# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two years after Hillary Clinton became the first woman to win the presidential nomination of a major U.S. political party, and with a record number of women running for Congress in 2018, a majority of Americans say they would like to see more women in top leadership positions - not only in politics, but also in the corporate world - according to a new Pew Research Center survey. But most say men still have an easier path to the top and that women have to do more to prove their worth. And the public is skeptical that the country will ever achieve gender parity in politics or in business.

Republicans and Democrats have widely different views about where things stand today and what factors are holding women back. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more than twice as likely as Republicans and those who lean Republican to say there are too few women in high political offices (79% vs. 33%). And while 64% of Democrats say gender discrimination is a major reason why women are underrepresented in these positions, only 30% of Republicans agree.

There are also wide gender gaps in views about women in leadership. About seven-in-ten women say there are too few women in high political offices and in top executive business positions; about half of men say the same. And women are far more likely than men to see structural barriers and uneven expectations holding women back from these positions. About seven-in-ten women - vs. about half of men - say a major reason why women are underrepresented in top positions in politics and business is that they have to do more to prove themselves. And while about six-in-ten women say gender discrimination is a major obstacle to female leadership in each of these realms, smaller shares of men say this is the case in the corporate world (44%) or in politics (36%).

To a large degree, these gender gaps persist within parties. Among Republicans and Democrats, women are more likely than men to say there are too few women in political and corporate leadership positions, and there are substantial gender differences, particularly among Republicans, in views on the obstacles holding women back from these positions.

Despite the surge of female candidates this year, women are increasingly doubtful that voters are ready to elect more female leaders. A growing share cite this as a major reason why women are underrepresented in high political offices: 57% of women now say voters not being ready to elect women is a major reason, compared with 41% in 2014. Men remain much less likely to see this as a major impediment (32% of men do so).

The survey also finds that Americans largely see men and women as equally capable when it comes to some key qualities and behaviors that are essential for leadership, even as a majority (57%) say men and women in top positions in business and politics tend to have different leadership styles. Among those who say men and women approach leadership differently, 62% say neither is better, while 22% say women generally have the better approach and 15% say men do.

Still, there are areas where the public sees female leaders as having an advantage. In both business and politics, majorities say women are better than men when it comes to being compassionate and empathetic, and substantial shares say women are better at working out compromises and standing up for what they believe in. Similarly, more adults say female political leaders do a better job of serving as role models for children (41%) and maintaining a tone of civility and respect (34%) than say the same about men. In each of these cases, only about one-in-ten or fewer give men the advantage. Male leaders are seen as better than their female counterparts when it comes to willingness to take risks; about four-in-ten say men in top executive positions and in high political offices are better than women in this regard.

Looking specifically at corporate leadership, 43% say women are better at creating a safe and respectful workplace; 52% say there is no difference, while just 5% say men are better at this. And while majorities say there is no difference between male and female leaders when it comes to valuing people from different backgrounds, considering the impact of business decisions on society, providing guidance and mentorship to young employees, and providing fair pay and good benefits, those who do see a difference tend to give women the advantage.

Overall, the public sees benefits to female leadership. Majorities say having more women in top positions in business and government would improve the quality of life at least somewhat for all Americans (69%) and for women (77%) and men (57%) specifically. Women are far more likely than men to say having more women in top leadership positions would be beneficial. Two-thirds of women say having more female leaders would improve the quality of life for men at least somewhat, compared with 47% of men. And while majorities in both groups say this would improve the quality of life for all Americans, women are far more likely than men to say this is the case (78% vs. 59%).

The nationally representative survey of 4,587 adults was conducted online June 19-July 2, 2018, with support from Pivotal Ventures, using Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel.

Among the key findings:

Gender gaps on views of women in leadership are particularly wide among Republicans

By 20 percentage points, Republican women are more likely than their male counterparts to say there are too few women in high political offices (44% of GOP women vs. 24% of GOP men) and in top executive positions in business (49% vs. 29%) in the U.S. today. And while most Republican women say it's easier for men to get these positions, closer to half of GOP men say the same.

