Nankervis 2
Nankervis 3
Abstract
The underrepresentation and misrepresentation of women in United States politics are
conditions that have existed for centuries. Women have been underrepresented because of the
perceptions masculinism and gender hierarchy have created. These ideologies privilege men and
masculine qualities, which puts women at a disadvantage.
Research has shown that women are just as successful as men when running for office.
Women, however, remain underrepresented primarily because they choose not to run. A few
reasons why women choose not to run are that their roles as wives and mothers may interfere
with their candidacies and they tend to have less money, fewer political contacts, and less
appropriate employment histories.
Aside from women choosing not to run, there are some other reasons why women are
underrepresented in United States politics and these are referred to as barriers that need to be
overcome. Some of these barriers are social and gendered stereotypes, incumbency, sex
discrimination and the political system itself. These barriers pose a problem because they deter
women from running for office and they keep the women who run from succeeding. Women
have successfully weakened many of these barriers but there is still progress to be made in order
for them to reach parity.
Nankervis 4
Introduction
Women have been underrepresented and misrepresented in the United States for
centuries, including the decades before they earned the right to vote. Not only have women been
underrepresented for centuries but they have also had to fight very hard for rights that propertied
white males, which were granted with the success of the American Revolution. One reason why
women have had to fight for their rights is because of the patriarchal system that this country was
founded and established on. The patriarchal system created a view that is known as masculinism.
Masculinism justifies and naturalizes gender hierarchy. This means that through a masculinist
lens gender hierarchy “seems natural rather than socially and politically constructed” (Peterson
and Runyan 20-22). Masculinism and its privileges have played a very important role in shaping
stereotypical views of women because masculinism is the dominant mode of gender ideology.
This means that under masculinism people “value what is characterized as masculine at the
expense of what is feminine, with the material effect of elevating the positioning of men in
general above and at the expense of the positioning of women in general” (Peterson and Runyan
63). In other words, what are considered to be feminine characteristics are typically contrasted
with and devalorized relative to what are considered masculine characteristics. For example, men
are viewed as assertive, aggressive, active and agents in the political world, while women are
viewed as meek, caring, passive and dependents belonging in the home.
Masculinism is the ideology that ‘legitimates’ the structural inequalities of gender
hierarchy. Gender hierarchy refers to a social system that promotes male privilege by being male
dominated, male identified and male centered. Since gender hierarchy promotes male privilege,
it promulgates the gender ideology that privileges men and masculine qualities. It also involves
as one of its key aspects the subordination of women. Alan Johnson in The Gender Knot
Nankervis 5
contends that male dominance occurs when positions of authority are generally reserved for men
(Johnson 5). Male dominance also promotes the idea that men and masculine qualities are
superior to women and feminine qualities. Male identification establishes the core cultural ideas
about what is considered good, desirable, preferable, or normal and these ideas are associated
with how we think about men and masculinity (Johnson 7). Lastly, male centeredness occurs
when the focus of attention is primarily on men and what they do (Johnson 10). All of these
characteristics of gender hierarchy have had a negative impact on views of women because they
makes it seem ‘normal’ to view men as better and above women, which at the same time
promotes the subordination of women. Also, as a result of gender hierarchy, society favors and
privileges qualities that are associated with men. This is one reason why stereotypical views of
women locate them in the home and not in the government.
Participation in social systems such as masculinism and gender hierarchy has created
paths of least resistance, which are a “concept that refers to the conscious and unconscious
choices we make from one moment to the next” (Johnson 32). An example of a path of least
resistance is when a man hears other men tell sexist jokes and decides to go along with them by
laughing or remaining silent because he is not willing to deal with the greater resistance that
other options entail. Taking the path of least resistance occurs frequently in everyday life,
including politics, especially since we do so unconsciously most of the time. These paths of least
resistance affect women because they force women in politics to face the dilemma of being
either masculinized or marginalized. As a result of this dilemma, female politicians tend to
downplay their gender difference in order to fit in, or must risk disapproval if they support
women’s issues (Rincker 46).
Nankervis 6
The misrepresentation and underrepresentation of women in U.S. politics has existed and
been a problem ever since the United States government was established. Ever since then women
have been fighting for their rights in order to be considered equal to men. Women have
accomplished much and made many strides towards equality, but still have many barriers to
overcome. Since the underrepresentation of women has been such a longstanding problem I was
curious to know why women are still underrepresented and misrepresented. Why has the
problem only slightly improved over the years? Why has it not been more completely resolved
yet? I am researching this topic because it is something that I have always been interested in,
especially since I am a woman. Another reason why I am researching this topic is because I do
not understand why it is taking so long for men and women to reach parity in terms of the
numbers of representation. I also do not understand how some Americans report that they view
women as equal to men in the political world, when statistics prove otherwise. In order to answer
the larger question of why are women in the United States still underrepresented in politics, a
few smaller questions need to be answered first. The rest of this paper will attempt to answer the
following questions: what shapes gender politics, why don’t more women run, why are they or
why are they not successful and what is the media’s role in all of this?
History Background
Part I: Women’s involvement in politics before women’s suffrage
To understand the misrepresentation and underrepresentation of women in politics,
women’s “history of efforts to obtain the right to vote and equal rights under the Constitution
must be first understood” (McGlen et al. 22). For much of American history, politics in the
United States has been a “man’s world” from which women were excluded on legal, moral, and
Nankervis 7
social grounds. For example, during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, women lost
most of their legal rights upon marriage and were considered the property of their husbands.
Also, “married women had no right to own property, no right to an education, no right to their
children in cases of divorce, no access to most professions, and no right to the wages they
earned” (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 10). Women were also excluded in terms of gender
relations because they were guided by the principle of two separate spheres. One sphere was
known as the public sphere and was where men were the breadwinners for their families and
represented their households. The other sphere, the private sphere, was where women were
expected to take care of the home, raise and educate children, and conduct themselves on a
higher moral plane.
