both varieties. The theory has largely been developed by social psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske.

Queen bee syndrome refers to a social phenomenon where women in positions of authority or power treat subordinate females worse than males, purely based on gender. It was first defined by three researchers: Graham Staines, Carol Tavris, and Toby E. Jayaratne in 1973.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jennifer L. Lawless</span> American academic

Jennifer L. Lawless serves as the Commonwealth Professor of Politics of the University of Virginia and a faculty affiliate of the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, in addition to being a Non-Resident Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sexism in academia</span> Discrimination in higher education

Sexism in academia refers to the discrimination and subordination of a particular sex or gender academic institutions, particularly universities, due to the ideologies, practices, and reinforcements that privilege one sex or gender over another. Sexism in academia is not limited to but primarily affects women who are denied the professional achievements awarded to men in their respective fields such as positions, tenure and awards. Sexism in academia encompasses institutionalized and cultural sexist ideologies; it is not limited to the admission process and the under-representation of women in the sciences but also includes the lack of women represented in college course materials and the denial of tenure, positions and awards that are generally accorded to men.

Voting behavior refers to how people decide how to vote. This decision is shaped by a complex interplay between an individual voter's attitudes as well as social factors. Voter attitudes include characteristics such as ideological predisposition, party identity, degree of satisfaction with the existing government, public policy leanings, and feelings about a candidate's personality traits. Social factors include race, religion and degree of religiosity, social and economic class, educational level, regional characteristics, and gender. The degree to which a person identifies with a political party influences voting behavior, as does social identity. Voter decision-making is not a purely rational endeavor but rather is profoundly influenced by personal and social biases and deeply held beliefs as well as characteristics such as personality, memory, emotions, and other psychological factors. Voting advice applications and avoidance of wasted votes through strategic voting can impact voting behavior.

Gender inequality in the United States has been diminishing throughout its history and significant advancements towards equality have been made beginning mostly in the early 1900s. However, despite this progress, gender inequality in the United States continues to persist in many forms, including the disparity in women's political representation and participation, occupational segregation, and the unequal distribution of household labor. The alleviation of gender inequality has been the goal of several major pieces of legislation since 1920 and continues to the present day. As of 2021, the World Economic Forum ranks the United States 30th in terms of gender equality out of 149 countries.

Fourth-wave feminism is a feminist movement that began around the early 2010s and is characterized by a focus on the empowerment of women, the use of internet tools, and intersectionality. The fourth wave seeks greater gender equality by focusing on gendered norms and the marginalization of women in society.

Diana B. Carlin is a Professor Emerita of Communication at Saint Louis University. She is known for her work centering on debate communication, specifically her focus on political debates. Carlin has authored several scholarly articles, and has co-authored several books, including her most recent, Gender and the American Presidency: Nine Presidential Women and the Barriers They Faced. Carlin has also been featured in The New York Times regarding the value of debate. Carlin views presidential debates as valuable due to their ability to summarize a candidates platform, put both candidates on display at once, and show how candidates respond to unexpected or difficult questions when unprepared.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gender discrimination in the medical professions</span> Gender discrimination against female clinicians within the health profession

Gender discrimination in health professions refers to the entire culture of bias against female clinicians, expressed verbally through derogatory and aggressive comments, lower pay and other forms of discriminatory actions from predominantly male peers. These women face difficulties in their work environment as a result of a largely male dominated positions of power within the medical field as well as initial biases presented in the hiring process, but not limited to promotions.

Gender and politics, also called gender in politics, is a field of study in political science and gender studies that aims to understand the relationship between peoples' genders and phenomena in politics. Researchers of gender and politics study how peoples' political participation and experiences interact with their gender identity, and how ideas of gender shape political institutions and decision-making. Women's political participation in the context of patriarchal political systems is a particular focus of study. Gender and politics is an interdisciplinary field, drawing not just from political science and gender studies but also related fields such as feminist political thought, and peoples' gendered treatment is commonly seen as intersectionally linked to their entire social identity.