Republican women are also far more likely than Republican men to point to uneven expectations and structural barriers as major reasons why women are underrepresented in political and corporate leadership. For example, a majority of Republican women (64%) - vs. 28% of GOP men - say women having to do more to prove themselves is a major reason why there are fewer women than men in high political offices. About half of Republican women point to many Americans not being ready to elect women (50% vs. 18% of GOP men), gender discrimination (48% vs. 14%) and women getting less support from party leaders (45% vs. 27%) as major reasons.

Among Democrats, majorities of women and men say there are too few women in political and business leadership positions, but this view is even more pronounced among women. And there are significant gaps in the shares of Democratic women and men who point to women not being encouraged to be leaders from an early age (63% of women vs. 42% of men) and to sexual harassment (56% vs. 41%) as major obstacles for women in politics.

Younger women less satisfied than older women with the number of female leaders and more likely to see gender discrimination as a major obstacle to reaching top positions

Majorities of women across age groups say there are too few women in high political offices and in top executive business positions and that it's generally easier for men to get these positions, but these views are more prevalent among women younger than 50. About three-quarters of women ages 18 to 49 (74%) say there are too few women in top political offices, compared with 63% of women ages 50 and older. And while eight-in-ten women younger than 50 say it's easier for men to get elected to high political offices, 68% of women in the older group say the same. The patterns are similar for business.

The age gap among women is also sizable when it comes to views about the role gender discrimination plays in the underrepresentation of women in politics. About seven-in-ten women ages 18 to 49 (68%) say gender discrimination is a major reason why there aren't more women in high political offices, compared with 50% of older women.

Men's views do not differ as much by age - younger men are no more likely than older men to say that there are too few women in top leadership positions in politics or business, that discrimination is holding women back, or that it's easier for men to get top positions than it is for women.

About half of Americans want gender parity in political and business leadership; few want women to overtake men

A majority of Americans (59%) say there are too few women in top leadership positions in politics and in business today, with about half saying, ideally, there would be equal numbers of men and women. Much smaller shares say there should be more women than there are now but still not as many women as men or that women should outnumber men in these positions.

About a third of adults say the number of women in political and corporate leadership positions is about right, and fewer than one-in-ten say there are currently too many women in top leadership positions.

Women are more likely than men to say there should be equal numbers of men and women in top leadership positions. This is particularly true of Democratic women: 68% of Democratic women say that, ideally, there would be equal numbers of men and women in high political offices (and a similar share say the same about top corporate positions).

Still, many Americans are skeptical that women will ever be able to overcome the obstacles keeping them from achieving gender parity in business and political leadership. About half (48%) say men will continue to hold more high political offices in the future, even as more women run for office, and a similar share (46%) say men will continue to hold more top executive positions in business, even as more women move into management roles. Men are more likely than women to say the U.S. will eventually reach gender parity in top political and corporate leadership positions.

Majorities of men and women say that men have an easier path to leadership positions

Two-thirds of Americans say it is generally easier for men to get elected to high political offices (67%); just 5% say it is easier for women, and 27% say there is not much difference. Views are nearly identical when it comes to top executive positions in business.

Majorities of both men and women say it is easier for men to get top leadership positions in politics and business, but this view is particularly prevalent among women. About three-quarters of women say it is easier for men to get elected to high political offices and to get top executive positions in business (74% each), compared with about six-in-ten men who say the same. Relatively few men or women say it is easier for women to get these positions.

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say men have an easier time getting top leadership positions. Democratic men and women are fairly united in their views on this, whereas there is a sizable gender gap among Republicans. Two-thirds of Republican women say it's easier for men to get top positions in business, compared with 45% of Republican men. Among Democrats, 77% of men and 81% of women hold this view. (The patterns are similar for political leadership.)