Despite all of these exclusions from the political world, women still managed to
participate, shape public life, and play an important role in politics. Although women did not
gain the right to vote until 1920 when the Nineteenth Amendment was added to the United States
Constitution, women have been active in the political life of the country from quite early on. One
early example of women’s political activism was during the abolition movement when women
worked alongside men to stop slavery (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 10). Participation in these
activities led women to recognize that they as women needed a liberation movement. As a result
of this realization, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott organized the first women’s rights
convention in Seneca Falls, New York. This convention was held in 1848 and it marked the
beginning of the American feminist movement.
The first two waves of feminism both began with the Seneca Falls Convention in 1848,
where the request for radical suffrage came about. The first wave of feminism was about the
fight for women’s suffrage and it lasted for seventy-two years. The women who organized the
Nankervis 8
Seneca Falls Convention were feminists who sought a more radical restructuring of women’s
place in society (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 11). A very important document resulted from the
Seneca Falls Convention and that was the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments, which was
modeled after the Declaration of Independence. This was considered the first formal demand for
women’s suffrage and it was based on the equality of humankind and the right to the pursuit of
life, liberty, and happiness laid out in the Declaration of Independence (Dolan, Deckman, and
Swers 13).
Before women fought for their right to vote, they worked together to abolish slavery by
giving speeches and organizing petition drives. The women were successful with their campaign
to abolish slavery when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified in 1865. After this victory many
believed that full citizenship rights for African Americans and women would soon be a reality.
However, the introduction of the Fourteenth Amendment, “which protects the privileges and
immunities of citizens from infringement by the states and guarantees due process for citizens,”
used the word male for the first time in the Constitution and this created a major split in the
movement for equal rights (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 13). The word male appeared in Section
Two, which dealt explicitly with voting rights. This created a huge conflict and gave women
even more motivation to fight for equal rights.
The second wave of feminism, which emerged and gained momentum in the 1960s, was
about new demands and women becoming active in organizations that promoted the interests of
working-class women, peace, birth control, and equal rights. A major project during the second
wave was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). After women won the right to vote they believed
that women needed an amendment to ban all discrimination based on sex in order for women to
achieve full equality. The Equal Rights Amendment was as equally challenging to have ratified
Nankervis 9
as it was for women to earn the right to vote. The proposed amendment consisted of three
sections: “Section 1: Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2: The Congress shall have the power to
enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3: This amendment shall
take effect two years after the date of ratification (McGlen et al. 48).” After going through three
stages and being passed by Congress, the amendment was unfortunately not ratified. Even
though the amendment was not ratified, it did not stop women from fighting for equality. If
anything it brought women together and made them fight even more. A problem with not having
an ERA guaranteeing women’s equality under the Constitution was women were forced to look
for statutory remedies to prevent discrimination (McGlen et al. 51). This was a problem because
it was hard for women to find such a statutory remedy and a Constitutional amendment is more
binding.
Part II: Milestones women have accomplished since they earned the right to vote
“The first and second waves of the feminist movement sought to dramatically change
American society by altering the accepted view of women’s proper role in the public and private
spheres” (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 30). Those waves altered the accepted view by having
women join and form groups to persuade local, state and national officeholders to change the law
on issues ranging from abolition to temperance. These women’s groups also entered the business
of candidate recruitment, fund-raising, voter mobilization, and provision of campaign-related
service in order to influence policymaking (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 37). They did this so
they could become involved in electoral politics to make sure like-minded candidates were
elected to office.
Nankervis 10
Throughout American history, women have been excluded from many things including
political parties. Political parties have historically been a part of the male/public sphere. Since
political parties are a part of the male sphere, women have had to struggle to gain entry into such
organizations in the same way that they had to fight for the right to vote and hold public office
(Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 39). Women had to fight to be a part of political parties because
political parties were seen as a major part of male social life and not something women should be
involved in. It was seen as a part of male social life and something women should not be
involved in because parties united all white men across the social classes by providing
entertainment, a definition of manhood, and the basis for a male ritual (Dolan, Deckman, and
Swers 39-40). These all male political parties took part in fostering the idea that women were too
emotional to participate in politics and that they were therefore unfit to vote. This is an
underlying thought that has created many of the battles women have faced and are still facing
today.
Women’s participation in social movements, interest groups, and political parties
demonstrates a long, rich tradition of political activism among women. Through their
participation in movements, organizations such as interest groups, and parties, women have
gained important political skills. These skills have allowed them “to influence the direction of
policy both by lobbying from the outside and by gaining election to the political offices that
allow women to become the authors of policy change” (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 51).
Women have also made many strides since they first gathered in 1848 to discuss demanding the
right to vote. One of the most recent strides happened during the 2008 campaign season. During
that particular campaign season, Senator Hilary Clinton became the woman that has come closer
than any other woman to becoming the first woman president of the United States of America
Nankervis 11
(McGlen et al. 66). Unfortunately, the struggle for women’s rights in America continues but
women have certainly come a long way since 1848.
Reasons Why Women Do Not Run for Office
Over the past few decades, women have made multiple strides in United States political
institutions. In the 1970s, there were hardly any women that occupied major elective positions.
News sources today have led us to believe that women have made remarkable gains since then.
Although news sources are not wrong when they say that, they have exaggerated how far women
have really come because there are still many barriers to conquer before women achieve
equality. Women have made some extraordinary gains but their gains have failed to change the
overall representation of women in politics because the number of women in office is still
relatively low. For example, some extraordinary advances are Nancy Pelosi currently serving as
the Minority Leader in the U.S House of Representatives and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
receiving eighteen million votes when she sought the Democratic nomination for president
(Lawless and Fox 1). Also “in 2011, polls repeatedly placed former vice presidential candidate
Sarah Palin in the top tier of potential candidates for the Republican presidential nomination”
(Lawless and Fox 1). However, media attention to these famous faces conceals the lack of
women who hold elective office in the United States and creates a distorted perception of gender
equality in politics. The media and public interpretation make it seem like women are fairly close
to achieving equality in politics but in reality women still have a long journey ahead of them.
