2012 Men Rule Report Web

8/3/2019 2012 Men Rule Report Web

1/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation

o Women in U.S. Politics

Jennier L. LawlessAmerican University

Richard L. FoxLoyola Marymount University

WOMEN & POLITICS INSTITUTE

SCHOOLofPUBLIC AFFAIRS


2/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representationo Women in U.S. Politics

Jennier L. Lawless

Associate Proessor o Government

American University

Richard L. Fox

Associate Proessor o Political Science

Loyola Marymount University

January 2012

Washington, DC: Women & Politics Institute


3/32

Table o Contents

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | i

Executive Summary ...................................................................................... ii

Introduction .................................................................................................1

Studying Political Ambition ...........................................................................3

The Persistent Gender Gap in Political Ambition ..............................................3

Seven Factors that Hinder Prospects or Gender Parityin Elective Oce ..........................................................................................6

Women are substantially more likely than men to perceive the electoral

environment as highly competitive and biased against emale candidates ...........7

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palins candidacies aggravated womens

perceptions o gender bias in the electoral arena .............................................7

Women are much less likely than men to think they are qualied

to run or oce ............................................................................................8

Female potential candidates are less competitive, less condent, and

more risk averse than their male counterparts ................................................10

Women react more negatively than men to many aspects o modern

campaigns .................................................................................................11

Women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run or

oce rom anyone ...................................................................................11

Women are still responsible or the majority o childcare and

household tasks.......................................................................................... 13

Where Do We Go From Here? Summary, Discussion, and Concluding Remarks ....15

Appendix A: Research on the Dierence Women Make in Politics ....................18

Appendix B: Sample Design and Data Collection ............................................22

Notes ........................................................................................................24

About the Authors .......................................................................................27

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... 27


4/32

ii | Lawless and Fox

Executive SummaryStudy ater study nds that, when women run or oce, they perorm just as well as their male coun-terparts. No dierences emerge in women and mens undraising receipts, vote totals, or electoralsuccess. Yet women remain severely under-represented in U.S. political institutions. We argue thatthe undamental reason or womens under-representation is that they do not run or oce. There is asubstantial gender gap in political ambition; men tend to have it, and women dont.

We arrive at this conclusion by analyzing data rom a brand new survey o nearly 4,000 male andemale potential candidates lawyers, business leaders, educators, and political activists, all owhom are well-situated to pursue a political candidacy and comparing our results to a survey weconducted in 2001. Despite the emergence over the past ten years o high-prole women in politics,such as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Sarah Palin, we nd that the gender gap in political ambi-tion is virtually the same as it was a decade ago. The gender gap in interest in a uture candidacy hasactually increased.

Ultimately, we identiy seven actors that contribute to the gender gap either by directly impedingwomens political ambition, or by making the decision calculus ar more complex and complicated orwomen than men:

Given the persistent gender gap in political ambition, we are a long way rom a political reality inwhich women and men are equally likely to aspire to attain high level elective oce. To be sure, both

major political parties are running a record number o emale candidates or the U.S. Senate in 2012.But women, assuming they win their primaries, will still compete in ewer than one-third o all races.Thus, even i 2012 is a banner year or emale candidates, it will likely still amount only to a 1 to 2percentage point increase in number o women serving in the U.S. Congress.

Certainly, recruiting emale candidates and disseminating inormation about the electoral environmentcan help narrow the gender gap in ambition and increase womens representation. But many barri-ers to womens interest in running or oce can be overcome only with major cultural and politicalchanges. In the end, this report documents how ar rom gender parity we remain, as well as the barri-ers and obstacles we must still surmount in order to achieve it.

Women are substantially more likely than men to perceive the electoral environment1.

as highly competitive and biased against emale candidates.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palins candidacies aggravated womens perceptions o2.

gender bias in the electoral arena.

Women are much less likely than men to think they are qualifed to run or ofce.3.

Female potential candidates are less competitive, less confdent, and more risk4.

averse than their male counterparts.

Women react more negatively than men to many aspects o modern campaigns.5.

Women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run or ofce6.

rom anyone.

Women are still responsible or the majority o childcare and household tasks.7.


5/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 1Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representationo Women in U.S. Politics

As o the 1970s, women occupied almost no major elective positions in U.S. political institutions.Ella Grasso, a Democrat rom Connecticut, and Dixie Lee Ray, a Democrat rom Washington, served asthe only two women elected governor throughout the decade. Not until 1978 did Kansas RepublicanNancy Kassebaum become the rst woman elected to the U.S. Senate in her own right. By 1979,women comprised ewer than ve percent o the seats in the U.S. House o Representatives, and onlyabout ten percent o state legislative positions across the country.

Today, i we glance at the television screen, peruse the newspaper, listen to the radio, or scan theInternet, we might be tempted to conclude that women have made remarkable gains. Nancy Pelosicurrently serves as the Minority Leader in the U.S. House o Representatives. Secretary o State (andormer U.S. Senator) Hillary Clinton not only received 18 million votes when she sought the Demo-cratic nomination or president, but she also has the highest avorability ratings o any member othe Obama Administration. And in 2011, polls repeatedly placed ormer vice presidential candidateSarah Palin in the top tier o potential candidates or the Republican presidential nomination.

But these amous aces obscure the dearth o women who hold elective oce in the United States.When the 112th Congress convened in January 2011, 84 percent o its members were men. The per-centages o women oce holders presented in Table 1 demonstrate that it is not only at the ederallevel that women are numerically under-represented. Large gender disparities are also evident at thestate and local levels, where more than three-quarters o statewide elected ocials and state legisla-tors are men. Further, men occupy the governors mansion in 44 o the 50 states, and men run City

Hall in 92 o the 100 largest cities across the country.

The low numbers owomen in politics areparticularly glaring whenwe place them in con-text. Whereas the 1980ssaw gradual, but steadyincreases in the percent-age o women seekingelected oce, and theearly 1990s experienceda sharper surge, the lastseveral election cyclescan be characterizedas a plateau. Indeed,

the 2010 congressionalelections resulted in therst net decrease in the

percentage o women serving in the U.S. House o Representatives since the 1978 midterm elections.The number o women elected to state legislatures, which act as key launching pads to higher oce,also suered the largest single year decline in 2010.

Moreover, while many nations around the world make progress increasing womens presence in posi-tions o political power, the United States has not kept pace; 90 nations now surpass the U.S. in thepercentage o women in the national legislature (see Table 2). Certainly, cultural and political compo-

Table 1Women Ofce Holders in the United States Ofce

Oce Percent Women

Sources: Women & Politics Institute, American University; and Center or AmericanWomen and Politics, Rutgers University.

U.S. Senators 17.0

Members o the U.S. House o Representatives 16.8

State Governors 12.0

Statewide Elected Ocials 22.4

State Legislators 23.6

Mayors o the 100 Largest Cities 8.0


6/32

2 | Lawless and Fox

nents actor into the total number o women who hold seats in any nations legislature, but more than50 democratic countries rank higher than the United States in womens representation.

It should come as no surprise, thereore, that womens under-representation in American politicsraises grave concerns regarding democratic legitimacy and undamental issues o political represen-tation. Electing more women increases the likelihood that policy debates and deliberations includewomens views and experiences. Further, political theorists and practitioners alike oten ascribesymbolic or role model benets to a more diverse body o elected ocials (see Appendix A or currentresearch on the substantive and symbolic benets emale candidates and elected ocials bring to the

political sphere).