A gender quota is a quota used by countries and parties to increase women's representation or substantive equality based on gender in legislatures. Women are largely underrepresented in parliaments and account for a 26.9% average in parliaments globally. As of November 2021, gender quotas have been adopted in 132 countries. Around the world, quotas vary greatly in their enforcement and the stage of electoral process targeted, creating three main types of quotas: legislated candidate quotas, voluntary party quotas, and reserved seats. Regardless of their prevalence, they are a controversial measure, creating debates concerning their impacts, both negative and positive.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political recruitment model</span> Political Recruitment Model

The political recruitment model is a framework, used by political scientists, to explain the stages a citizen goes through to become an elected official. The model has four stages: eligibles, aspirants, candidates, and legislators. There are barriers between each stage that has the potential to keep an eligible citizen from becoming a legislator. These barriers are individual resources and ambition, political party gatekeepers, and voters. The Political recruitment model is mainly utilized to study why women hold political office at lesser rates than men. Scholars use a supply vs demand model within the political recruitment framework to investigate where and why women "drop out" of the pipeline.

References

  1. ↑ Wallerstein, Immanuel (June 1990). "Culture as the Ideological Battleground of the Modern World-System". Theory, Culture & Society. 7 (2–3): 31–55. doi:10.1177/026327690007002003. hdl: 10086/8420 . ISSN   0263-2764. S2CID   55451025.
  2. ↑ Rothwell, Valerie; Hodson, Gordon; Prusaczyk, Elvira (February 2019). "Why Pillory Hillary? Testing the endemic sexism hypothesis regarding the 2016 U.S. election". Personality and Individual Differences. 138: 106–108. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.034. S2CID   150309065.
  3. ↑ "Supplemental Material for An Interdependence Account of Sexism and Power: Men's Hostile Sexism, Biased Perceptions of Low Power, and Relationship Aggression". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2018-11-19. doi:10.1037/pspi0000167.supp. ISSN   0022-3514. S2CID   239809214.
  4. ↑ Acker, Joan (1973-01-01). "Women and Social Stratification: A Case of Intellectual Sexism". American Journal of Sociology. 78 (4): 936–945. doi:10.1086/225411. JSTOR   2776612. S2CID   143698982.
  5. ↑ O'Neal; Egan, James; Jean (1993). Abuses of power against women: Sexism, gender role conflict, and psychological violence. Alexandria, VA, United States: American Counseling Association. pp. 49–78. ISBN   978-1-55620-100-4 – via EBSCO.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ↑ Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2020-01-01). "Women's Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress". Daedalus. 149 (1): 40–55. doi: 10.1162/daed_a_01772 . ISSN   0011-5266. S2CID   209487865.
  7. ↑ Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2020-01-01). "Women's Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress". Daedalus. 149 (1): 40–55. doi: 10.1162/daed_a_01772 . ISSN   0011-5266. S2CID   209487865.
  8. ↑ Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2020-01-01). "Women's Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress". Daedalus. 149 (1): 40–55. doi: 10.1162/daed_a_01772 . ISSN   0011-5266. S2CID   209487865.
  9. ↑ Schmitt, Carly, and Hanna K. Brant. 2019. “Gender, Ambition, and Legislative Behavior in the United States House.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 40 (2): 286-308.
  10. ↑ English, Ashley; Pearson, Kathryn; Strolovitch, Dara Z. (2019-12-01). "Who Represents Me? Race, Gender, Partisan Congruence, and Representational Alternatives in a Polarized America". Political Research Quarterly. 72 (4): 785–804. doi:10.1177/1065912918806048. ISSN   1065-9129. S2CID   158576286.
  11. ↑ Dolan, Kathleen; Hansen, Michael (2018). "Blaming Women or Blaming the System? Public Perceptions of Women's Underrepresentation in Elected Office". Political Research Quarterly. 71 (3): 668–680. doi:10.1177/1065912918755972. ISSN   1065-9129. JSTOR   45106690. S2CID   149220469.