Many people do not recognize how the media exaggerate women’s gains, but there are
statistics that prove women are not as represented as the media portrays them to be. The United
States is one of a few among the industrialized countries that has not kept up with the other
Nankervis 12
nations around the world that have been making progress to increase women’s presence in
positions of power. In other words, the United States is by no means near the top, which is very
surprising because with all of the media coverage and the United States’ claims of leadership in
equality, one would think that the United States would be closer to the top. Currently, there are
ninety nations that have a higher percentage of women in the national legislature than the United
States (Lawless and Fox 1). Out of those ninety nations, fifty of them are democratic countries
that rank higher than the United States in women’s representation. The percentage of the
representation of women in the United States is 16.9% in the national legislature, which is
markedly lower than the international average of 19.3% (Lawless and Fox 2). This raises concern
because without women in politics are women’s views and interests being represented? If more
women are elected, then the likelihood of women’s views and experiences being represented in
politics will increase.
Questions persist regarding why the percentage of women in office is that low, especially
since women perform just as well as men when they run for office. According to Lawless and
Fox, when women run for office they are just as likely as their male counterparts to win their
races, regardless of the position they seek (2). A key problem of women’s underrepresentation
lies with the fact that so few women run for office. There are multiple reasons why women do
not run for a political position such as they lack confidence, view themselves as unqualified and
therefore believe they are incapable of winning. The lack of women running for office has
created a large gender gap in politics and political ambition. This gap has been created by
women viewing themselves as not as eligible as men therefore they do not consider running for
office. Also, women seem to not be as interested as men in seeking elective office. In other
words, their political ambition is not as strong.
Nankervis 13
According to Lawless and Fox in “Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representation of
Women in U.S. Politics,” there are seven main reasons why this gender gap exists. The first
reason is that “women are substantially more likely than men to perceive the electoral
environment as highly competitive and biased against female candidates” (Lawless and Fox 7).
This reason adds to the gender gap because when women think the system is biased against them
they will not run for office. Also, they are unlikely to enter an unfair playing field where they
think they do not have a chance of succeeding. A second reason is “Hillary Clinton and Sarah
Palin’s candidacies aggravated women’s perceptions of gender bias in the electoral arena”
(Lawless and Fox 7). Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin’s prominent candidacies educated the
public about how women are treated when they run for office. The existing negative perceptions
of the way women are accepted in the electoral arena seem to have been reinforced and possibly
even exacerbated by their candidacies. These women reinforced negative perceptions because the
public focused on all the wrong aspects of their candidacies such as their appearance. Third,
“women are much less likely than men to think they are qualified to run for office” (Lawless and
Fox 9). This third finding ties into the first one because if women view the electoral process as
biased against them then are less likely to view themselves as qualified. As a result, women tend
not to run for office unless they believe they have a chance of winning. Fourth, “female potential
candidates are less competitive, less confident and more risk averse than their male counterparts”
(Lawless and Fox 10). Women are not as competitive or confident because they are stepping into
a male-dominated environment. Potential female candidates are less competitive and less
confident because they perceive their political attributes and their ability to succeed in the
political system through a gendered lens. This gendered lens affects whether or not they decide
to run for office. Fifth, “women react more negatively than men to many aspects of modern
Nankervis 14
campaigns” (Lawless and Fox 11). Unfortunately, women react more negatively because in a
sense they have more to lose than men when they are exposed to difficult personal
circumstances. For example, women fear the potential loss of privacy and are concerned about
spending less time with their families therefore they are discouraged more often from running for
office. Sixth, “women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run for office – from
anyone” (Lawless and Fox 11). Recruitment and encouragement are very important in politics
because it inspires many individuals to run for office, who would otherwise never consider
running. It gives many people that extra push that they needed to end up in the right direction.
Recruitment for women has increased over the years but is still significantly lower than the
recruitment for men. Therefore, the percentage of men running for office is higher than the
percentage of women, which increases the gender gap. Lastly, “women are still responsible for
the majority of childcare and household tasks” (Lawless and Fox 13). Compared to the other six,
this seventh finding has not had as big of an impact or effect on whether or not women consider
running for office or plan to run in the future. It has simply become another struggle for women
to balance their family roles with professional responsibilities. These seven findings demonstrate
that because of deeply embedded patterns of gender roles and norms, becoming a candidate will
remain a far less appealing and feasible option for women than men.
Another reason why women are less likely to run for office is that according to statistics,
women win office as often as men but they unfortunately face special gender-based challenges
(Thomas and Wilcox 41). Currently, voters express high levels of support for women candidates.
However, many still judge candidates based on gender stereotypes. For example, the public tends
to see female candidates as warm, compassionate, kind and passive. On the other hand, men are
perceived as strong, knowledgeable, tough, direct and assertive. This stereotyping influences
Nankervis 15
how the public views candidates in the issues arena. Voters judge women as more competent on
health care, education, women’s issues and family issues. In comparison, men are seen as better
qualified to deal with foreign policy, military intervention, and crime. Unfortunately, it takes a
lot for female candidates to try and overcome these gender stereotypes and they are not always
successful in doing so.
Roadblocks for women and ways to overcome those obstacles
Women candidates have come a long way since the days when their candidacies were
met with skepticism. One of the major roadblocks to women candidates in earlier times was the
widespread belief that politics was not an appropriate activity for women (Thomas and Wilcox
42). This is still a major roadblock for women because women are seen as not fit to handle all of
the tasks or issues involved with any political position they are seeking. Also, current voters may
support women more now then they did in the past but they still seem to be less willing to vote
for them. This unwillingness is related to the gender stereotypes the world holds about men and
women. The public tends to extend their social stereotypes about women in general to women in
the political world, assuming that they will be more liberal, gentler, and better able to handle the
compassion issues than men. These views can promote and hinder women candidates. It helps
them when voters value compassion issues but it potentially hurts them when voters value
economic or military concerns.