In light o the importance o womens presence in politics, it is critical to understand why so ewwomen hold public oce in the United States. Somewhat surprisingly, it is not because o discrimina-tion against emale candidates. In act, women perorm as well as men when they run or oce. Interms o undraising and vote totals, the consensus among researchers is the absence o overt genderbias on Election Day. When women run or oce regardless o the position they seek they are justas likely as their male counterparts to win their races.1

Table 2

Worldwide Rankings o Womenin the National Legislature

Rank and Country Percent Women

1. Rwanda 56.32. Andorra 53.63. Sweden 45.04. South Arica 44.55. Cuba 43.26. Iceland 42.97. Finland 42.58. Norway 39.69. Belgium 39.3

Netherlands 39.311. Mozambique 39.212. Angola 38.6

Costa Rica 38.614. Argentina 38.515. Denmark 38.016. Spain 36.617. Tanzania 36.018. Uganda 34.919. New Zealand 33.620. Nepal 33.2

91. United States o America 16.9

International Average 19.3

Source: Inter-Parliamentary Union, Women in NationalParliaments, as o August 31, 2011.


7/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 3We argue that the undamental reason or womens under-representation is that they do not run oroce. There is a substantial gender gap in political ambition; men tend to have it, and women dont.2And the gender gap in ambition is persistent and unchanging. We arrive at this conclusion by analyz-ing data we collected in 2001 and 2011 rom thousands o male and emale potential candidates lawyers, business leaders, educators, and political activists, all o whom are well-situated to pursuea political candidacy. In addition to highlighting the persistent gender gap in political ambition, we

identiy seven actors that continue to hinder womens ull entrance into electoral politics. In the end,this report documents how ar rom gender parity we remain and the barriers and obstacles we muststill overcome in order to achieve it.

Studying Political Ambition

In order to reconcile the contradiction between a political system that elects ew women and anelectoral environment that is unbiased against emale candidates, we developed and conducted theCitizen Political Ambition Study, a series o mail surveys and interviews with women and men in thepool o potential candidates. Our goal was to conduct a nuanced investigation o how women and men

initially decide to run or all levels and types o political oce, either now or in the uture.3

The original survey, carried out in 2001, servedas the rst national study o the initial decision torun or oce. Based on mail survey responses rom1,969 men and 1,796 women, we concluded thatwomen were less likely than their male counter-parts to consider running or oce and that, acrossgenerations, men expressed more comort and eltgreater reedom than women when thinking aboutseeking oce.4

But a lot has happened in the last ten years. Theevents o September 11, 2001, wars in Iraq andAghanistan, Nancy Pelosis election as the rstemale Speaker o the House, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obamas 2008 battle or the Democraticpresidential nomination, Sarah Palins vice presidential candidacy, and the rise o the Tea Partymovement are only among the many recent developments that might aect interest in running oroce. For some people, the current political climate might motivate them to take action. For others,the eect might be increased cynicism and disengagement rom politics. In either case, the alteredpolitical landscape, coupled with the continuing need to understand why women do not run or oce,motivated us to conduct a new wave o the Citizen Political Ambition Study.

In 2011, we completed a survey o a new sample o potential candidates. The samples o women and

men are roughly equal in terms o race, region, education, household income, proession, politicalparticipation, and interest in politics (see Appendix B or a description o the sampling proceduresand response rates). Thus, our sample o 1,925 men and 1,843 women allows us to shed new lighton the gender gap in political ambition.

The Persistent Gender Gap in Political AmbitionPut simply, men and women do not have equal interest in seeking elective oce. In the 2001 survey,we ound strong evidence that gender plays a substantial role in the candidate emergence process.

We argue that the

undamental reason or

womens under-representation

is that they do not run or

ofce. There is a substantial

gender gap in political

ambition; men tend to have

it, and women dont.


8/32

4 | Lawless and Fox

Overall, more than hal o the respondents (51 percent) stated that the idea o running or an electiveposition had at least crossed their mind. Turning to the respondents who considered a candidacy,though, the data presented in Figure 1 highlight a signicant gender gap among the 2001 respon-dents: men were 16 percentage points more likely than women to have considered running or oce.5Notably, this gender gap persisted across political party, income level, age, race, proession, andregion.6

The political environment may have changed throughout the last decade, but the gender gap in politi-cal ambition in 2011 is striking, and just as large as it was a decade ago (see the center columns inFigure 1). Remarkably, despite the changing political landscape and the emergence o several high-prole emale candidates between 2001 and 2011, women remain 16 percentage points less likelythan men to have thought about running or oce.

Notes: Bars represent the percentage o women and men who responded that they had seriously considered or consideredrunning or oce (this includes respondents who actually ran or oce). The gender gap is signicant at p < .05 in both the2001 and 2011 comparisons.

When we turn to uture interest in oce-holding, the prospects or womens ull inclusion in electoralpolitics are even bleaker. Figure 2 demonstrates that the gender gap in uture interest in running oroce has actually grown over the course o the last ten years. More specically, while mens inter-est in a uture candidacy remained virtually unchanged across the ten year period, womens interestdropped; 18 percent o women in 2001, compared to 14 percent o women in 2011, expressed inter-est in running or oce at some point in the uture.

The political environment may have changed throughout the

last decade, but the gender gap in political ambition in 2011 is

striking, and just as large as it was a decade ago.

Figure 1

The Enduring Gender Gap in Political Ambition: Have You Ever

Considered Running or Ofce?


9/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 5

Notes: Bars represent the percentage o women and men who responded that they were denitely interested in running or oceat some point in the uture, or that they would be interested i the opportunity presented itsel. The gender gap is signicant atp < .05 in both the 2001 and 2011 comparisons.

Women are not only less likely than men to consider a candidacy both retrospectively and prospec-tively but they are also less likely than men to take any o the steps required to launch an actualpolitical campaign. Figure 3 reveals that men are signicantly more likely than women to have inves-tigated how to place their name on the ballot, discussed running with party or community leaders, orspoken with amily members, riends, and potential supporters about a possible candidacy.

Notes: Bars represent the percentage o women and men who answered armatively or each activity. The gender gap is signicantat p < .05 or all comparisons.

Figure 2

The Enduring Gender Gap in Political Ambition: Are You Interested

in Running or Ofce in the Future?

Figure 3

The Gender Gap in Steps Taken That Typically Precede a Candidacy


10/32

6 | Lawless and Fox

Finally, i we turn to the specic oces in which respondents express interest, then we uncoveranother dimension o the gender gap in political ambition. When prompted to consider running oroce, women and men do not express comparable levels o interest in all positions (see Table 3). Atthe local level, women are more likely than men to report interest in a school board position. But menare approximately 40 percent more likely than women to consider running or the state legislature.And men are roughly twice as likely as women to express interest in a ederal position.

The 2011 gender gap in political ambition based on a variety o measures is roughly the samemagnitude as it was in 2001. Women today remain just as unlikely, relative to men, as women tenyears ago to consider running or oce. The remainder o this report sheds light on why this may bethe case and speaks to seven gender dynamics in the political arena that work to womens detriment.