Most say women having to do more to prove themselves is a major barrier to female leadership

Americans see similar obstacles for women who are seeking top leadership positions in politics and in the corporate world. About six-in-ten say a major reason why women are underrepresented in high political offices and top executive positions in business is that women have to do more to prove themselves than men. About half say gender discrimination is a major barrier for women in each of these realms. Substantial shares also say that many businesses are not ready to hire women for top executive positions (47%) and that many Americans are not ready to elect women to higher offices (45%).

Perceptions of what contributes to the underrepresentation of women in political and business leadership positions vary widely across genders. At least seven-in-ten women, but closer to half of men, cite women having to do more to prove themselves as a major reason why there are fewer women than men in top business and political positions.

A majority of women also point to gender discrimination and voters not being ready to elect women as major barriers for women in politics. In contrast, roughly one-third of men see each of these as major reasons why there aren't more women in higher office. In turn, men (31%) are more likely than women (23%) to say women simply aren't as interested in holding top leadership positions in politics.

Majority of Americans say women and men have different leadership styles, but few think either gender has a better overall approach

A majority of Americans (57%) think men and women in top positions in business and politics are basically different when it comes to their leadership styles; 43% say they are basically the same. Among those who see a difference between men and women in this regard, most (62%) don't think either gender is better; 22% say women have a better approach and 15% say men do.

Again, views on this differ significantly by gender. Women are more likely than men to see a gender difference in leadership styles (63% vs. 50%). Among those who see a difference, about one-in-four women (27%) say that women have a better approach, while 10% say men are better. Men are more evenly divided on this: 22% say men have a better approach, 15% say women do.

Among Republicans, men and women have substantially different views on this issue. Roughly a third of Republican men (32%) who see a gender gap in leadership styles say men have the better approach, while only 6% say women have a better approach. Republican women are more evenly split: Among those who say men and women are basically different, 15% say women have a better approach and 18% say men do.

Many see men and women as equals on key leadership qualities, but those who see a difference tend to say that women are stronger in most areas

Majorities of Americans see little difference between men and women on a range of specific qualities and competencies that may be required for effective leadership. Among those who do see a difference, however, women are perceived to be stronger in most areas in both politics and business. Being compassionate and empathetic and being able to work out compromises are prominent examples of this. For their part, men are seen as having a relative advantage in being willing to take risks and negotiating profitable deals.

Among the traits Americans see as most essential to being a good business leader - creating a safe and respectful workplace and being honest and ethical - higher shares point to women as having the upper hand rather than men. Still, many say there is no difference between men and women in both cases.

Women are more likely than men to say female leaders outperform men on several leadership dimensions. For example, 71% of women say that women in political leadership are more compassionate and empathetic than men, while 50% of men say this is the case. Similarly, women are more likely than men to say that women in high political offices are better at maintaining a tone of civility and respect (41% vs 27%). For their part, men are more likely than women to say gender doesn't make any difference for these and several other aspects of leadership.

When it comes to business, there are wide gender gaps on two items that relate directly to workplace culture. Women are significantly more likely than men to say that female business leaders are better than their male counterparts at creating a safe and respectful workplace and providing mentorship to young employees.

Most say women and men are equally capable of handling key policy areas and running companies across industries

Americans see only modest differences when asked about men's and women's abilities to run different types of companies. Still, many in the public associate some industries more with one gender than the other. Roughly three-in-ten adults (31%) say a woman would do a better job running a major retail chain. Only 6% say a man would do a better job at this. And the public is about twice as likely to say a woman would do a better job running a major hospital (19%) than to say the same about a man (8%). Men have a relative advantage when it comes to views of running a professional sports team - 45% say a man would do a better job at this, while 2% say a woman would be better.