In Gender and Elections by Susan Carroll, the 2008 presidential election is given as a
case study to show how women are still seen as unfit for the political world. This particular case
really demonstrates how gender affected the 2008 presidential nominations by changing the
elements associated with masculinity. The elements were changed because the 2008 presidential
Nankervis 16
nomination was the closest a woman has ever gotten to becoming a nominee. Another reason
why they changed was because “the presidential capacity is strongly associated with men and
masculinity” so any woman who wanted to become president had to negotiate masculinity
(Carroll and Fox 16). Also, “women had not been seriously considered as suitable to serve as
president until Hilary Clinton’s campaign of 2008” (Carroll and Fox 26). Her candidacy proves
that the view of women has changed but not entirely since she was unable to win the presidential
nomination. One reason why she did not win the nomination is because what the public views as
the human material that creates presidents has been male and masculine characteristics. These
views have been embedded through the traditions that dominate the presidency making it
extremely hard for a female candidate to win.
Gender also affected the 2008 presidential nominations because the candidates had to
struggle to achieve hegemonic masculinity. Of course this struggle was harder for Clinton than
McCain and Obama simply because she is a woman. How the candidates went about obtaining
this masculinity was by presenting and projecting it with experience, expertise and dominance.
During elections, women tend to be punished for displaying dominance therefore Clinton had to
rely on expertise. Clinton had another barrier to overcome besides dominance, which was
toughness. Toughness is a characteristic associated with masculinity. A comparison was done to
see how many times the candidates names were mentioned with the word tough. “Hilary won the
tough battle but may have lost the election in the process in part because, culturally, we do not
necessarily want tough women, even though we want a tough president” (Carroll and Fox 40).
Overall, gender affected the nominations because America seems to have a problem with
nominating a woman even if she possesses the same qualifications as the male contenders.
Nankervis 17
Political parties have helped to change the view of women in the political world by
incorporating women into their organizations and conventions. They have incorporated women
by “establishing organizations led by women to work with women voters and by making efforts
to integrate women into their leadership committees through expansion of those organizations”
(Carroll and Fox 214). The Democratic Party acted first by having the Democratic National
Committee create a women’s version of itself in 1917. They did so by staffing the committee
with female members from the states that had already granted women full suffrage. The
Republican Party acted shortly after with the creation of the Republican Women’s National
Executive Committee in 1918. The parties chose to incorporate women because they were
worried that women would form their own political parties, which would then weaken the
capacity of major parties to control elections. The parties also increased the percentage of
women as convention delegates because the National Women’s Political Caucus (NWPC)
pushed for “reasonable representation” in the early 1970’s (Carroll and Fox 215). Women’s
organizations like the NWPC are a main reason why women have made great strides towards
political equality. Also, the NWPC’s push for reasonable representation shows that the
underrepresentation of women in politics has been a problem for almost nearly a century.
Besides incorporating women into their organizations and conventions, political parties
also helped to elect more women into public office, which also contributed to the public’s
changing view of women. The parties have helped to elect more women to public office by
sponsoring campaign conferences. “In 1974, the Democratic Party sponsored the Campaign
Conference for Democratic Women aimed at electing more women to political office” (Carroll
and Fox 218). The Republican Party held similar conferences a decade later. The parties also
helped to elect women by including statements recommending support for women’s candidacies
Nankervis 18
in the national party platforms. Another way they helped was by raising millions of dollars for
women running for the Senate. Political parties did not do all of this work by themselves.
Women’s organizations worked alongside the parties and played an important role in electing
more women into public office. Specific women’s organizations such as the National Federation
of Republican Women (NFRW) and the Republican National Committee’s Excellence in Public
Service Series “made efforts to recruit and train women as political and public leaders” (Carroll
and Fox 220). They made efforts by providing training and offering a political leadership
development program. As mentioned before, recruitment is an important part of elections
because it gives people the courage they need to take that extra step to run for office.
Gains women have made in politics to improve their role/status
Part I: Percentages of women in office now compared to the 1900s
There are plenty of statistics that prove the gender gap exists and that women are
underrepresented in the United States. The percentages of women in elective offices from the
year 1979 to 2012 are very surprising. The percentages are surprising because for about twenty
years the percentages of women in office increased but then starting in 2001 the numbers started
to level off and eventually decline. This abnormal trend in the numbers is surprisingly
unexpected and varies depending on the level of government, such as Congress, statewide
elective or state legislature. The trend is surprisingly unexpected because with the way the media
promotes the notion that gender equality is no longer a problem, one would expect the
percentages to be much higher or to continue to increase rather than remain constant or start to
decline. An example of the varying trend is the percentage of women in the U.S. Congress is the
smallest but has increased the most compared to the other sections of government. In other
Nankervis 19
words, the percentage of women in Congress is only 16.8% but has increased by 13.8% since
1979, while statewide elective and the state legislature’s percentages of women are 23.4% and
23.7% but have only increased by 12.4% and 13.7% respectively (“Facts” CAWP website). The
increase in Congress’s and the state legislature’s percentages are almost identical but Congress’s
increase is effectively larger than the 0.1% difference because the total number of people in
Congress is smaller than the total number of politicians in state legislatures. Also, the percentage
of women in the U.S. Congress has remained stable for the past four years, which is unlike the
other levels of government. This means that over the past four years the percentage of women in
Congress has stayed the same; it has not increased or decreased. In the statewide elective, the
percentage of women has been on somewhat of a rollercoaster. From 1979 to 2001 the
percentage of women increased but starting in 2003 the percentage of women began to decline
and has been decreasing since then. The only exception is the year 2012 where the percentage
slightly increased by 1.2% (“Facts” CAWP website). As for the state legislatures, the percentage
of women in office has increased since 1979 except in 2011 it started to slowly decline. It is very
interesting that the percentages for two of the sections of government have started to decline over
the past couple of years. What could have caused this sudden decline when the number of
women in office has been increasing for almost the past thirty years? Some more statistics need
to be looked at before attempting to answer this question.