Seven Factors that Hinder Prospects or GenderParity in Elective OceThe ollowing seven ndings highlight the dicult road ahead as the United States continues theclimb toward gender parity in elective oce. Several o the ndings link directly to political ambitionand gender dierences in women and mens perceptions o themselves as candidates. Others tap intothe more complex set o actors women ace when contemplating a candidacy. But all seven demon-strate that because o deeply embedded patterns o gender roles and norms, becoming a candidatewill remain a ar less appealing and easible option or women than men, at least or the oreseeableuture.

Table 3

Gender Dierences in Ofce Preerences

Notes: Entries indicate the percentage o respondents who would ever consider running oreach position. Percentages do not add up to 100 percent because respondents oten expressedinterest in more than one position. * indicates that the gender gap is signicant at p < .05.

Women MenLocal or Community Ofce

School Board 35%* 26%City Council 30 32Mayor 7 * 11District Attorney 3 2

State Level Ofce

State Legislator 25 * 35Statewide Oce (i.e., State Treasurer) 2 3Governor 3 * 6

Federal Ofce

House o Representatives 9 * 19Senate 6 * 11President 1 * 2

Sample Size 1,766 1,848


11/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 71. Women are substantially more likely than men to perceive the electoral

environment as highly competitive and biased against emale candidates.

As we mentioned at the outset o this report, when women run or oce, they are just as likely asmen to win their races. The reality o gender neutral election outcomes, however, may not mitigate thegendered perceptual lens through which women view the electoral process. That is, i women think

the system is biased against them, then the empirical reality o a playing eld on which women cansucceed is almost meaningless. And this is exactly what we nd.

To shed light on gender dierences in perceptions o the electoral system, we asked respondents theextent to which they regard their local and congressional election landscapes competitive. Becausethe women and men are geographically matched, dierences in responses refect perceptual, notactual, dierences in levels o competition. The data presented in the top hal o Table 4 indicate thata majority o women judge their local and congressional elections as highly competitive. Women areroughly 25 percent more likely than men to assess the political landscape this way.

Further, more than hal the women in the sample do not believe that women who run or oce are aswell as their male counterparts. Seven out o ten women doubt that emale candidates raise as muchmoney as similarly situated men. Men are signicantly more likely than women to perceive lower lev-els o both electoral competition and gender bias against women in politics.

There may be no systematic bias against emale candidates on Election Day, but the aggregate per-centages o women and men who perceive a biased system are striking. And as ar as considering acandidacy is concerned, perceptions oten trump reality.

2. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palins candidacies aggravated womens perceptions

o gender bias in the electoral arena.

When Hillary Clinton announced her presidential candidacy at the end o 2007, she became the rstemale presidential candidate who was regarded as a rontrunner with a chance to win her partys nomi-nation. In act, her hotly contested battle with eventual winner Barack Obama dominated political newscoverage or the rst ve months o 2008. Sarah Palins 2008 vice-presidential candidacy also propelled

Table 4Gender Dierences in Perceptions o the Electoral Environment

Notes: Entries indicate the percentage o respondents who answered armatively. The gender gap is signicant atp < .05 or all comparisons.

Women Men

Perceptions o the Electoral Environment

In the area I live, local elections are highly competitive. 55% 39%

In the area I live, congressional elections are highly competitive. 62 50

General Perceptions o Bias Against Women in Politics

Women running or oce win as oten as similarly situated men. 47 58

Women running or oce raise as much money as similarly situated men. 27 40



12/32

8 | Lawless and Fox

a woman into the spotlight. As the second emale vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro wasWalter Mondales running mate in 1984 and the rst Republican, Palin garnered widespread attention.Although Clinton and Palin shared little in terms o their political preerences, they both regularly re-erenced the manner in which their victories would be historic. On June 7, 2008, or example, whenHillary Clinton took to the podium or what would be her last speech as a presidential candidate, she

spoke very openly about what her candidacy meant or womens political progress: You can be soproud that, rom now on, it will be unremarkable or a woman to win primary state victories, unre-markable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a womancan be the President o the United States. And that is truly remarkable.7 Nearly three months later,during her rst speech as the Republican Partys vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin utteredvery similar words. She reminded her supporters at a Dayton, Ohio, rally that Hillary let 18 millioncracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America. But it turns out that the women o Americaarent nished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and or all.8

But Clinton and Palins campaigns also provided many potential candidates with a window into howwomen are treated when they run or oce. And what women o both political parties saw likelyconrmed some o their worst ears about the electoral arena. More specically, the data presented in

Figure 4 reveal that roughly two-thirds o emale potential candidates believe that Hillary Clinton andSarah Palin were subjected to sexist media coverage. Further, majorities o emale respondents con-tend that, during the campaigns, too much attention was paid to Clinton and Palins appearances. Interms o perceptions o bias, roughly hal o the emale potential candidates believe that Sarah Palinaced gender bias rom voters; more than 80 percent eel the same way about Hillary Clinton.9

Notes: Bars represent the percentage o women who agreed with each statement. For all categories, women were statistically morelikely than men (at p < .05) to contend that Clinton and Palin experienced sexist treatment and / or gender bias (comparisons withmen not shown).

Overall, to the degree that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palins high-prole candidacies served as a civiceducation project about women who run or oce, they appear to have reinorced, or perhaps exacer-bated, negative perceptions o the way women are received in the electoral arena.

Figure 4

Female Eligible Candidates Perceptions o Hillary Clinton and

Sarah Palins Experiences in 2008


13/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 93. Women are much less likely than men to think they are qualifed to run or ofce.

Our 2001 study revealed that one o the biggest barriers keeping women rom emerging as candi-dates centered around sel-perceptions o qualications to run or oce. In 2011, the same dynamicemerges. Consistent with the ndings rom ten years ago, the data presented in Figure 5 indicate thatmen remain almost 60 percent more likely than women to assess themselves as very qualied to

run or oce. Women in the sample are more than twice as likely as men to rate themselves as notat all qualied.

Importantly, the gender gap in perceptions o qualications to run or oce does not stem rom gen-der dierences in direct political experiences or exposure to, and amiliarity with, the political arena.Twenty-three percent o women and 26 percent o men have conducted extensive policy research;69 percent o women and 74 percent o men regularly engage in public speaking; and 75 percent owomen and 70 percent o men report experience soliciting unds. In addition, more than 80 percento the women and men in the sample have attended political meetings and events. Two-thirds haveserved on the boards o non-prot organizations and oundations. And roughly three-quarters haveinteracted with elected ocials in some proessional capacity.

Notes: Entries indicate the percentage o women and men who sel-assess at each level o qualications to run or oce. The gendergap is statistically signicant at p < .05 or all comparisons.

Womens sel-doubts are important not only because they speak to deeply embedded gendered per-

ceptions, but also because they play a much larger role than do mens in depressing the likelihood oconsidering a candidacy. More specically, among women who sel-assess as not at all qualied torun or oce, only 39 percent have considered throwing their hats into the ring. Among men who donot think they are qualied to run or oce, 55 percent have given the notion o a candidacy somethought. Because gender dierences in perceptions o qualications correlate with respondentsassessments o their own electoral prospects, women are signicantly less likely than men to thinkthey would win their rst campaign. Thirty-one percent o emale potential candidates, compared to38 percent o men, think it would be likely or very likely that they would win their rst race ithey ran or oce. Alternatively, women are approximately 50 percent more likely than men to thinkthe odds o winning their rst race would be very unlikely.