  12. ↑ Fox, Richard L.; Lawless, Jennifer L. (2004). "Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (2): 264–280. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00069.x. ISSN   1540-5907.
  13. ↑ Thomsen, Danielle M., and Aaron S. King. 2020. “Women’s Representation and the Gendered Pipeline to Power.” American Political Science Review 114 (4): 989-1000.
  14. ↑ Fox, Richard L.; Lawless, Jennifer L. (2004). "Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (2): 264–280. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00069.x. ISSN   1540-5907.
  15. ↑ Dolan, Kathleen; Hansen, Michael (2018). "Blaming Women or Blaming the System? Public Perceptions of Women's Underrepresentation in Elected Office". Political Research Quarterly. 71 (3): 668–680. doi:10.1177/1065912918755972. ISSN   1065-9129. JSTOR   45106690. S2CID   149220469.
  16. ↑ Fox, Richard L.; Lawless, Jennifer L. (2004). "Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (2): 264–280. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00069.x. JSTOR   1519882.
  17. ↑ Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2015). "Electing Women of Color: The Role of Campaign Trainings". Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. 36 (2): 137–160. doi:10.1080/1554477X.2015.1019273. S2CID   143227673.
  18. ↑ Holman, Mirya R.; Schneider, Monica C. (2018-04-03). "Gender, race, and political ambition: how intersectionality and frames influence interest in political office". Politics, Groups, and Identities. 6 (2): 264–280. doi:10.1080/21565503.2016.1208105. ISSN   2156-5503. S2CID   147854693.
  19. ↑ Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2020-01-01). "Women's Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress". Daedalus. 149 (1): 40–55. doi: 10.1162/daed_a_01772 . ISSN   0011-5266. S2CID   209487865.
  20. ↑ Holman, Mirya R.; Schneider, Monica C. (2018-04-03). "Gender, race, and political ambition: how intersectionality and frames influence interest in political office". Politics, Groups, and Identities. 6 (2): 264–280. doi:10.1080/21565503.2016.1208105. ISSN   2156-5503. S2CID   147854693.
  21. ↑ Fox, Richard L.; Lawless, Jennifer L. (2004). "Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (2): 264–280. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00069.x. ISSN   1540-5907.
  22. ↑ Holman, Mirya R.; Schneider, Monica C. (2018-04-03). "Gender, race, and political ambition: how intersectionality and frames influence interest in political office". Politics, Groups, and Identities. 6 (2): 264–280. doi:10.1080/21565503.2016.1208105. ISSN   2156-5503. S2CID   147854693.
  23. ↑ Holman, Mirya R.; Schneider, Monica C. (2018-04-03). "Gender, race, and political ambition: how intersectionality and frames influence interest in political office". Politics, Groups, and Identities. 6 (2): 264–280. doi:10.1080/21565503.2016.1208105. ISSN   2156-5503. S2CID   147854693.
  24. ↑ "A Census of Out LGBTQ Elected Officials Nationwide" (PDF). Victory Institute. 2018. Retrieved March 1, 2019.
  25. ↑ Marx, David (2002). "Female Role Models: Protecting Women's Math Test Performance". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28 (9): 1183–1193. doi:10.1177/01461672022812004. S2CID   19258680.
  26. ↑ Smith, Kevin B. (1997-01-01). "When All's Fair: Signs of Parity in Media Coverage of Female Candidates". Political Communication. 14 (1): 71–82. doi:10.1080/105846097199542. ISSN   1058-4609.
  27. ↑ Osborn, Tracy (2012-01-01). "Review of Hillary Clinton's Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail". Perspectives on Politics. 10 (1): 184–186. doi:10.1017/S153759271100452X. JSTOR   23327101. S2CID   145577549.
  28. ↑ Butler, Daniel M.; Preece, Jessica Robinson (2016). "Recruitment and Perceptions of Gender Bias in Party Leader Support". Political Research Quarterly. 69 (4): 842–851. doi:10.1177/1065912916668412. ISSN   1065-9129. JSTOR   44018061. S2CID   157460168.
  29. ↑ Butler, Daniel M.; Preece, Jessica Robinson (2016). "Recruitment and Perceptions of Gender Bias in Party Leader Support". Political Research Quarterly. 69 (4): 842–851. doi:10.1177/1065912916668412. ISSN   1065-9129. JSTOR   44018061. S2CID   157460168.