The public doesn't see either gender as having a significant advantage over the other in handling several key policy issues. On immigration, gun policy, the economy and the budget deficit, majorities of Americans say there's no difference between male and female political leaders in their abilities. And among those who do see a difference between men and women in these areas, opinions are fairly evenly divided. There are two exceptions, however. By a margin of 42% to 4%, the public says women in politics do a better job handling social issues such as education and health care. The opposite pattern holds for dealing with national security and defense - 35% say men are better on these issues, while 6% point to women.

Americans have different ideas on what traits might be helpful (or harmful) to men and women seeking leadership positions

When asked whether certain personal traits or characteristics would mostly help or mostly hurt men and women seeking to succeed in business or in politics, about seven-in-ten adults say being assertive and ambitious would mostly help a man's chances in both realms. Closer to half see these traits as helpful to women who are trying to get to the top. In fact, about a quarter say being assertive and ambitious mostly hurts a woman's chances of getting ahead in politics and business.

An attribute that's viewed as more helpful to women than to men is being physically attractive. Six-in-ten adults say this helps women get ahead in politics, and an even higher share say it helps women succeed in business. Fewer say being attractive is helpful to men.

Showing emotions is seen, on balance, as being more harmful than helpful to both men and women. Still, more say this hurts female leaders than male leaders. About half (52%) say showing emotions hurts women in politics, 39% say this about men. Smaller shares say this helps men (24%) and women (17%) in getting elected to higher office. The patterns are similar for business leaders.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A majority of Americans would like to see more women in top leadership positions in business and politics, but many are skeptical there will ever be gender parity in these areas. Views about the state of female leadership vary by party and gender.

# data[].attributes.headline
Congress Must Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and Stop the Theft of Women’s Wages

# data[].attributes.subject
Congress Must Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and Stop the Theft of Women’s Wages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - At this very moment, the U.S. House of Representatives has the opportunity to advance legislation - more than 20 years in the making - that will finally begin to close the pay gap between women and men. The National Organization for Women (NOW) strongly supports the Paycheck Fairness Act ( H.R. 7) and urges the House of Representatives to pass the bill without amendments when it comes to the floor on Wednesday, March 27.

This bill, which Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) has introduced in every Congress since 1997 and did again this year along with Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), would close loopholes in the Equal Pay Act by:

Increasing penalties for wage discrimination and assuring that employers determine wages through the factors of experience, training, and education rather than sex.

Directing federal agencies to collect and distribute data on compensation discrimination.

Barring retaliation against women who seek information on pay disparity.

The fact is that women are not gaining ground when it comes to pay equity. When the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1963, women were paid 58 cents for every dollar earned by men . While progress has been made, the ratio for weekly full-time earnings of women and men widened slightly between 2017 and 2018.

In 2018, the ratio of women's to men's median weekly full-time earnings was 81.1 percent, a decrease of 0.7 percent since 2017, according to the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR). This continues a four-decade trend of the declining percentage change in closing the gender gap. Even worse, when adjusted for inflation, women's median earnings stayed unchanged since 2017, but men's earnings increased by 0.9 percent.

When breaking down the 2018 ratios for median weekly earnings by race (as compared to white male earnings), IWPR's research shows:

White women at 81.5 percent

Black women at 65.3 percent

Hispanic women at 61.6 percent

Asian women at 93.5 percent ( While higher educational attainment leads to higher incomes for Asian American women and men, women still make less than both white men and Asian American men. )

Women have been waiting far too long for equal wages and the Paycheck Fairness Act would bring us several important steps closer to parity. NOW demands that Congress take action and finally stop the theft of hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages for women and their families around the U.S.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congress Must Pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and Stop the Theft of Women's Wages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - At this very moment, the U.S. House of Representatives has the opportunity to advance legislation - more than 20 years in the making - that will finally begin to close the pay gap between women and men. The National Organization for Women (NOW) strongly supports the Paycheck Fairness Act ( H.R.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Read this article in German

Do women represent women? It's a reasonable question. One of the arguments for why we need more women in politics is to improve the representation of female citizens, so there is already an expectation that women will be the best representatives of other women. Does this bear out in practice? And if it sometimes doesn't, why not, and does it matter?

