response -pol-07
Note: use three or more references for responses
Response one-pol-07
This article takes a different approach to the gender gap in U.S. politics. Examining the role gender plays in the electoral system has brought this author to the conclusion that the gender gap is so wide because of the lack of women running for office. This paper does make the point that the government is dominated by male elected officials and there is a bias against women, as well as self-perception by women themselves, which leads to an unfair representation of women and that is the cause for this research. Studies have shown that when women run, they fare just as well, if not better than their male counterparts. This paper explains different factors that play a role in what makes women decide to run for office and what are the barriers that prevent this decision. One factor this paper finds is that while men and women may equally be interested in running, usually, women are less likely to be drawn to the rigors of an electoral contest. Also, pay, party affiliation, and personal income were all factors in whether or not women are likely to run for office. The research also showed that women are more likely to be interested in involvement at the local level such as school boards instead of being in a bigger position.
In conclusion, this paper addresses the questions, are men and women equally likely to consider running for office, and what accounts for the gender gap? The findings are that well-qualified women are less likely than their male counterparts to consider running for office. Younger professional women, affiliated with the Democratic Party, with higher personal income are more likely to run for office. Some other important factors that play a role in women’s decisions to vote are biases against women, self-perceptions that they are not qualified, and a lack of desire for high level positions.
Fox, Richard L. “Gender, Political Ambition and the Decision Not to Run for Political Office.” Center for Women and American Politics. http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/research/topics/documents/InitialDecisiontoRun.pdf
Response two pol-07
|
The article selected for this analysis is “Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representation of Women in U.S. Politics” by Jennifer L. Lawless, and Richard L. Fox. The article is a study on when, why, and how women are recruited to campaign for elected office. Studies have found that once women toss their hats into the political arena they perform equally as well as men. The study reveals that there are no differences in fund raising abilities, the capacity to obtain the necessary votes or electoral success, yet, women just do not run for office like men do. The article contends that there is a substantial gender gap in political ambition; men have it, and women don’t. The articles text was read and reviewed to obtain a meaning of the whole unit, “Why Men Rule.” In studying the political ambitions of women, a mail survey in 2001, showed that men expressed more comfort with politics, and felt greater freedom when thinking about seeking office. 18 percent of women in 2001, compared to 14 percent of women in 2011, have expressed an interest in running for office at some point (Fox et al). The article identifies seven factors that hinder prospects for gender parity in U.S. elective office: (1) The environment is biased. Nature has prescribed the duty of nurturer to women and men have used this prescription to their advantages both in public and private over the years. These traditional gender roles limit the possibility plus the potential loss of privacy and family time creates a struggle that most women will not give up. (2) The successful campaigns of Hillary Clinton, and Sara Palin aggravated individual perceptions of gender biases from men and women in politics. The spotlight shined on the once, male dominated incumbency advantage, and the historic underrepresentation in professions that leads to a political career for women are slowly being shattered as society views of women in politics are more positive. The traditional roles are being challenged and accepted, if women choose so. (3) Women are much less likely than men to think they are qualified to run for office. Self-perception is the biggest barrier to keeping women from running for office. Patriarchy is the structural and ideological system that perpetuates the privileging of masculinity. Like the male dominated legislatures, political parties, newspapers, theater companies (Hollywood), television networks, religious organizations, corporations, and our very judicial system itself all have derived from the presumption that what is masculine is most deserving of reward, promotion, admiration, and emulation (Fox et al.). Public observers have been socially conditioned to form biased opinions of good or bad in masculinity through the pressures of public competitiveness, either academically or professionally. (4) Potential women candidates were socialized to be risk adverse, less competitive, less confident, because they lacked the foundations required to build strong character. Institutions simply did not facilitate women into the mainstream public with strong character traits. (5) Women tend to react more negatively than men to many aspects of modern campaigns. And rightfully so, global intrusion into the constitutional rights of privacy are a major concern for women candidates, especially their families. Plus, Women are statistically more likely than men to view four of the five campaign activities (contributions, collaborating with party officials, Meeting constituents, press meetings, negative campaigning) so negatively that they are deterred from seeking public office. (6) Women are less likely to receive important endorsements to run for office. Back to the structured public conditioning of the male character. Political actors do seek out women for public office, and this gender gap exists at all