Print This Post
Nov
10
Read Part I here.
Read Part II here.
Dr. Karen Beckwith, Case Western Reserve University Professor of Political Science and holder of the first Flora Stone Mather professorship, says that
Two-thirds of all female candidates are Democrats. That gives the Democratic party an incredible edge going into elections, especially if the elections turn on issues that are of importance to women. And I dont mean necessarily issues that we might think of as traditionally identitfied with women, issues of womens’ rights for example. Issues having to do with education, with health care, anything that has to do with children are issues that attract the attention of female voters. And female voters, under specific circumstances, in a particular electoral contest, are more likely to vote for female candidates, and theyre also more likely to vote for Republican candidates who are women than they are for Republican candidates who are men.
Comments made on the November 8 post-election edition of WCPN’s The Sound of Ideas
Beckwith’s re-framing of the issues that concern women underscores how the pursuit of more women in political power goes beyond the notion of identity politics. As Marie Wilson of The White House Project posits, “Minimum wage may be one of the most important womens issues. Economic security, health and safety – these three issues are womens issues. Women have spurred on [the advancement of] issues of health and safety wherever and whenever they’ve been in government. And lets talk about the major issue in our country right now: national security. Whatever country a woman is in, the availability of food, shelter and safety is an issue for all people. And these issues at the top of agenda what women champion.”
So if women promote and provide solutions to the same issues as men, what’s holding them back?
Wilson points to two factors, among others.
First, she says, “There is a cultural fear of women leaving the children and the home but [their leaving and that leaving having a negative impact] is just not the case. There are a lot of men who are changing and do want to change, although until men are involved [as a matter of course] in childrearing, nothing is going to change.” But Wilson feels that, “Children are getting more time from their parents than they ever did. The truth is that people are more conscious than ever of their kids and the time they spend together. I’ve also read that people spend much more intentional time with their children.” She fails to see how this fear exists in reality as a reason to keep women from entering political life.
Most importantly, however, Wilson wants people to know that, “The most salient factor that keeps women out of politic races, whether it’s for the school board or the city council or leading her company, is that they must be invite. Otherwise, women set the bar so high for themselves that they don’t enter otherwise.”
“Entering the Arena: Gender and the Decision to Run for Office,” a Journal of Political Science article produced in part by Rhode Island primary candidate for a congressional seat and Brown University Assistant Professor in Political Science, Jennifer Lawless, supports Wilson’s beliefs. It examines the previously unresearched questions related to why women don’t run for office in the same numbers as men, or in numbers that reflect their presence in the population.
Lawless and Richard L. Fox, associate professor of political science at Union College, surveyed and spoke to more than 3,700 lawyers, business leaders, executives, educators and political activists during the last two years women and men who work in professions that typically precede a political candidacy. The Citizen Political Ambition Study was the first broad-based national sample of potential candidates for all levels of public office.
The impact of self-perceived qualifications on a womans decision to run was nearly double that of men. Surprisingly, although many of those surveyed had attained success in male-dominated professions, women were twice as likely as men to rate themselves not at all qualified to run for office. Men were about two-thirds more likely than women to consider themselves qualified or very qualified to run for office.
Women were also significantly less likely than men to think they would win their first race. Only 25 percent of female potential candidates, compared to 37 percent of males, thought that an electoral victory would be likely or very likely.
Not only did they not think themselves qualified, women received less encouragement to run than men. Thirty-two percent of women, compared to 43 percent of men, received the suggestion to run for office from either someone involved in the political arena or within their personal life. Such encouragement often more than doubled the likelihood of considering a candidacy.
Across all factors age, party affiliation, income and profession women were significantly less likely than men to express interest in seeking public office. Among women, there were some interesting differences:
- Women with higher incomes were more likely to consider a candidacy than women with lower incomes. Men were as likely to consider running for office across all income levels.
- Women with more responsibilities for household tasks were less interested in holding office. Forty-eight percent of the women whose partner was responsible for the majority of the household labor had considered running for office, compared to 33 percent of women who were responsible for the majority of tasks. There was no difference for men.