Figure 5

Sel-Assessments o Qualifcations to Run or Public Ofce


14/32

10 | Lawless and Fox

Certainly, because women are more likely than men to view the electoral process as biased againstthem, sel-doubt regarding their qualications and more pessimistic perceptions o the likelihood owinning may simply be a rational response to what women perceive as a more challenging politicalcontext. But the overwhelming majority o people women and men do not run or oce unlessthey believe that they have a chance o winning. Hence, womens lower sel-assessments carry directconsequences or their numeric representation.

4. Female potential candidates are less competitive, less confdent, and more risk

averse than their male counterparts.

Entering the electoral arena involves the courageous step o putting onesel beore the public, oten onlyto ace intense examination, loss o privacy, possible rejection, and disruption rom regular routines andpursuits. This decision, even or experienced politicians, requires character traits such as condence,

competitiveness, and risk-taking characteristics that men havetraditionally been encouraged toembrace and women to eschew.

As the data presented in Table 5reveal, women are signicantlyless likely than men to reportthat they have the traits that aregenerally required o candidatesor elective oce. In terms othick skin, an entrepreneur-ial spirit, and a willingness totake risks, men are at least 25percent more likely than womento believe that they possess thepolitical trait in question.

The same pattern persists when we move rom abstract sel-assessments o traits to specic scenariosthat tap into risk aversion and competitiveness. When presented with a risky investment opportunity, or

Table 5

Sel Assessment o Politically-Relevant Traits

Do you consider yoursel . . . .?

Notes: The gender gap is signicant at p < .05 or all comparisons.

Women Men Male Advantage

Condent 66% 73% + 7

Competitive 64 74 + 10

Risk-Taking 31 39 + 8

Entrepreneurial 26 36 + 10

Thick-Skinned 24 33 + 9


Table 6

Potential Candidates Sel-Assessments o Risk Aversion and Competitiveness

Notes: Entries indicate the percentage o respondents who answered each question by responding likely or very likely, orimportant, or very important. The gender gap is signicant at p < .05 or both comparisons.

Women Men

A trusted riend or colleague comes to you with a risky investment opportunity. 17% 25%There is a 50 percent chance that you could quadruple your money over two years,but there is a 50 percent chance that you would lose your investment. How likelyare you to invest in this opportunity?

When playing a game with a colleague or riend (tennis, gol, cards), how competitive 53 64are you? That is, how important is it to you that you win the game?Sample Size 1,732 1,826


15/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 11instance, men are approximately 50 percent more likely than women to report that they would be willingto take the risk because o the potential payo (see Table 6). Men are more than 20 percent more likelythan women to report that winning a low-stakes game with a riend or colleague is important.

These ndings suggest that mens longer presence and success in top positions in the proessions romwhich candidates tend to emerge may result in (or reinorce) levels o condence about entering the

political arena, also a male-dominated environment. Clearly, women and men perceive political reality,their political attributes, and their ability to succeed in the political system through a gendered lens.

5. Women react more negatively than men to many aspects o modern campaigns.

Political candidates must engage in a number o dierent activities and oten endure a series osometimes dicult personal circumstances. We provided respondents with a list o ve activities thatpertain to the mechanics o a campaign and two examples o the personal toll a campaign might take.The data, presented in Table 7, indicate that women are statistically more likely than men to view ouro the ve typical campaign activities so negatively that they are deterrents to running or oce. Morespecically, women exhibit more negative attitudes than men toward undraising, voter contact, deal-ing with the press, and engaging in a negative campaign. Turning to the personal aspects o a cam-paign, women are signicantly more likely than men to be deterred rom running or oce because othe potential loss o privacy and concerns about spending less time with their amilies.

Overall, 41 percent o men, compared to 52 percent o women, were deterred by at least one typi-cal campaign activity (dierence signicant at p < .05). Women, thereore, have signicantly morenegative eelings than men toward the various aspects o a campaign that they must reconcile whenconsidering running or oce.10

6. Women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run or ofce

rom anyone.

Recruitment and encouragement lead many individuals who otherwise might never consider runningor oce to emerge as candidates. Ten years ago, women were ar less likely than men to report being

Table 7

Attitudes about Engaging in Campaign Activities

Women Men

Notes: Entries indicate the percentage o respondents who view each activity so negatively thatit serves as a deterrent to running or oce. The gender gap is signicant at p < .05 or bothcomparisons.

Activities o the Campaign

Soliciting Campaign Contributions 19% * 16%Dealing with Party Ocials 8 6

Going Door-to-Door to Meet Constituents 10* 7Dealing with Members o the Press 9* 6Potentially Having to Engage in a Negative Campaign 28* 16

Personal Aspects o the Campaign

Spending Less Time with Your Family 30* 21Loss o Privacy 38 * 29



16/32


recruited to run or oce. Over the course o last decade, however, many womens organizations burstonto the political scene. They vary in mission and target group, but collectively, these organizationsendeavor to move more women into the networks rom which candidates emerge.11 Indeed, 22percent o the women in our sample report some contact with a womens organization whose missionis to promote womens candidacies. Yet the gender gap in political recruitment remains substantial.

To compare women and mens political recruitment experiences, we asked respondents i anyone eversuggested that they run or oce. We broke the possible sources o political recruitment into two cat-egories: political actors, which we dene as party ocials, elected ocials, and political activists;and non-political actors, dened as colleagues, spouses / partners, amily members, and religiousconnections. The data presented in Figures 6 and 7 reveal that women remain less likely than men tohave received the suggestion to run or oce, regardless o the source.

Notes: Bars represent the percentage o women and men who were recruited to run or oce by each politicalactor. For all categories, women are statistically less likely than men (at p < .05) to report receiving the suggestionto run or oce.

Notes: Bars represent the percentage o women and men who were recruited to run or oce by each non-politicalactor. For all categories, women are statistically less likely than men (at p < .05) to report receiving the suggestionto run or oce.

Figure 6

Encouragement to Run or Ofce rom Political Actors

Figure 7

Encouragement to Run or Ofce rom Non-Political Actors


17/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 13This gender gap in political recruitment exists at all levels o oce. From local, to state, to ederalpositions, women were signicantly less likely than men to report ever receiving the suggestion to runor oce (see Table 8).

It is likely that these gender gaps are ar smaller than would be the case i womens organizations didnot strive to acilitate womens candidate emergence. But their eorts can do only so much. Party

leaders, elected ocials, political activists, and non-political actors continue to encourage ar moremen than women to enter the electoral arena.

The lack o recruitment is a particularly powerul explanation or why women are less likely than mento consider a candidacy. Sixty-seven percent o respondents who have been encouraged to run by aparty leader, elected ocial, or political activist have considered running, compared to 33 percento respondents who report no such recruitment (dierence signicant at p < .05). The same patternholds or non-political actors; whereas 78 percent o the potential candidates in our sample who havenot received encouragement to run rom a colleague, spouse, or amily member have not considereda candidacy, 72 percent o respondents who have received such a suggestion have considered throw-ing their hats into the ring (dierence signicant at p < .05). Importantly, women are just as likelyas men to respond avorably to the suggestion o a candidacy. They are just less likely than men to

receive it.