levels from local, to state, to federal positions (Fox et al). (7) finally, Women are the majority homemakers in our society. They are the nurturers prescribed by nature. Women spend 2.1 hours a day on household tasks, men 1.6. Women spend 2.8 hours per day on childcare, men 1.7. A significant part of the freedom that men express when considering public office. In conclusion, the structural barriers of past, and present, societies situational and circumstantial factors, and traditional roles of gender norms all contribute to gender disparities between women and men in U.S. political institutions (Fox et al). Just because women and men are professionally equal in public, does not mean the same is always true in private. America has patriarchy institutions which have long perpetuated the privileging of masculinity. Political gate keepers at institutions like; elected party leaders, the political parties themselves, the different newspapers, television networks, religious organizations, the global corporations, and the state and federal courts, all have deeply embedded biases from the presumption that what is masculine is most deserving of reward, promotion, admiration, and emulation (Fox et at). The environment is biased but slowly changing. Women are realizing how successful they are in politics. The article eludes to the fact that society is not an impediment for women to become politically ambitious. They just must want it. The articles surveys 2001 and 2011 uncover profound gender gap interest in seeking elective office because of a lack of social conditioning and balancing of family responsibilities. The findings from the Citizen Political Ambition Study cast a cloud over the prospects for gender parity in U.S. political institutions for the near future (Fox et al). We must restructure institutions strongly rooted in patriarchy to accommodate what nature has prescribed or men must give more to the private side of family life. The articles main theme indicates a continued struggle for gender parity in U.S. politics, but, the only obstacle was the woman’s choice itself, in which she has no choice. The authors both admit that most political observers have accepted that overt hostile attitudes towards women candidates is a thing of the past, but that deeply embedded gender norms, along with traditional roles continue to stymie the political ambitions of women. References: Lawless, Jennifer L., Fox, Richard, L., 2012, Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representation of Women in U.S. Politics, Women & Politics Institute Fox, Richard L., Lawless, Jennifer L., 2010, If Only They’d Ask: Gender, Recruitment, and Political Ambition, Loyola Law School Fox, Richard L., Gender, Political Ambition and the Decision Not to Run for Office, Department of Political Science, Union College |
Response three-pol-07
|
Fox and Lawless (2010) analyze the influence of recruitment policies on political ambition based on gender with the no so surprising conclusion that much of the literature suggests a long history of male domination in political parties has negatively impacted gender diversity in candidate recruitment. However, they also found discrepancies in the data collected from what was expected. Not only did their results point to women not needing more courting from electoral gatekeepers, they were more likely to run regardless of the gatekeepers blessing than men (Fox and Lawless, 2010, 322). A distinct struggle in any study of gender recruitment in the political process is the impossibility of finding a true national sample as state and local governments all behave a bit differently, and that those same political subdivisions are likely to support a candidate even if there was no traditional recruitment process (Fox and Lawless, 2010, 312). There are so many nuances involved in the political processes in every political subdivision that finding commonalities even within parties is extremely difficult. Fox and Lawless follow the data for analysis instead of trying to force the data to fit their expectations. The conclusions made in “If Only They’d Ask: Gender Recruitment and Political Ambition” would benefit from being updated as there was a woman chair of the DNC from 2011 through 2017. A main point that Fox and Lawless presented was that “networks of electoral gatekeepers are still overwhelmingly male and that they identify and recruit candidates from these networks. Consequently, in states with strong political parties and systematic recruitment activities, women are disadvantaged” (312). However, there have been unexpected changes in the balance of women in state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (2018) ten states that voted red in 2016 also have a minimum of twenty-five percent women members. Not only that, Arizona is tied with Vermont for the highest percent of women in state legislatures at forty percent (NCSL, 2018 and 270 To Win, 2017). Comparatively, California, one of the states considered to be highly advanced in gender diversity has only twenty-one percent of the state legislature being women (NCSL, 2018). The article accurately and fairly addresses the nuances in how gender is addressed in political candidate recruitment, however, in the political and social world, eight years has brought about extraordinary changes and this article could benefit from being updated. References References 270 To Win. (2017). 2016 Presidential election results. Retrieved from https://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2010). If only they'd ask: Gender, recruitment, and political ambition. Journal of Politics, 72(2), 310-326. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/poli_fac/13 National Conference of State Legislatures. (2018). Women in state legislatures for 2018. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/womens-legislative-network/women-in-state-legislatures-for-2018.aspx |
Response four-POL-O7