- When women did think of running, they were more likely to be interested in local-level politics. Just one office attracted substantially more interest from women than men: the local school board.
These results suggest that we are a long way from a political reality in which women and men are equally likely to aspire to attain high-level elective office, said the researchers.
Yet the findings offer some direction. The number of women who said they would definitely be interested in running for office someday was equal to that of men. Women also viewed the activities associated with campaigning as positively as men. Those included such things as attending fundraisers, dealing with party officials, going door-to-door to meet constituents, dealing with the press, and devoting time to running for office.
Brown University press release
This research evidence coincides precisely with the White House Project’s effort, VoteRunLead. The site includes specific directions on how to invite a woman to run and offers facts on women in politics in the states, research and research tools that concern women in politics, and information on how to get involved at any level.
Marie Wilson urges women to act now and resist delaying action. Beginning immediately, she urges the following (and specifically for WLST readers, no less):
1. In the next 24 hours, call someone whom you think would be a good public servant. “Imagine if 400-800 women call,” (the approximate number of unique weekly WLST readers). Then, she says, “Ask someone to think about running in the next 1-10 years.”
2. As for how voters treat the women who arconstituentBe a good constitutent. Dont just let them roll. Support them not just by what you say, how you think, but also by monitoring the press – whether their reporting is fair [about the female politician], and if it’s not, saying, “Im sure you didnt mean it to sound like this, but please change how you’re reporting.”
3. Finally, Wilson urges women to lead a political life. “You cant be political just on the day you vote. You can be political or involved in politics at every level. Be and active and engaged political citizen.”
It’s probably not politically correct or expedient to suggest that the United States government, at any level, needs to be turned “pink” when talking about getting more American women into politics and political positions of power. But given the acceptability of that hue even among men today, we must and we should make more variations of that color’s themes much more obvious.
Additional resources for interested readers:
Fearless Politics: Speak Your Mind Even If Your Voice Shakes, by Connie Schultz on The Huffington Post
Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute for Politics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Alphabetical List of Training Programs (throughout the country, for high school as well as adults, and nonpartisan, Democrat and Republican), including Women’s Campaign School at Yale University
Special thanks to Marie Wilson, whom I thoroughly expect to come visit Ohio, more than once I hope, between now and 2008.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 7:18 pm November 10th, 2006 in Politics
Comments
4 Responses to “Turning the US Pink: Final installment of an interview with Marie Wilson, Founder and President, The White House Project”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
I know a lawyer whose mother has been urging her to run for office — but I have not yet discussed the issue with the lawyer herself. I’ll plan to do so, before the end of November!
Jill, this is a fabulous series of blogs. Are they something you tried to place in a magazine, but couldn’t get anyone to take a bite at?
-Sandy Piderit
Sandy – that’s great! do it do it do it!
Actually, the series came about because I subscribe to SheSource.org, you should check it out, which works somewhat with the White House Project. I’d also blogged about women in politics and barriers before and had heard of the Project. Well then, the Thurs or Friday before the election, I got an email from She Source saying that Marie Wilson was willing to speak to folks about the election results and I thought, this is what I want to write about! And she was AMAZING. I thoroughly expect for us to keep up and she is very much wanting to be in Ohio for some events. So I’ll keep you posted! She’s fascinating, Sandy – you should read up a bit more on her when you have the time.
Nah – I didn’t try to pitch it anywhere. It was happening too quickly. I do hope that as the PD’s online stuff evolves, there might be a market for it or some collaboration. But right now – I don’t know that that’s really possible. I also would say that the pieces are okay written – but not my best.
Nice work, Jill. I’d add one more resource to your list:
Emily’s List — a network of more than 100,000 Americans — from all across the country — committed to recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; training the next generation of activists; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation.
Thanks, Wendy! I can’t believe I missed that one. I know they got behind the Betty Sutton and Jennifer Brunner campaigns, with great success.