The following graph, Figure 1, shows that after almost thirty years of small but steady
increases, the number of women state legislators has leveled off in the past decade. As a result,
people may ask the question, why have the numbers plateaued long before women have achieved
parity with men among legislators? The answer to this question has to do with how more women
can be elected to office. Political parties encourage candidates to run, discourage candidates from
Nankervis 20
running, and even endorse candidates in primaries. Therefore, they play a major role when it
comes to recruiting candidates. According to Sanbonmatsu, Carroll, and Walsh, a political actor
is the most influential source of recruitment when a woman runs for elective office (11).
Research has shown that political parties make up 48% of the recruitment efforts for women,
which is a large percentage compared to the other forms of recruitment (Sanbonmatsu, Carroll,
and Walsh 11). This means that the recruitment led by political parties has a significant effect on
whether or not women decide to run. As previously mentioned, the graph below shows the
number of women in office has leveled off in recent years. This may potentially be a result of
less recruitment. Since recruitment led by political parties is such a large percentage of the total
recruitment efforts, if recruitment declines the number of women that run for office will also
decline, which will lead to smaller numbers of women in office. It appears that the strategies that
have been used for the past thirty years have started to become ineffective since the number of
women elected to office has leveled off. This is clearly not the only reason why the number of
women elected to office has leveled off but it is one of the more substantial reasons. A reason
why these strategies may have become ineffective is because men and women take different
pathways to politics, which means different strategies need to be used to recruit each gender. The
differences in backgrounds and experiences may suggest that recruiting organizations need to
come up with new strategies for recruiting women. Some of the new strategies they might try
include convincing women who are public policy advocates to pursue those issues as elected
officials, recruiting women of various ages, or helping potential women candidates gain the
experience and training they feel they need to reassure them that they are capable of running and
winning (Sanbonmatsu, Carroll, and Walsh 27). The fading number of women in elective office
is alarming and needs to be addressed. One possible way to address this problem is to recruit
Nankervis 21
more women because the more women are recruited the higher the possibility becomes of them
being elected.
Another way to address this problem is to increase the role of political parties in the
recruitment of women. This next graph, Figure 2, compares the representation of women by
political party and shows that political parties are especially important because they clearly
influence the number of women in office since the number of Republican women legislators has
declined while the number of Democratic women has increased. It is critical for women
candidates to attract party support because women who reach the legislature usually do so with
the support of their parties. In other words, for women to increase their chances of winning a
position in office they should attract as much support from their political party as possible. The
graph also demonstrates that Democrats have consistently supported the growth of women in
office while the Republicans have not. What does this mean for the Democratic and Republican
parties? Why has one party supported women more than the other? A possible answer to this
question is that there are more Republican men in office than Democratic men, which poses a
Nankervis 22
problem for women because men in leadership positions, especially recruitment leadership
positions, tend to not recruit women or elect them to office (Sanbonmatsu, Carroll, and Walsh
13). When men control who gets recruited and elected, they are more likely to choose a male
candidate over a female (McGlen et al. 101). Also, when men dominate a political party they are
more likely to recruit and elect more men than women. Unlike women leaders, men typically do
not put in the extra effort needed to recruit women (Sanbonmatsu, Carroll, and Walsh 13). One
reason why this happens is because of the power of incumbency. Since most incumbents are men
and incumbents are more likely to win than newcomers it is very difficult for a woman to win a
seat in office. It also has to do with the fact that party leaders anticipate voter reaction to
candidates. This means that a party believes that women will be elected more depending on a
district’s voter demographics. This is a problem for women because they need to be recruited
since they do not usually run on their own. If they are not recruited then they do not run, which
means fewer women are elected to office. Therefore, the representation of women will decline.
In other words, when a majority of men are in charge or dominate the powerful positions fewer
women tend to make it into the legislature. Since women tend to win election more often when
they have support from their political party and recruitment is the best way of increasing
women’s chances of getting into office then political parties should become more involved with
the recruitment of women. According to the graph, Republicans are even less active in women’s
recruitment than Democrats. Therefore, if the political parties become more involved in both the
recruitment and support of women then the percentage of women in office will most likely
increase.
Nankervis 23
The following graph titled “Women in State Legislative Elections” further suggests that
the more women are recruited the more women win election into office. The graph displays this
information by comparing the amount of women candidates that ran for office every two years to
the amount of women that actually won positions in office. The bar graph shows that the years
more women candidates were running, such as the years 1998, 2002 and 2006, more women
were elected into office. As mentioned earlier, recruitment is the most effective way of
increasing the representation of women in politics. Therefore, the years with more women
candidates means recruitment was higher than the years with fewer candidates. Also, this shows
that recruitment is an effective way of increasing the representation of women and should
continue to be used in the upcoming years but at an increased level.
Nankervis 24
Part II: Whether or not women in office actually make a difference in politics
Statistics show that the representation of women has increased over the years, but has the
increasing number of women in office made an actual difference? In other words, do women in
office actually increase the representation of women? Do they act differently than men? One way
to see whether or not women in office represent women’s interests more than men is to compare
descriptive versus substantive representation. Descriptive representation is the “numeric
similarity between legislative bodies and the electorate they represent in terms of gender, race,
ethnicity, or other demographic characteristics” (Paxton et al. 265). In other words, descriptive
representation in terms of women is women achieving high percentages of representation in
legislatures. Substantive representation is about advocating the interests and issues of a group.
For women substantive representation is ensuring that politicians, whether male or female, speak
for and act to support women’s issues (Paxton et al. 272). The difference between descriptive
and substantive representation shapes whether and how women make a difference to public
policy.