Richard Fox, in his article “Gender, Political Ambition and the Decision Not to Run for Political Office,” highlights various reasons why there are fewer female candidates that run for political office. The article is a summary of a survey conducted through the mail that sought to determine differences in political ambition between men and women as an attempt to discover if those differences have something to do with why there are persistently more men in politics than women. His main point is that reasons for fewer females in politics are more diverse and varied than traditional research has alluded to, and he attempts to provide insight into the answer to this question.2 Fox also sought to address whether both men and women in the eligibility pool of potential political candidates for political office are equally likely to consider the prospect of running for office. After an analysis of the research question and the methodology of the survey, Fox explored the results of his findings. He then sought to explain, through four possible topics, gender differences that lead to gaps in political ambition between men and women. He concluded with a discussion on what his findings could potentially mean for future research.2
Ultimately, the results of his research uncovered that well-qualified female candidates are less likely than potential male candidates to consider running for political office. That gap widens the higher the level the political office becomes.2 He found that the lower interest levels of women’s interest in holding political office is linked to multiple factors including income, specifically lower levels, less outside support for a political candidacy, more obligations in the home that prevent them from running, and a perception that they’re less qualified to run for and hold elected office.2 Overall, men, regardless of any personal or professional traits, are more comfortable thinking about and deciding to run for public office.2 His results show that it is not just incumbency advantage or fewer women in the potential candidate pool that explain the lack of women in politics. It’s more about candidate recruitment and the way women are socialized about politics.2
This is an important article with potential implications of research into female political candidates and their motivations in choosing to run for office. The article itself strikes an academic tone, as it is a review of a research study. There is a curiosity from the author about the potential reasons behind why fewer female candidates fun for office. The writing is factual and to the point. The supporting points provided by the author are factual, and grounded in the research he conducted on the subject, as well as reviews of literature at the beginning that explain previous hypotheses of why fewer women run for political office. The amount of supporting evidence is solid, summarized well in tables, and presents clearly the findings of the study, which was the purpose of this writing. Fox does consider outside possibilities for why fewer women run, as well as what his research findings may mean for women in politics as a whole, as well as this particular field of research.2
Fox’s theory is backed up by another study reported on by Politico that was conducted by Politico, American University and Loyola Marymount University. This study also shows that women are much less likely than men to even consider running for public office, and Republican women are even less likely than Democratic women (by four percentage points) to consider running for public office.1 The New York Times actually highlights Fox’s theory, as well as other similar and related studies in an article on women deciding to run for office. As it turns out, when women run for office, they are just as likely to win as their male counterparts. Fewer women tend to run overall for a variety of reasons such as a confidence gap – women don’t feel adequately prepared, no encouragement from any level to pursue public office, and the scrutiny that women face that is different from that of men.4 As the NYT article highlights, women not only have to prove competence, but likeability as well, something men generally don’t face.4 These factors that prevent women from running are further supported by an summary of a report issued by American University that identifies seven reasons why women are less likely to run for office. Among the ones mentioned, additional factors include an aversion to the electoral environment, perceptions of gender bias in the electoral arena, a less competitive nature in female candidates, more negative reactions from women towards campaigns, and the responsibility most women have for the bulk of housework and childcare within their families.3
Ultimately, the Johnson article highlights key differences in political ambition among women as a possible explanation for why there are fewer women in politics. His research is further supported by additional sources and studies conducted after Fox’s initial research. The groundwork has been laid to continue the exploration of this issue as a major factor in women’s electoral involvement.
1Boschma, Janie, and Ellen Weinstein. "Why Women Don't Run for Office." POLITICO. June 12, 2017. Accessed April 21, 2018. https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/women-rule-politics-graphic/.
2Fox, Richard L. “Gender, Political Ambition and the Decision Not to Run for Political Office.” Center for Women and American Politics.
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/initialdecisiontorun_0.pdf (accessed April 20, 2018).
3Johnson, J. Paul. "Seven Factors Reveal Why Women Don't Run for Office." American University. January 12, 2012. Accessed April 21, 2018. https://www.american.edu/media/news/20120113-lawless-gender-gap-politics.cfm.
4Miller, Claire Cain. "The Problem for Women Is Not Winning. It's Deciding to Run." The New York Times. October 25, 2016. Accessed April 21, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/25/upshot/the-problem-for-women-is-not-winning-its-deciding-to-run.html.