When asking if women represent women, we have to understand what this actually means. Women don't all care about the same things, and they certainly don't all feel the same way about the same issues. But in a world where women face so many injustices, from sexual harassment to tampon tax, from glass ceilings to pension poverty, it is not too hard to identify common causes. And the onus is then on female politicians to defend women on those issues.

Walking the talk

Existing research indicates very clearly that female politicians do indeed look out for other women. In the UK, women MPs have led the way on issues ranging from parental leave to pay and working conditions. In France, women are much more likely than men to draw attention to women's rights. In Argentina, women have introduced distinctive perspectives into parliamentary debates on issues such as women's sexual and reproductive health, while in Australia women have crossed party lines to defend a woman's right to choose whether to keep their baby or have an abortion.

The reverse is also true: men are often poor advocates of women's rights. That's not always the case, of course. Some male leaders, such as José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain, or Justin Trudeau of Canada, have promoted gender parity in their cabinets and identified as feminists. But there is also ample evidence that when women aren't part of the decision-making process, their needs are overlooked, misunderstood, and sometimes even actively suppressed.

Donald Trump's male-dominated administration has introduced a number of laws that erode women's resources and freedoms. These include the reinstatement of the 'global gag' rule, removing US funding for any aid agency that has any links with abortion, and an executive order revoking measures to protect workplace and pay equality. British Prime Minister David Cameron and his male cronies oversaw austerity cuts that disproportionately affected women. Oppressive laws restricting women's freedoms in Saudi Arabia were made in the total absence of female representatives.

So it would seem that women are the better bet for representing other women. But when scrutinising women's track records on this area, there are three important caveats to bear in mind.

Not all women are feminists

The first caveat is that we should not conflate being a woman with being a feminist. Not all women are feminists, and not all feminists are women. For example, some women firmly believe that women should be able to stay at home to raise their children, and that abortion should be illegal. Similarly, some men have been very effective and passionate advocates of gender equality. Women across the political spectrum do tend to be more feminist than men with otherwise comparable views, but we cannot assume that someone will be a champion of women's rights just because she is a woman.

The second caveat is that we shouldn't place all the burden of representing women on the shoulders of women representatives. Doing so presents two dangers. Firstly, we risk forcing women to focus on so-called 'women's issues' when their true interests might lie elsewhere. Men do not face any such restriction, and it is not fair to place that burden on women.

The majority of female citizens are represented by a male politician, so those men owe it to their constituents to defend their rights.

Secondly, we should not exonerate men from taking responsibility for gender equality. There is mounting evidence that a more gender equal society is beneficial for men as well as women. And the majority of female citizens are represented by a male politician, so those men owe it to their constituents to defend their rights.

The third, and perhaps most important, caveat is that women aren't always able to act for women even if they really want to. Most female politicians belong to parties and parliaments that are heavily dominated by men. Put simply, women are outnumbered and outvoted. They may also be held back by political cultures that diminish their viewpoints and silence their voices.

In some parliaments, women are used as tokens but are denied any influence or power. Even in established democracies, the recent #MeToo revelations about sexual harassment show how men exert dominance over women. Being in a minority isn't easy and it can make it much harder to get things done.

When women are outnumbered, it is easier to ignore or drown out their contributions. The organisation of politics along party lines further reduces the opportunities for women to work together and collaborate. Women, like men, are expected to toe the party line. Even parties with relatively high levels of feminisation are often dominated by men at the top of the hierarchy.

Party before policy?

When male leaders impose policies that are disadvantageous to women, it can be very difficult for women to make a visible difference. One prominent example was when female British Labour MPs were vilified for supporting their party's decision to cut lone-parent benefit - a cut with a hugely disproportionate impact on women.

What the critics of these women did not see were their efforts to influence the decision behind the scenes. Female MPs afterwards explained that they lobbied hard against the policy. But when the final vote came, they didn't have the numbers to overturn the bill.