7. Women are still responsible or the majority o childcare and household tasks.

The results o our 2001 survey revealed that women were much more likely than men to be respon-sible or the majority o household work and childcare. Despite womens substantial movement intohigh-level positions in the proessional arena, women and men continued to conorm to traditionalgender roles at home. Our 2011 survey data demonstrate that little has changed over the past tenyears.

Table 8Gender Dierences in Recruitment to Specifc Ofces

Notes: Entries indicate the percentage o respondents who report ever receiving the suggestionto run or the oce. The gender gap is signicant at p < .05 or all comparisons.

Women MenLocal or Community Ofce

School Board 18% 21%

City Council 16 22

Mayor 6 10

District Attorney 1 2

State Level Ofce

State Legislator 16 24

Statewide Oce (i.e., State Treasurer) 1 2

Governor 1 4Federal Ofce

House o Representatives 4 10

Senate 2 4



18/32


Table 9 provides a breakdown o the respondents amily arrangements and distribution o householdand childcare responsibilities. Women in the sample are signicantly less likely than men to be mar-ried and have children. This suggests that some women who choose to become top-level proessionalsare more likely than men to de-emphasize traditional amily structures and roles. Those women whoare married and who do have children, however, tend to exhibit traditional gender role orientations. Inamilies where both adults are working (generally in high-level careers), women are roughly six times

more likely than men to bear responsibility or the majority o household tasks, and they are about tentimes more likely to be the primary childcare provider. Notably, these dierences in amily responsi-bilities are not merely a matter o gendered perceptions. Both sexes ully recognize this organizationo labor. More than 50 percent o men acknowledge that their spouses are responsible or a majorityo household tasks and childcare, while only 7 percent o women make the same claim. This divisiono labor is consistent across political party lines.

We also asked respondents how many hours they spend each day on various activities, including work,childcare, housework, and hobbies. Women and men work the same number o hours (roughly 9 hoursper day), but women devote signicantly more o their non-working time than men to household tasksand childcare. Whereas women report spending about 2.1 hours per day on household tasks, menreport spending about 1.6 hours per day. Among respondents with children, women spend roughlytwo thirds more time each day than men on childcare (women spend 2.8 hours per day, compared tomen, who spend 1.7 hours per day). Men spend more time exercising and pursuing their hobbies andinterests (all o these gender dierences are signicant at p < .05). Hence, the data certainly suggestthat womens lives are more hectic and conned than those o most o their male counterparts.

Table 9

Gender Dierences in Family Structures, Roles, and

Responsibilities

Notes: Number o cases varies slightly, as some respondents omitted answers to some questions. Thehousehold tasks data do not include respondents who are not married or living with a partner; and thechildcare arrangements data do not include respondents who do not have children. * indicates that thegender gap is signicant at p < .05.

Women MenMarital Status

Single 15% * 8%

Married or Living with Partner 72 * 86

Separated or Divorced 13 * 6

Parental Status

Has Children 73 * 83

Has Children Living at Home 41* 45

Has Children Under Age 7 Living at Home 15 15

Household Responsibilities

Responsible or Majority o Household Tasks 43* 7

Equal Division o Labor 45* 41

Spouse / Partner Responsible or Majority o Household Tasks 12* 52

Childcare Responsibilities

Responsible or Majority o Childcare 60* 6

Equal Division o Childcare 35* 40

Spouse / Partner Responsible or Majority o Childcare 6* 54



19/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 15The degree to which traditional amily dynamics continue to prevail in American culture is, in and oitsel, striking. But surprisingly, womens disproportionate amilial responsibilities do not dramaticallyaect whether they have considered running or oce or express interest in running or oce in theuture. Forty-eight percent o women who are responsible or the majority o the household tasks andchildcare, or instance, have considered running or oce. Forty-ve percent o women who shoulderno such burdens have thought about a candidacy. In another example, 43 percent o women with

children at home have considered a candidacy, compared to 46 percent o women without children athome. Neither o these small dierences approaches conventional levels o statistical signicance.

Our data suggest that the struggle to balance amily roles with proessional responsibilities has

simply become part o the bargain or contemporary women. O course, even i amily structures andarrangements do not preclude women rom thinking about a ull range o lietime career options, thecircumstances under which such thoughts cross potential candidates minds might dier or womenand men. As one gender politics scholar so aptly characterized political ambition in the contemporaryenvironment, Women may now think about running or oce, but they probably think about it whilethey are making the bed.12 What emerges rom this analysis o amily roles and structures is theact that women, though no longer directly impeded rom thinking about a candidacy just becausethey have certain amilial responsibilities, ace a more complex set o choices than do their malecounterparts.

Where Do We Go From Here? Summary,Discussion, and Concluding RemarksIn analyzing and summarizing this reports key ndings, we emphasize several important points:

In both 2001 and 2011, we uncovered a proound gender gap in interest in seekingelective oce. Women o all proessions, political parties, ages, and income levels are lesslikely than their male counterparts to express interest in running or oce.

Surprisingly, womens disproportionate amilial

responsibilities do not dramatically aect whether they

have considered running or ofce

or express interest in running

or ofce in the uture...The

struggle to balance amily

roles with proessional

responsibilities has

simply become

part o the bargain

or contemporary

women.


20/32


When we compare the 2011 results to the 2001 data, we see virtually no change in thegender gap in political ambition. Even more startling than the lack o progress in closingthe gender gap in interest in seeking oce is evidence that the disparity between womenand mens ambition or a uture candidacy has increased. A smaller ratio o women to menin 2011 than 2001 reported interest in entering the electoral arena at some point downthe road.

The gender gap in political ambition is driven by womens lower levels o politicalrecruitment and lower sel-assessments o political qualications. In addition, womenperceive an electoral environment that is biased against them, which likely helps explaintheir greater aversion to participating in the nuts and bolts o a campaign. Finally, the actthat women remain the primary caretakers o the home and children adds a high degree ocomplexity to the decision to run oce complexity that most men do not ace.

These ndings rom the Citizen Political Ambition Study cast a cloud over uture prospects or genderparity in U.S. political institutions. Womens ull inclusion in electoral politics depends on closing thegender gap in political ambition. But our 2011 survey data which expand our understanding o theactors that play into the decision to run or oce indicate that women remain at a disadvantage on

numerous dimensions. The new research presented in this report sheds important light on how womenand men experience politics very dierently. The oces to which potential candidates are recruited,their perceptions about critical character traits, such as condence, competitiveness, thick skin, andan entrepreneurial spirit, and their perceptions o the electoral environment and the manner in whichwomen are treated in it, all work to womens detriment. In addition, gender gaps in political recruit-ment and perceptions o qualications continue to hinder womens interest in running or oce justas much now as a decade ago.