Nankervis 25
To look at this difference, the authors of the “Gender in Politics” article conducted
research about whether men and women prioritize different political issues, vote differently on
legislation, introduce different types of bills, and differ in their effectiveness in getting bills
passed. The research determined that women are more likely to prioritize bills related to children,
family, women, health care and social services (Paxton et al. 273). As for voting differently on
legislation, there is some evidence that men and women vote in different directions. Women are
also more likely than men to introduce bills that reduce gender discrimination, bills related to
children and the family, education and health and to sponsor bills related to education, health
care, children’s issues, and welfare policy (Paxton et al. 273). These gender differences seem to
be the strongest in legislatures with the highest proportions of women (Carroll 171).
Unfortunately, women-sponsored bills often encounter more scrutiny, debate and hostility than
male-sponsored bills. Even though women face more difficulties than men with regard to passing
legislation, they are still as effective as men in getting their bills turned into law (Paxton et al.
274). They are possibly even more effective than men since women are more successful in
getting bills passed that are directly related to women, children and families. This suggests that
women spend more energy and effort in the passage of these bills than do men. Also, women
have more credibility on these issues so their bills are taken more seriously (Carroll 173). This is
a possible reason why women’s priority bills are passed more often than men’s priority bills.
Overall, when there are more women in office the representation of women does increase
because they prioritize women’s interests more than men do.
Another reason why women in office are better substantive representatives than men is
because “women legislators, like women in the mass public, have slightly more liberal issue
attitudes” (Carroll 177). Therefore, when women legislators are compared to their male
Nankervis 26
counterparts they give a higher priority to women’s issues. There are two contextual factors that
seem to increase women’s influence in office: larger numbers of women in the legislature and
banding together for collective action, otherwise known as the existence of a women’s caucus.
Legislatures that have a large number of women are better able to focus their attention, as well as
their male colleagues’ attention, on issues of importance to them and to other women (Carroll
178). Also, male legislators are more likely to perceive the legitimacy of women’s legislative
priorities when there are more women in the legislature. Similar to the effect of large numbers of
women, when a state has a women’s caucus there tends to be more successful passage of
women’s legislation because the members of the caucus appear to work together to pass
legislation of interest to women.
Part III: If women are effective, why don’t more run for office?
Research has proven that women in office are just as effective and representative as men.
If this is the case then why do so few women run for office? The research conducted by analysts
and observers shows that women are just as likely as men to win an election if they were to run.
Therefore, that cannot be a possible reason why a small amount of women run for office. One
reason why women do not run is because women are stereotyped against, which makes them feel
like they will not be elected and therefore stops them from running for office. Women also face
many disadvantages such as having less money, ‘nonpolitical’ career trajectories, fewer political
contacts and they are not as well known as male candidates. Since they are at a disadvantage,
women have a different experience than men. This experience is not always a pleasant one and
possibly prevents women from wanting to run. According to the Women and Politics book there
are four other theories about why women are less likely to run for office. The first theory is
Nankervis 27
women are less interested and less politically ambitious than their male colleagues (Dolan,
Deckman, and Swers 130). The second theory states women’s career choices and professional
backgrounds are less likely than men’s to facilitate running for political office (Dolan, Deckman,
and Swers 136). The third theory says women’s roles as wives and mothers delay their
candidacies, which narrows the pool of potential female candidates (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers
138). Lastly, the fourth theory declares that discrimination from the political parties effectively
discourages those who have an interest in participating (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 139).
Another source that states the disadvantages women face is the “Women in politics? The
U.S. is failing” article. It mentions that women have a clear disadvantage because 83% of men
make up Congress and incumbents win more than 90% of the time (Schmitz 1). Based on these
percentages, eighty-nine nations still surpass the United States in terms of women’s
representation in government. However, the American public thinks the United States is ranked
higher than it really is because the media sometimes portrays the government as being taken over
by women, which is very untrue because female participation in political and business leadership
has consistently stagnated around 18% (Schmitz 1). This misperception could be another reason
why more women do not run because if they think a large percentage of women already exists
they may have no incentive to run. The article also states that a possible reason why the gender
imbalance exists is because women are too busy upholding both careers and the majority of
household responsibilities, which is similar to the second and third theory mentioned in the
Women and Politics book. Therefore, they are half as likely to think they can win an election and
“less likely to feel they can amass the average $3 million necessary to secure a seat in Congress”
(Schmitz 1).
Nankervis 28
Barriers women still need to overcome in order to be more involved in politics
The media portrays the achievements of women as bigger than they really are and as if
they have come further than they really have. The media also shows that women have made
more of an improvement in politics in terms of representation but the reality is women still have
a long way to go before they achieve parity. Since the media exaggerates women’s
accomplishments and participation in politics, the numbers of women in office are not as high as
the public would expect them to be. The truth is “female participation in political and business
leadership has consistently stagnated at around 18%”, which is much lower than the percentage
of male participation (Schmitz 1). Also, the United States’ female population is roughly 51%,
which shows that a big gender representation gap exists since only about 18% of women hold
political leadership positions (Schmitz 1). In order for the number of women in leadership
positions and in office to grow, there are some existing barriers that need to be overcome.
One barrier is a double bind that still exists and continues to be problematic for female
candidates. Research and statistics have shown that women are just as successful as men when
running for office. However, relatively similar success rates at the polls can be deceiving because
they do not mean that men and women face the same challenges and constraints on the campaign
trail. Rather, “much evidence indicates that voters perceive female and male candidates through
different lenses, that the press treats their candidates differently, and that women and men
themselves behave somewhat differently when they run” (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 142).
These differences, especially the different challenges on the campaign trial, represent the double
bind that women face and have to fight in order to be as successful as men.
