Chapter 4 POLITICAL SOCIALIZATION AND PUBLIC OPINION Behavioral Focus: Explanations for the Gender Gap © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Introduction To understand the relationship between gender and politics, we must explore the socio-political constraints which limit women’s role in politics. Gender gap: the aggregate differences between men and women who aspire to hold public office. Differences in political socialization Biological differences Institutional explanations Salience Hypothesis: men and women place different levels of importance on specific policy issues © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Social Explanations of the Gender Gap Lawless and Fox (“Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office”): Examine why women who “share the same personal credentials and professional characteristics as men” are less ambitious to run for public office. Data from the Citizens Political Ambition Study used to conduct an elite survey of 1,969 men and 1,796 women to further research as to why there is a gender gap. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Social Explanations of the Gender Gap Lawless & Fox conclude “that women are less likely than men to receive a political source’s encouragement to run for office and to consider themselves qualified despite having even greater ‘paper merits’ than their male counterparts.” © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Social Explanations of the Gender Gap To understand “where the women are not,” we need to understand the importance of “perceived” roles of men and women in American political society. In effect, women “self assess” that they are not qualified to run suggests cultural and socialization factors, explain the gender gap and the lower numbers of women who aspire to attain public office. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Social Explanations of the Gender Gap According to Lawless and Fox, the following cultural constraints placed on women may explain why women are less likely to run for public office: less likely to talk politics with their parents than men. less likely to be unmarried than men seen as more apt to be responsible for childcare less likely to be encouraged by their parents for a career in politics. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Social Explanations of the Gender Gap Cultural constraints: Women professionals identify a male culture (“masculine ethos”) which is inherently biased and does not encourage women to run for public office. hold themselves to a higher standard than men when determining if they decide to run for office. less likely to think they will win if they run for public office. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Social Explanations of the Gender Gap Matland (“Women’s Representation in National Legislatures: Developed and Developing Countries”): supports Lawless and Fox’s findings through research of developing countries and former communist countries. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Social Explanations of the Gender Gap Matland concludes that men are socialized in most cultures to view politics as a “legitimate sphere” in which to participate self-perpetuated; leads to greater political efficacy, increased “political knowledge,” and political experience for men conversely, women internalize that they are less efficacious and thus do not aspire to run for public office. countries with single-member congressional districts are more likely to have male candidates © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Institutional Explanations of the Gender Gap Structural impediments have limited women’s accessibility to participate in politics and attain public office. Gendered structure of society perpetuates women’s roles as caregivers which limits the role of women in American politics (e.g., Catherine MacKinnon and Susan Moller Okin). © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Institutional Explanations of the Gender Gap Gendered structure of society Okin’s critique follows radical feminist tradition—American society formed according to a male perspective, gender seen as a socially constructed concept. Thus, men occupy positions of power and are paid more than women Locus of control has always been dominated by men, to perpetuate male power and delineate women’s role as subservient to the system. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Institutional Explanations of the Gender Gap Incumbency factor also excludes women from obtaining public office. Average House retention: 90%; average Senate retention: 80% Limits the chances of women to be recruited and advance a successful campaign in single-member congressional districts. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Institutional Explanations of the Gender Gap Other institutional factors that impede women from serving in Congress: Women face more difficult primary competitions as incumbents, as challengers, and as candidates in congressional open seats Incumbent women attract greater number of women challengers. Female Republican candidates are more likely to gain their party’s nomination in primary elections, in governing these women tend to continue conservative traditional policy making which is male-centered. Women still face an uphill battle in elections in which they challenge an incumbent male. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Gender Differences Regarding Salient Political Issues To understand the effects of gender in political science, women studies scholars have suggested that there are differences between men and women regarding “salient” election issues. In effect, one needs to explore the gender gap between men and women based upon partisanship and issue priorities within the American electorate. However, the impetus for the gender gap in American politics is debatable. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Gender Differences Regarding Salient Political Issues Kaufmann and Petrocik (“The Changing Politics of American Men: Understanding the Sources of the Gender Gap”): The gender gap occurred due to the LBJ’s support for expanded governmental welfare programs in the 1964 presidential election. Subsequently, the salient issues of “guns versus butter” prompted more conservative, Southern, male voters to support the Republican Party’s pro-defense platform of Barry Goldwater. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Gender Differences Regarding Salient Political Issues Frankovic (“Sex and Politics: New Alignments, Old Issues”) disputes the findings of Kaufmann and Petrocik: Argues that younger women (ages 18-24) increasingly supported expanding social programs Were therefore more likely to support Democratic Party candidates beginning in the 1980 election as a result of Reagan’s prioritization of foreign policy issues © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Gender Differences Regarding Salient Political Issues With the advent of the gender gap, men and women have different attitudes regarding salient policy issues. In general, men are more likely to promote conservative issues (e.g., defense and economic issues) as candidates and support these issues as voters In general, women are more likely to support candidates who favor increased domestic spending on education, environmental, and social programs. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Gender Differences Regarding Salient Political Issues Data from GSS and NES support the hypothesis that the following affect ideological and political party identification: Age Marital status Religiosity Socio-economic status Geographical location © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Gender Differences Regarding Salient Political Issues For example: Younger, urban, and/or liberal women tend to support the Democratic Party in higher numbers whereas older, rural, and/or conservative women tend to be Republicans. Also, there is a marriage gap: Single women are less likely to vote and more liberal as well as Democratic than married women who are more likely to vote, be conservative, and identify with the Republican Party. © 2011 Taylor & Francis

Gender Differences Regarding Salient Political Issues For example (continued): Women with higher educations, higher incomes, and/or exhibiting greater religiosity tend to be more conservative and hence, more Republican in their alignment. © 2011 Taylor & Francis