Given the persistent gender gap in political ambition, we are a long way rom a political reality in whichwomen and men are equally likely to aspire to attain high-level elective oce. The 2012 elections,which are already being heralded as another great year or emale candidates, are likely to result in onlyincremental changes to the number o women serving in the U.S. Congress. The Democratic Senatorial

Campaign Committee has proudly announced that it is running more women in the 2012 cycle than inany previous election. But this record number still means that women should they win their primarycontests will compete in ewer than one third o the Senate races in 2012.13 The Republicans are alsoon track to run a record number o emale candidates, although their raw numbers will pale in com-parison to the Democrats. Thus, even i 2012 turns out to be a banner year or emale candidates,and even i the majority o these women win their races, their victories will amount to, at most, a 1 to 2percentage point increase in the seats held by women in the U.S. Congress.

The problems that underlie womens numeric under-representation are more undamental than theoccasional attention that political parties pay to womens candidate emergence might suggest. Ourndings, in essence, highlight the importance o deepening our understanding o the manner in whichwomen and men in contemporary society are socialized about politics, the acquisition o politicalpower, and the characteristics that qualiy individuals to seek it. At a practical level, though, our nd-ings oer some direction or people interested in increasing the number o women serving in oce.

First, the data reveal that although women are less likely than men ever to have consideredrunning or oce, they are just as likely as men to respond positively to politicalrecruitment. Recruiting early and recruiting oten are vital ingredients or closing thegender gap in political ambition. In act, recruitment might be the only quick x or partyleaders, elected ocials, and political activists to pursue.

Second, a substantial barrier to entering politics or many emale potential candidatesis the perception o a biased and competitive electoral atmosphere. Yet many o these


21/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 17perceptions are not consistent with the reality that women are just as likely as men tosucceed in the electoral arena. Spreading the word about womens electoral success andundraising prowess can work to change potential candidates perceptions o a biasedelectoral arena perceptions that may be driven by exposure to a handul o very high-prole, but unrepresentative, candidates and campaigns.

Third, because women view the activities involved in running or oce much more negativelythan do men, political and womens organizations would be well-served to work with emalecandidates to determine the best ways to minimize the personal trade-os involved inseeking oce. Training programs and technical assistance cannot be underestimated inclosing the ambition gap. These resources can also go a long way in combating womenstendency to identiy themselves as unqualied to run or oce, despite equal or superiorresumes and accomplishments when compared to men who opt to run.

Fourth, the gendered division o labor we uncovered demonstrates that women and menwho are similarly situated proessionally are not similarly situated at home. Any movetoward a more amily-riendly work environment and campaign arena would likely conerdisproportional benets to women. Organizations and individuals dedicated to closing

the gender gap in political ambition, thereore, must be cognizant o the persistence otraditional amily dynamics.

Finally, gender dierences in interest in running or oce are well in place by the timewomen and men begin their proessional careers. The 2011 survey reveals that the gendergap in potential candidates political ambition is just as glaring among 24 35 year oldsas it is among older age cohorts. Gender dierences in condence, competitiveness, andambition develop long beore adulthood. A complete understanding o the interactionbetween gender and political ambition, thereore, demands that we ocus on the origins othe gender gap. Conducting a national survey o high school and college students attitudestoward seeking and holding elective oce would go a long way in assessing the role ovarious socializing agents at critical moments in the development o early political identity.

Only then can parents, educators, and civic organizations develop meaningul interventionsthat will mitigate the gender gap in political ambition.

Concerns about democratic legitimacy and political accountability necessitate that we continue toexamine and work to ameliorate gender disparities in oce holding. The large gender gap in politicalambition we identiy, coupled with the stagnation in the number o women serving in elected ocesin the last decade, makes the road ahead look quite daunting. Indeed, many barriers to womensinterest in running or oce can be overcome only with major cultural and political changes. But inthe meantime, our results suggest that recruiting emale candidates and disseminating inormationabout the electoral environment and womens successes can help narrow the gender gap and increasewomens numeric representation. The challenges in ront o us are to continue to raise awarenessabout the barriers women ace, and to continue to advocate or a more inclusive electoral process.


22/32


23/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 19For evidence o the manner in which emale elected ofcials aect constituents political behavior,

interest, and efcacy, see:

Reingold, Beth and Jessica Harrell. 2010. The Impact o Descriptive Representationon Womens Political Engagement: Does Party Matter? Political Research Quarterly63(2):280-94.

The symbolic impact o women represented by women in political oce is limitedprimarily to women who share the same party identication.

Atkeson, Lonna Rae and Nancy Carillo. 2007. More is Better: The Infuence o CollectiveFemale Descriptive Representation on External Ecacy. Politics & Gender3(1):79-101.

Greater proportions o women in state houses across the country increase womenscondence in government relative to mens.

Campbell, David E. and Christina Wolbrecht. 2006. See Jane Run: Women Politicians asRole Models or Adolescents. Journal o Politics68(2):233-47.

There is a positive relationship between the presence o highly visible emalepoliticians and adolescent girls expectations o political engagement.

Lawless, Jennier L. 2004. Politics o Presence? Congresswomen and SymbolicRepresentation. Political Research Quarterly57(1):81-99.

Women represented by women oer more positive evaluations o their members oCongress (although this dierence does not translate into increased participation inthe political arena).

Atkeson, Lonna Rae. 2003. Not All Cues are Created Equal: The Conditional Impact oFemale Candidates on Political Engagement. Journal o Politics65:1040-61.

Women who live in states with visible and competitive emale candidates have higherlevels o political engagement among women.

Hansen, Susan B. 1997. Talking About Politics: Gender and Contextual Eects onPolitical Proselytizing. Journal o Politics59(1):73-103.

During 1992s Year o the Woman, the presence o emale candidates on the ballotwas associated with higher levels o political involvement, internal political ecacy,and media use by men and women in the electorate.

For evidence o gender dierences in elected ofcials agendas, see:

Gershon, Sarah. 2008. Communicating Female and Minority Interests Online: A Studyo Web Site Issue Discussion among Female, Latino, and Arican American Members oCongress.The International Journal o Press/Politics13(2):120-40.

Female, Latino, and Arican American members o the U.S. House o Representatives

more requently link the importance o issues to gender and race on their websites.

Gerrity, Jessica, Tracy Osborn, and Jeanette Morehouse Mendez. 2007. Women andRepresentation: A Dierent View o the District? Politics & Gender3:179-200.

A woman who replaces a man in the same U.S. House district sponsors relativelymore legislation that pertains to womens issues.

Bratton, Kathleen A. 2005. Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and Success oToken Women in State Legislatures. Politics & Gender1(1):97-125.

Even in legislatures with a small number o women, those women are generally moreactive in sponsoring legislation with a ocus on womens interests.


24/32


Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Dierence Women Make: The Policy Impact o Women inCongress. Chicago: University o Chicago Press.

Democratic and moderate Republican congresswomen are more likely to pursuewomens interests, such as childcare and domestic violence.

Shogan, Colleen J. 2001. Speaking Out: An Analysis o Democratic and Republican

Woman-Invoked Rhetoric o the 105th Congress. Women & Politics23(1/2):129-46.Democratic and Republican women are more likely than men to bring up women orwomens issues in their foor speeches in the U.S. House; and women spend moretime than men speaking about other womens health issues.

Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex, Gender and Legislative Behavior inArizona and Caliornia. Chapel Hill: University o North Carolina Press.

Female state legislators in Arizona and Caliornia are more likely than men to sponsorbills addressing womens issues.

Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. The Politics o Womens Rights: Parties, Positions andChange. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Women in the U.S. House sponsor a greater number o bills that pertain towomens rights.

Dodson, Debra . 1998. Representing Womens Interests in the U.S. House oRepresentatives.In Sue Thomas andClyde Wilcox, eds., Women and Elective Ofce: Past,Present, and Future. New York: Oxord University Press.

Electing more women would substantially reduce the possibility that politicians willoverlook gender-salient issues.

Burrell, Barbara. 1996. A Womans Place is in the House: Campaigning or Congress in theFeminist Era. Ann Arbor: University o Michigan Press.

Women are more supportive o womens issues than are male members

o Congress.

Thomas, Sue. 1991. The Impact o Women on State Legislative Policies. Journal oPolitics53:958-76.

Women serving in states with higher percentages o emale state legislators introducea greater number o bills concerning issues pertaining to women, children, andamilies than women in states with ewer emale representatives.

Thomas, Sue and Susan Welch. 1991. The Impact o Gender on Activities and Prioritieso State Legislators. Western Political Quarterly44:445-56.

Female state legislators are more likely than men to say that bills relating to children,amilies, or womens issues are at the top o their legislative priorities.

For examples o gender dierences in the ways elected and appointed ofcials govern, see:

Fox, Richard L. and Robert A. Schuhmann. 1999. Gender and Local Government:A Comparison o Women and Men City Managers. Public Administration Review59(3):231-42.

Female city managers are more likely than their male counterparts to incorporatecitizen input into their decisions and to be more concerned with communityinvolvement.


25/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 21Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. Power and Infuence in State Legislative Policy-Making: TheInteraction o Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates. American PoliticalScience Review88(3):560-76.

Male and emale state legislature committee chairs conduct themselves dierentlyat hearings; women are more likely to act as acilitators, but men tend to use theirpower to control the direction o the hearings.

Tolleson Rinehart, Sue. 1991. Do Women Leaders Make a Dierence? Substance, Styleand Perceptions. In Debra Dodson, ed., Gender and Policy Making. New Brunswick, NJ:Center or American Women and Politics.

Female mayors are more likely to adopt an approach to governing that emphasizescongeniality and cooperation, whereas men tend to emphasize hierarchy.


26/32


Appendix B: Sample Design and Data Collection

We drew a national sample o 9,000 individuals rom the proessions and backgrounds that tend toyield the highest proportion o congressional and state legislative candidates: law, business, educa-tion, and political activism. In assembling the sample, we created two equal sized pools o candidates one emale and one male that held the same proessional credentials.

Turning specically to the our sub-samples, or lawyers and business leaders, we drew names romnational directories. We obtained a random sample o 2,000 lawyers rom the 2009 edition o theMartindale-Hubble Law Directory, which provides the names o practicing attorneys in all law rmsacross the country. We stratied the total number o lawyers by sex and in proportion to the total num-ber o law rms listed or each state. We randomly selected 3,000 business leaders rom Dun andBradstreets Million Dollar Directory, 2009 2010, which lists the top executive ocers o more than160,000 U.S. public and private companies. Again, we stratied by geography and sex and ensuredthat men and women held comparable positions.14

No national directories exist or our nal two categories. To compile a sample o educators, weocused on college proessors and administrative ocials, and public school teachers and admin-istrators. We compiled a random sample o 800 public and private colleges and universities romthe University o Texass list o roughly 2,000 institutions that grant at least a our-year bachelorsdegree.15 We selected 400 male and 400 emale proessors and administrative ocials. Becausewe did not stratiy by school size, the college and university portion o the sample yielded a highernumber o educators rom smaller schools; however, we ound that the size o the institution was nota signicant predictor o political ambition. We then compiled a national sample o 600 male and600 emale public school teachers and principals. We obtained a list o all public schools throughoutthe country rom the Department o Educations website, and then randomly selected the schools. Wechose a specic teacher or principal at random rom the schools webpage. A 2001 study by the U.S.Department o Education ound that 98 percent o public schools had internet access and 84 percenthad a webpage. While this study has not been updated, it is likely that closer to 100 percent o pub-

lic schools now have a webpage.

Our nal eligibility pool proession political activists and proessionals represents citizens whowork in politics and public policy. We included in this sub-sample three types o potential candidates.First, we created a list o political interest groups and national organizations with state and/or localaliates and sought to strike a partisan and ideological balance. We randomly selected state branchand local chapter executive directors and ocers o organizations that ocus on the environment,abortion, consumer issues, race relations, civil liberties, taxes, guns, crime, social security, schoolchoice, government reorm, and womens issues. This selection technique, which provided a rangeo activists rom a broad cross-section o occupations, yielded 600 men and 600 women. Second, wecompiled a random sample o 200 congressional chies o sta and legislative directors (100 womenand 100 men), all o whom work in the representative or senators Washington, DC, oce. Third, we

created a random sample o 300 emale and 300 male local party leaders. We ollowed links rom thenational Democratic and Republican parties websites to local chapters and oces, rom where weselected six Democrats and six Republicans rom each state.

We employed standard mail survey protocol in conducting the study. Potential candidates received aninitial letter explaining the study and a copy o the questionnaire. Three days later, they received aollow-up postcard. Two weeks later, we sent a ollow-up letter with another copy o the questionnaire.We supplemented this third piece o correspondence with an email message when possible. Fourmonths later, we sent another copy o the questionnaire. The nal contact was made the ollowing


27/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 23month, when we sent a link to an on-line version o the survey. Survey responses rom nearly 3,800members o the candidate eligibility pool serve as the basis or this report.16

Our sample o the eligibility pool, thereore, is a broad cross-section o equally credentialed andproessionally similar women and men who are positioned to serve as uture candidates or electiveoce. Table 10 reveals that the samples are roughly equal in terms o race, education, household

income, and proession.

Moreover, the women and men whocompleted the survey are well-matchedin political engagement. We askedrespondents whether in the past twoyears they had engaged in ten di-erent types o political participation,such as voting, contributing money to acandidate, or serving on the board o anorganization. The mean number o actso political participation (out o 10) or

women was 5.6; the mean number oacts or men was 5.7. Women and menare also comparable in their interest inlocal and national politics, as well astheir personal exposure and closeness toelected ocials.

Table 10 does, however, reveal two sta-tistically signicant dierences betweenwomen and men that merit discussion.Women in the sample, on average, arethree years younger than men, a proba-

ble result o the act that womens entryinto the elds o law and business is arelatively recent phenomenon. Further,women are more likely to be Democratsand liberal-leaning, while men are morelikely to be Republicans and conserva-tive, a nding consistent with recentpolls showing a partisan gender gapamong the general U.S. population.

Overall, our eligibility pool approachand sample allow us to oer a nuancedexamination o the manner in whichpotential candidates make the initialdecision to run or all levels and typeso political oce, both now and in theuture.

Table 10

The Citizen Political Ambition Study

Sample Demographics (2011)

Notes: Number o cases varies slightly, as some respondentsomitted answers to some questions. Independents include partisanleaners, 13 percent o whom lean Democratic and 10 percent owhom lean Republican. * indicates that the gender gap issignicant at p < .05.