Related to the double bind barrier are the gendered stereotypes about women’s
capabilities and character traits that the media encourages. Women candidates seem to attract
Nankervis 29
more media coverage than their male counterparts but this coverage is mainly negative and
focuses on their family and appearance. This negative coverage creates a problem because it has
the ability to discourage other women from running in the future and it also gives voters a reason
to call into question women’s fitness for office. The gendered stereotypes encouraged by the
media also affect women’s fund-raising efforts because women have a harder time than men do
since the media portrays women as unfit for office and does not focus on the important aspects of
their campaign. It appears that female candidates do as well as male candidates running in
similar situations but women have more difficulties because they receive on average smaller
campaign contributions. This means they have to work harder and their fund-raising efforts
require more time and energy in order for them to raise the same amount of campaign
contributions as men.
According to the Women, Politics, and American Society book, the barriers that have kept
women out of political office seem to fall into five general categories, which are stereotypes,
career choice and ambition, family demands, sex discrimination, and the political system itself
(McGlen et al. 95). In other words, five interrelated barriers exist that continue to prevent women
from fully exercising their political rights. One of the first stereotypes to exist against women
was that most women and men thought such an activity, meaning women running for office, was
inappropriate. Current stereotypes are more negative and are about women’s emotional stability
and their qualifications, specifically their knowledge and experience in military affairs and
foreign policy. The media fosters current stereotypes since “media coverage in a campaign is
critical to establishing a candidate’s viability, or the perception that the candidate can win”
(McGlen et al. 96). Also, gender bias, which is a form of a stereotype, in the media in terms of
quantity of coverage, placement of stories, and content continues to disadvantage women
Nankervis 30
candidates. This means women tend to be portrayed as less viable than men, which has a
negative effect on the image of women. The second category, career choice, is an existing barrier
because many traditionally female occupations such as teaching or nursing are less compatible
with politics than are more male-dominated professions. In other words, this creates a barrier for
women and also puts a limit on the potential number of female office seekers. Also, the primary
career paths of members serving in office are derived from three fields, which are law, business,
and public service. The majority of women do not pursue careers in these fields and therefore are
not successful candidates or are discouraged to run in the first place. Another major barrier that
has affected women candidates is a public perception that women with children, especially
young children, are less suited for public office, which is the third category mentioned in the
book. This category ties into the first category of stereotypes because if a man running for office
has small children it does not make him less suited for office in the eyes of the public. This may
be because women are seen as the primary caregivers. Therefore, this view is what creates the
public’s perception that women are less suited for office since being a caregiver may take away
from a woman’s official duties.
The fourth category in the Women, Politics, and American Society book is sex
discrimination, which has also been a powerful deterrent to political activity. There are two
factors that seem to motivate most sex discrimination. The first factor is cultural stereotypes
about the abilities and appropriate position of women in politics and the second factor is selfinterest on the part of male voters and politicians who are reluctant to share their power with
women or any other “out group” (McGlen et al. 101). These two factors seem to have existed for
an extensive period of time, which means that in order for women to overcome the sex
discrimination barrier more effort than usual is going to be needed. Finally, the political system
Nankervis 31
seems to create a barrier for women in four different ways. These four ways consist of some of
the key components of the political system, which are campaign finance, party organization,
winner-take-all electoral systems, and incumbency. All of these key components affect the
ability of women to run and wage successful campaigns for public office (McGlen et al. 102).
The campaign finance component creates a barrier because most women candidates continue to
believe that it is more difficult for women than men to obtain the funds needed to run. This
means that if women want to achieve political equality they have to raise more money than the
male incumbents they need to unseat (McGlen et al. 102). The problem is not whether or not
women are capable of raising enough money, it is if they are willing to put in the extra effort to
raise the money since fund-raising is more difficult for women than for men. “Historically,
women candidates also faced another problem, which is limited organizational help in the form
of campaign workers, in part because of marginal party support” (McGlen et al. 103). This is no
longer as great of a problem. However, the current problem with party organization is that the
Republican Party appears to resist and to not be as committed to recruiting women to run. There
are some problems unique to the United States political system that make it very hard for women
to be elected in as large numbers as in other democracies. For example, the U.S. electoral system
of single-member, “winner-take-all” districts, meaning only one candidate wins in each district,
continues to hinder women. Studies show that when a system has multiple winners who are
selected from lists of candidates prepared by the party, women are more likely to be included on
these lists (McGlen et al. 104). Another unique problem is the political system favors
incumbents, making it hard for newcomers, which most women are, to break into politics. “It is
common for 90 percent or more of all members of Congress to seek reelection and to win”
(McGlen et al. 104).
Nankervis 32
Most of these barriers have weakened over the years but they are still very powerful and
therefore still need to be overcome. There are two ways these barriers act to keep the numbers of
women in public office low. First, they deter women from running for office, and second, they
keep those who run from succeeding. Therefore, the largest remaining barrier is convincing
women to run for office. Overall, all of these barriers put women at a disadvantage that most
men do not have to deal with or face.
Conclusion: How can this gender imbalance improve?
If women tend to win about as often as men, why are so few women sitting in elected
office? One of the reasons has to do with incumbency. The majority of incumbents are still men,
and it is very difficult to unseat incumbents in the United States. Second, a limited number of
congressional districts have sent a disproportionate share of women to Congress. If women are
electable in some, but not all, districts, the country may reach a plateau where women continue
to replace other women in office, but fail to increase their numbers overall as they cannot make
advancements into other less friendly districts. This has possibly already started occurring since
women’s representation at the state legislative level has remained fairly stagnant over the last
decade. Therefore, even if women begin running and winning in similar numbers, “the power of
incumbency, combined with a limited number of “women friendly districts” virtually ensures
that it will take many years to significantly alter the existing gender imbalance in elected
positions” (Dolan, Deckman, and Swers 142).