  30. ↑ Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2015). "Electing Women of Color: The Role of Campaign Trainings". Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. 36 (2): 137–160. doi:10.1080/1554477X.2015.1019273. S2CID   143227673.
  31. 1 2 Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2015). "Electing Women of Color: The Role of Campaign Trainings". Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. 36 (2): 137–160. doi:10.1080/1554477X.2015.1019273. S2CID   143227673.
  32. ↑ Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2020-01-01). "Women's Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress". Daedalus. 149 (1): 40–55. doi: 10.1162/daed_a_01772 . ISSN   0011-5266. S2CID   209487865.
  33. ↑ Valentino, Nicholas A; Wayne, Carly; Oceno, Marzia (2018-04-11). "Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election". Public Opinion Quarterly. 82 (S1): 799–821. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfy003 . ISSN   0033-362X.
  34. ↑ Bock, Jarrod (2017). "The Role of Sexism in Voting in the 2016 Presidential Election". Personality and Individual Differences. 119: 189–193. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.07.026.
  35. ↑ Knuckey, Jonathan (February 2019). ""I Just Don't Think She Has a Presidential Look": Sexism and Vote Choice in the 2016 Election*: Sexism and Vote Choice". Social Science Quarterly. 100 (1): 342–358. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12547 .
  36. ↑ Cassese, Erin C.; Holman, Mirya R. (February 2019). "Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race: Playing the Woman Card". Political Psychology. 40 (1): 55–74. doi: 10.1111/pops.12492 . S2CID   150018545.
  37. 1 2 Krupnikov, Yanna (April 2015). "Saving Face: Identifying Voter Responses to Black Candidates and Female Candidates". Political Psychology. 37.
  38. ↑ Mendoza, Saaid (January 2019). "Not "With Her": How Gendered Political Slogans Affect Conservative Women's Perceptions of Female Leaders". Sex Roles. 80 (1–2): 1–10. doi:10.1007/s11199-018-0910-z. S2CID   149514119 – via GenderWatch.
  39. ↑ Cooper, Marianne (April 30, 2013). "For Women Leaders, Likability and Success Hardly Go Hand-in-Hand". Harvard Business Review.
  40. ↑ Sapiro, Virginia (Summer 1982). "If U.S. Senator Baker Were A Woman: An Experimental Study of Candidate Images". Political Psychology. 3– via JSTOR.
  41. ↑ Rudman, Laurie (November 2000). "Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Female Authority". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 26 (11): 1315–1328. doi:10.1177/0146167200263001. S2CID   6962810 – via SAGE Journals.
  42. 1 2 Newburger, Emma (September 27, 2018). "Female candidates in 2018 more aggressively calling out sexism on the campaign trail". NBC.
  43. ↑ Dolan, Kathleen; Hansen, Michael (2018). "Blaming Women or Blaming the System? Public Perceptions of Women's Underrepresentation in Elected Office". Political Research Quarterly. 71 (3): 668–680. doi:10.1177/1065912918755972. ISSN   1065-9129. JSTOR   45106690. S2CID   149220469.
  44. ↑ Fulton, Sarah A. (2014). "When Gender Matters: Macro-dynamics and Micro-mechanisms". Political Behavior. 36 (3): 605–630. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9245-1. ISSN   0190-9320. JSTOR   43653408. S2CID   143736984.
  45. 1 2 Fulton, Sarah A. (2014). "When Gender Matters: Macro-dynamics and Micro-mechanisms". Political Behavior. 36 (3): 605–630. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9245-1. ISSN   0190-9320. JSTOR   43653408. S2CID   143736984.
  46. ↑ Heldman, Caroline (2009-08-22). "From Ferraro to Palin: Sexism in Media Coverage of Vice Presidential Candidates". Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1459865. SSRN   1459865.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  47. ↑ Anonymous (2000). "A Few Good Men". National Review. 53: 14 – via EBSCO.
  48. ↑ Rebick, Judy (2005). "Propping Up the Patriarchy". Herizons: 5 – via EBSCO.
  49. 1 2 Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2015). "Electing Women of Color: The Role of Campaign Trainings". Journal of Women, Politics & Policy. 36 (2): 137–160. doi:10.1080/1554477X.2015.1019273. S2CID   143227673.