Even parties with relatively high levels of feminisation are often dominated by men at the top of the hierarchy.

If women vote against their party on a policy that will be enacted regardless, all they are doing is throwing away their political capital and any hope of rising through the ranks. This does little to serve their cause. In cases such as these, quiet lobbying is less visible but potentially much more fruitful than a backbench rebellion. But the victories achieved through back channels are invisible, while the need to vote along party lines is very public. So we blame women for accepting what they cannot change, while ignoring their efforts to change what they cannot accept.

Similar restrictions apply to women leaders. So few women rise to the summit of politics that those who do are subject to intense scrutiny. They have to fight many battles at once, and gender equality might not be their priority.

Margaret Thatcher, for example, had to fight to prove herself in a very male-dominated world and was not interested in expending her political capital on causes that did not reflect her own world views. Angela Merkel has been more proactive in appointing female advisers and ministers, but she is still better known for her focus on economic policy and international affairs - like most other world leaders. Women should not be held to higher standards nor be expected to do more than their male counterparts.

So we need to be reasonable in our expectations of female politicians. On balance, they are more effective advocates of women when given the chance. But they operate under a number of constraints, and also face a burden of expectation that is not applied to men. Championing women's rights isn't always possible, and when it does happen it may go unnoticed. When women struggle to make a difference, the answer is not to give up on women representatives, but to elect more of them so that they can have a truly equal voice in politics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read this article in German Do women represent women? It's a reasonable question. One of the arguments for why we need more women in politics is to improve the representation of female citizens, so there is already an expectation that women will be the best representatives of other women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, POLITICS (oxfordre.com/politics). (c) Oxford University Press USA, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Personal use only; commercial use is strictly prohibited. Please see applicable Privacy Policy and Legal Notice (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: University of Texas - El Paso; date: 30 April 2019

Summary and Keywords

The burgeoning field of gender and political behavior shows that the way in which ordinary citizens connect to the democratic process is gendered. Gender differences in voting behavior and participation rates persist across democracies. At the same time, countries vary substantially in the size of these gender gaps. In contemporary elections, women tend to support leftist parties more than men in many countries. Although men and women vote at similar rates today, women still trail men in important participatory attitudes and activities such as political interest and discussion. Inequalities in political involvement undermine the quality of deliberation, representation, and legitimacy in the democratic process. A confluence of several interrelated factors (resources, economy, socialization, political context) work together to account for these differences. Today, scholars more carefully consider the socially constructed nature of gender and the ways in which it interacts with other identities. Recent research on gender and political behavior suggests that political context affects different kinds of women in different ways, and future research should continue to investigate these important interactions.

Keywords: gender, women, political participation, voting behavior, political engagement, inequality, gender gap

Introduction

Inequalities in political involvement undermine the quality of deliberation, representation, and legitimacy in the democratic process. After enfranchisement, women traditionally participated less than men in democracies around the world. In recent decades, women have made great strides in voter turnout. However, women continue to report less political involvement across a host of participatory activities and attitudes-from joining political parties to attending demonstrations to political interest to discussion to efficacy. Further, these gender differences persist across a set of industrialized democracies. Gender differences are largest in the attitudes and orientations that lead to active electoral participation. Gender equality in political interest and discussion has the potential to widen the scope of policy demands and even perhaps change the nature of the democratic process.

In the United States, the seminal research of Burns, Schlozman, and Verba (, p. 2) demonstrates that when survey findings are translated into actual activity, even seemingly modest gender gaps accumulate to sizeable differences in total political inputs: "2,000,000 fewer phone calls or letters to public officials from women than men ... 7,000,000 fewer campaign contributions from women than from men ... 9,000,000 fewer women than men affiliated with a political organization." Importantly, women are least engaged with the stages of the political process when new issues are introduced to the agenda.