Another reason why there are so few women in public office is because the public tends
to blame the victim, which means they find inadequacies in women themselves. For example,
people may say women are not ambitious enough or lack the aggression necessary for political
Nankervis 33
life. Women may be too naïve and really do not understand what goes on in politics. They may
be too concerned with issues relating to their traditional roles, such as child care and education,
and therefore may not be concerned enough with issues usually perceived as more central to the
political agenda, such as inflation, the military, the budget, and taxes. “The blame-the-victim
approach shifts responsibility for a lack of representation onto women themselves” (Darcy,
Welch, and Clark 101). From this point of view, women’s lack of success is due to them just not
working hard enough.
There is no single explanation why women continue to lag significantly behind men as
candidates. Rather, it is likely a mix of factors that prevents women from becoming candidates.
According to Dolan, Deckman, and Swers, these factors are women’s own apprehensions about
their qualifications and competency shaped, in part, by professional and occupational
experiences that differ from those of political men, a desire to put family first and forgo political
careers until their children have grown, and unexpected resistance from party leaders (141). The
factors mentioned previously, such as incumbency and the blame-the-victim approach, are also a
part of the mix. This may lead one to ask, “How can this gender imbalance be improved?”
One way of attempting to answer this question would be to compare the United States’
representation of women in politics to other countries. When comparing the United States to
other countries in terms of women’s representation they are clearly failing or not doing as well as
they should be. The United States is not ranked as high as everyone or as high as the public
thinks they would be, especially with all of the media hype. Since other countries seem to be
doing better than the United States, a possible solution for improving the gender imbalance
would be to look at other countries and how women are represented in those countries. What are
those countries doing that is different from the United States? One thing foreign countries have
Nankervis 34
in place that the United States does not is quotas. For example, in “India they voted to require
30% of female representation in government and in France they voted to require 40% of female
board membership in business” (Schmitz 1). Currently, half of all national governments include
some form of legally required minimums for women. Therefore, one possible solution for the
United States would be to set quotas for women.
Another possible solution has to do with the slight edge women have over men.
According to the “Candidate gender and voter support in state legislative elections” article, there
is statistical evidence that women actually receive a higher percentage of the vote (Hogan 44).
Women receive a greater vote percentage in districts where education levels are higher and
where there is a larger portion of African Americans. Unfortunately, these effects are
insufficiently large to influence their likelihood of winning. Women may have a slight edge over
men in gaining voter support but factors such as candidacy status, partisanship of the district, and
campaign spending have a much stronger influence on election outcomes. This is relevant to a
possible suggestion because maybe if there is a way to make the slight edge that women have
over men more important than the other factors then maybe more women will be elected.
In conclusion, women have certainly surmounted many obstacles and achieved a great
deal since they secured the right to vote. But they still have a long way to go before they are
represented equally compared to the numbers of men in office. They still have a long way to go
in part because of the inequalities that were established a long time ago under the conditions of
gender hierarchy. This is what started it all and has continued to disadvantage women. Through
the gender hierarchy lens, one group, in particular women, is less privileged and valorized than
the other. In order for women to achieve parity, the persistent devalorization of women and
feminine qualities needs to stop. Also, since the remaining barriers mentioned previously have
Nankervis 35
only been weakened and not completely eliminated they still need to be overcome. “System-level
barriers, especially those that favor incumbents, make it difficult for women to reach parity even
if the public and male party officials are increasingly enlightened as to the need to elect and
appoint more women to public office” (McGlen et al. 120). In order for parity to be reached
these system level barriers, along with all of the other barriers, need to be taken down and
hopefully will be in the years to come.
Nankervis 36
Works Cited
Carroll, Susan J. The Impact of Women in Public Office. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
Press, 2001. Print.
Carroll, Susan J., and Richard L. Fox. Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American
Politics. Second ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2010. Print.
Darcy, R., Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. Women, Elections, & Representation. Second ed. I
Vol. n.p.: University of Nebraska Press, 1994. Print.
Dolan, Julie, Melissa M. Deckman, and Michele L. Swers. 2011. Women and politics: Paths to
Power and Political Influence. Second ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Print.
"Facts." Center for American Women and Politics: Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers
University, n.d. Web. 01 Oct. 2012. <http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/fast_facts/index.php>.
Hogan, Robert E. "Candidate Gender and Voter Support in State Legislative Elections." Journal
of Women, Politics & Policy 31.1 (2010): 44-66. Web. 8 Nov. 2012.
Johnson, Allan G. The Gender Knot: Unraveling our Patriarchal Legacy. Revised and Updated
ed. Temple University Press, 2005. Print.
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard J. Fox. "Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representation of
Women in U.S. Politics." Women & Politics Institute: School of Public Affairs. Women
& Politics Institute, n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/2012-Men-Rule-Report-web.pdf>.
McGlen, Nancy E., Karen O'Connor, Laura Van Assendelft, and Wendy Gunther-Canada. 2011.
Women, Politics, and American society. Fifth ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson/Prentice
Hall. Print.
Nankervis 37
Paxton, Pamela, Sheri Kunovich, and Melanie M. Hughes. "Gender in Politics." Annual Review
of Sociology 33 (2007): 263-84. Print.
Peterson, V. Spike, and Anne Sisson Runyan. Global Gender Issues in the New Millenium. Third
ed. Westview Press, 2010. Print. Dilemmas in World Politics.
Rincker, Meg E. "Masculinized Or Marginalized: Decentralization and Women's Status in
Regional Polish Institutions " Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 30.1 (2009): 46-69.
Web. 26 Mar. 2012.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Susan J. Carroll, and Debbie Walsh. "Poised to Run: Women's Pathways to
the State Legislatures." Center for American Women and Politics. Rutgers University,
n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2012.
<http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/research/reports/PoisedtoRun.pdf>.
Schmitz, Joelle. "Women in politics? The U.S. is failing." USA Today: News >> Opinion. 12
Oct. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-1013-column13_ST_N.htm>.
Thomas, Sue, and Clyde Wilcox. Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future. Second
ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2005. Print.