Women Men

Party Afliation

Democrat 49% ** 37%Independent 28** 34Republican 24** 29

Race

White 81 84Black 7 6Latino / Hispanic 7 7Other 5 4

Highest Level o Education

No College Degree 10 7Bachelors Degree 22 23Graduate Degree 68 70

Household Income

Less than $50,000 6 5$50,001 - $75,000 11 9$75,001 - $100,000 14 16$100,001 - $200,000 36 34More than $200,000 33 36

Proession

Law 26 26Business 17 20Education 28 28Politics 29 26

Mean Age (Years) 50 * 53



28/32


29/32

Men RuleThe Continued Under-Representation o Women in U.S. Politics | 255 Women are not only less likely than men to consider running or oce; they are also less

likely actually to do it. Overall, 12 percent o the respondents had run or some electiveposition. Men, however, were 40 percent more likely than women to have done so (9percent o women, compared to 14 percent o men; dierence signicant at p < .05).Although there was no statistically signicant gender dierence in election outcomes,women were less likely than men to reach this seemingly gender neutral end-stage o the

electoral process.

6 All o the comparisons we present here and throughout the remainder o the report arebased on the overall sample o potential candidates. When we break the data down intoproessional sub-samples (i.e., lawyers, business leaders, educators, political activists), inalmost all cases, the magnitude o the gender gaps and levels o statistical signicanceremain unchanged.

7 Transcript: Hillary Clinton Endorses Barack Obama, New York Times, June 7, 2008.Accessed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07text-clinton.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all (November 23, 2011).

8 Transcript: Palins Speech in Dayton, Ohio, National Public Radio, August 29, 2008.Accessed at: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94118910 (November23, 2011).

9 Certainly, party identication infuences assessments o gender bias aced by HillaryClinton and Sarah Palin. For instance, 74 percent o Democrats, compared to only 49percent o Republicans and independents, believe Hillary Clinton received sexist mediacoverage and treatment (dierence signicant at p < .05). On the other end o thespectrum, whereas 76 percent o Republicans identied sexist media treatment directed atSarah Palin, 64 percent o Democrats did so (dierence signicant at p < .05). Across theboard, though, women o both political parties were more likely than men to identiy mediaand voter bias against these emale candidates, and sizeable portions o women crossed

party lines to express perceptions o sexism.

10 In 2001, we did not uncover these gender dierences in attitudes toward campaigning.We reported no gender dierences in attitudes about attending undraisers or dealing withparty ocials. The three signicant dierences we did nd regarding attitudes towardcampaigning revealed that women were actually more positive than men about dealing withthe press, meeting constituents, and enduring the time consuming nature o a campaign.The dierent results likely refect question wording dierences, as opposed to changesin attitudes. Asking whether a respondent eels positively about a campaign activity,which is how we asked the question in 2001, seems to have obscured the intensity behindattitudes. Women in the candidate eligibility pool remain just as likely as men to statethat the rigors o a campaign would not bother them i.e., that they eel positively aboutengaging in them. But our new, more detailed investigation reveals that the women whodo not embrace campaign activities hold much more intense negative views than do theirmale counterparts.

11 The White House Project, or example, is a national, non-partisan organization that, since1998, has advanced womens leadership and attempted to ll the candidate pipeline. In2007, the Womens Campaign Forum launched its She Should Run campaign, a non-partisan, online eort to build the pipeline o Democratic and Republican pro-choicewomen and inject them into the networks that can promote eventual candidacies. EmergeAmerica, ounded in 2002, trains Democratic women across the country to developnetworks o supporters so that they can successully run or and win elective oce. The


30/32


EMILYs List Political Opportunity Program, which began in 2001, trains and supports pro-choice Democratic women to run or all levels o oce. Many statewide and local womensorganizations have also recently launched aggressive campaigns to bring more women intopolitical circles and positions o power.

12 We thank Georgia Duerst-Lahti or this comment.

13 Josh Kraushaar, Democrats Bet the Senate on Women, National Journal Daily, November30, 2011. Accessed at: http://nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/democrats-bet-the-senate-on-women-20111129?print=true (December 6, 2011).

14 We sampled 1,000 more business leaders than members o the other three proessionsbecause we expected a disproportionate amount o undeliverable mail or the business sub-sample. Not only do members o the business community change positions and companiesmore requently than do attorneys or educators, but the directory rom which we compiledthe sample also lists only the addresses o the corporate headquarters; in many cases, thiswas not the address at which our intended respondent worked.

15 See http://www.utexas.edu/world/univ/state/ (March 20, 2011).

16 From the original sample o 9,000, 1,661 surveys were undeliverable. From the remainingmembers o the sample, we received 3,953 responses. Ater taking into accountrespondents who let the majority o the questionnaire incomplete, we were let with 3,768completed surveys, or a usable response rate o 51 percent.Response rates within the oursub-samples were: lawyers 54%; business leaders 38%; educators 56%; politicalactivists 58%, and did not dier by sex.


31/32

About the Authors

Jennier L. Lawless is Associate Proessor o Government at American University, where she is alsothe Director o the Women & Politics Institute. Her research ocuses on representation, political ambi-tion, and gender in the electoral process. She is the author o Becoming a Candidate: Political Ambi-tion and the Decision to Run or Ofce(2012, Cambridge University Press) and the co-authoro It Still Takes A Candidate: Why Women Dont Run or Ofce(2010, Cambridge University Press).Her work has appeared in academic journals including the American Journal o Political Science,Perspectives on Politics, Journal o Politics, Political Research Quarterly, Legislative Studies Quar-terly, and Politics & Gender. She is a nationally recognized speaker on women and electoral politics,and her scholarly analysis and political commentary have been quoted in numerous newspapers,

magazines, television news programs, and radio shows. In 2006, she sought the Democratic nomina-tion or the U.S. House o Representatives in Rhode Islands second congressional district.

Jennier Lawless can be reached [email protected].

Richard L. Foxis Associate Proessor o Political Science at Loyola Marymount University. His

research examines how gender aects voting behavior, state executive elections, congressional elec-tions, and political ambition. He is the author o Gender Dynamics in Congressional Elections(1997,Sage) and co-author o It Still Takes A Candidate: Why Women Dont Run or Ofce(2010,Cambridge University Press) and Tabloid Justice: The Criminal Justice System in the Age o MediaFrenzy(2001, Lynne Rienner). He is also co-editor o Gender and Elections(2010, CambridgeUniversity Press) and iPolitics: Citizens, Elections, and Governing in the New Media Era(2012,Cambridge University Press). His work has appeared in academic journals including PoliticalPsychology, Journal o Politics, American Journal o Political Science, Social Problems, PS, and Poli-tics & Gender. His op-ed articles have appeared in the New York Timesand the Wall Street Journal.

Richard Fox can be reached [email protected].

Acknowledgements

We thank American University and the Gruber Family Foundation or the unding to carry out thisproject; My-Lien Le, Erica Best, Will Hubbard, Amanda Krause, My-Anh Le, Justyna Modzelewska,Dora Nagy, Andy Ree, and Pamela Riis or help compiling the sample and administering the survey;Gail Baitinger or all kinds o research assistance; and Danny Hayes or very helpul eedbackon a drat o this report.


32/32

Documents

2012 Men Rule Report Web