  50. ↑ You've Come A Long Way, Baby: Women, Politics, and Popular Culture. University Press of Kentucky. 2009. ISBN   9780813125442. JSTOR   j.ctt2jcnsv.
  51. ↑ Uscinski, Joseph E.; Goren, Lilly J. (2011). "What's in a Name? Coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic Primary". Political Research Quarterly. 64 (4): 884–896. doi:10.1177/1065912910382302. ISSN   1065-9129. JSTOR   23056354. S2CID   153646157.
  52. ↑ Dunaway, Johanna; Lawrence, Regina G.; Rose, Melody; Weber, Christopher R. (2013). "Traits versus Issues: How Female Candidates Shape Coverage of Senate and Gubernatorial Races". Political Research Quarterly. 66 (3): 715–726. doi:10.1177/1065912913491464. ISSN   1065-9129. JSTOR   23563177. S2CID   145273060.
  53. 1 2 Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics. University Press of Kentucky. 2013. ISBN   9780813141015. JSTOR   j.ctt2jck4s.
  54. ↑ "Keys to Elected Office: The Essential Guide for Women (2017)". Barbara Lee Family Foundation. 2 June 2016. Retrieved 2019-04-03.
  55. ↑ "Sexism in Politics 2016: What can we learn so far from media portrayals of Hillary Clinton and Latin American female leaders?". COHA. 2016-06-16. Retrieved 2016-12-01.
  56. 1 2 Lawless, Jennifer (March 2009). "Sexism and Gender Bias in Election 2008: A More Complex Path for Women in Politics". Politics and Gender. 5– via GenderWatch.
  57. ↑ Anzia, Sarah F.; Berry, Christopher R. (2011). "The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?". American Journal of Political Science. 55 (3): 478–493. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00512.x . ISSN   1540-5907.
  58. ↑ Anzia, Sarah F.; Berry, Christopher R. (2011). "The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?". American Journal of Political Science. 55 (3): 478–493. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00512.x . ISSN   1540-5907.
  59. ↑ Ennser-Jedenastik, Laurenz (2017). "How Women's Political Representation affects Spending on Family Benefits". Journal of Social Policy. 46 (3): 563–581. doi:10.1017/S0047279416000933. ISSN   0047-2794. S2CID   151449118.
  60. ↑ Bucchianeri, Peter (2018). "Is Running Enough? Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom about Women Candidates". Political Behavior. 40 (2): 435–466. doi:10.1007/s11109-017-9407-7.
  61. ↑ Thomsen, Danielle M.; Swers, Michele L. (2017). "Which Women Can Run? Gender, Partisanship, and Candidate Donor Networks". Political Research Quarterly. 70 (2): 449–463. doi:10.1177/1065912917698044. ISSN   1065-9129. JSTOR   26384954.
  62. ↑ Sorensen, Ashley, and Philip Chen. 2022. “Identity in Campaign Finance and Elections: The Impact of Gender and Race on Money Raised in 2010-2018 U.S. House Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 738-753.
  63. ↑ Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2018. “Triumph and Defeat: Election 2016 and the State of Contemporary Feminism.” Chapter 1.
  64. ↑ Bucchianeri, Peter. 2018. “Is Running Enough? Reconsidering the Conventional Wisdom about Women Candidates.” Political Behavior 40 (2): 435-66.
  65. ↑ Mansell, Jordan, Allison Harell, Melanee Thomas, and Tania Gosselin. 2022. “Competitive Loss, Gendered Backlash, and Sexism in Politics. Political Behavior 44 (2): 455-476.
  66. ↑ Thomsen, Danielle M., and Michele L. Swers. 2017. “Which Women Can Run? Gender, Partisanship, and Candidate Donor Networks.” Political Research Quarterly 70 (2): 449-463.
  67. ↑ Sorenson, Ashley, and Philip Chen. 2022. “Identity in Campaign Finance and Elections: The Impact of Gender and Race on Money Raised in 2010-2018 U.S. House Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 738-753.
  68. ↑ English, Ashley; Pearson, Kathryn; Strolovitch, Dara Z. (2019-12-01). "Who Represents Me? Race, Gender, Partisan Congruence, and Representational Alternatives in a Polarized America". Political Research Quarterly. 72 (4): 785–804. doi:10.1177/1065912918806048. ISSN   1065-9129. S2CID   158576286.
  69. ↑ Sanbonmatsu, Kira (2020-01-01). "Women's Underrepresentation in the U.S. Congress". Daedalus. 149 (1): 40–55. doi: 10.1162/daed_a_01772 . ISSN   0011-5266. S2CID   209487865.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.