The persistence of gender gaps in political involvement yields both empirical and theoretical questions for the field of political behavior. Broadly, we ask here: Under what conditions do different kinds of people most effectively connect to the democratic process? Are men and women's propensities to participate motivated by different factors? Among women, how do different groups of women vary? Can we expect gender differences to narrow over time? The growing body of research on gender and political behavior does not yield simple answers to these important questions. Although often overlooked in early political behavior research, gender is woven into the fabric of electoral politics in an intricate pattern.

This article focuses on mass-level voting behavior and political participation. We examine three areas of political behavior: political preferences (vote choice, and ideology), political participation (voting, campaign activity, and contentious actions), and political engagement (interest, discussion, persuasion, knowledge, and efficacy). After sketching the contours of gender gaps in political behavior, we explore the contributions of four general sets of explanations for these differences: resources, economic development, gender role socialization, and political context. No single category of explanation offers sufficient leverage to explain these gaps. Instead, it is clear that a confluence of explanatory forces narrow and exacerbate gender gaps over time. Finally, we consider some fruitful avenues for future research. The trajectory of research on gender and political behavior suggests that political context affects different kinds of women in different ways. Our review of research in this subfield shows that we have a great deal of work ahead to unpack these important interactions.

Gender Differences in Political Behavior

The term "gender gap" is commonly used to refer to gender differences in voting preferences and to levels of political participation. Research on voting preferences has identified gender differences in vote choice, partisan attachments, ideology, and political attitudes. For political involvement, the role of gender has been studied across an array of political activities and orientations toward the political process. Rather than a single "gap," it is more insightful to discuss the dynamics of multiple gender gaps. Taken together, research finds that gender gaps in voting preferences and political involvement share considerable variation over time and across nations, modes of participation, and different groups of women.

Early research in political behavior often treated gender as an isolated explanatory variable in a statistical model. Today, scholars more carefully consider the socially constructed nature of gender, taking into account commonly shared perceptions about both men's and women's roles in the political arena. Similarly, many studies have also considered race and ethnicity as discrete categories. Importantly, more recent research points out that gender interacts with other individual characteristics and the political context (Burns, ). Simply put, women are not a monolithic group: gender intersects with other identities such as race, ethnicity, sexuality, and socio-economic status in complex ways. Although considering the mutually constitutive nature of race, ethnicity, sexuality, and gender complicates theories and empirical analyses, Wendy Smooth convincingly argues that it is "a mess worth making" (2006, p. 403). Evelyn Simien cogently notes that "race and gender cannot be reduced to individual attributes to be measured and assessed for their separate contributions in explaining political outcomes, from vote choice to policy preferences" (2006, p. 266). Indeed, only by considering these complexities can we fully understand contemporary political behavior.

While the bulk of previous studies on gender and political behavior focus on the United States, a growing literature compares gender differences across nations. Early cross-national research often compared Western European democracies, and the more recent availability of a wider range of comparative surveys has led to comparative studies of gender and political behavior across a more diverse set of regions. Comparative research offers an ideal design to compare the effects of divergent social, political, legal, and economic contexts on men and women's engagement with the political process.

Gender and Voting Preferences

After enfranchisement, women were more politically conservative than men in their ideology, party attachment, and vote choice across most democracies (Lipset, ). Scholars typically reasoned that women's higher levels of religiosity encouraged stronger ties to religious and conservative parties. Further, fewer women participated in the paid workforce, and thus they were less likely to join trade unions, the very organizations that historically connected workers to leftist parties.

This "traditional gap" eroded over time, and groups of men and women shifted their voting behavior, yielding new differences. In recent decades "gender differences in electoral behavior have been realigning, with women moving toward the left of men throughout advanced industrial societies (though not in postcommunist societies or developing countries)" (Inglehart & Norris, , p. 441). Recent research bolsters this regional puzzle. Women across Western European countries have increasingly supported leftist parties, while the gender gap in postcommunist countries favors the right (Abendschön & Steinmetz, ). Part of the explanation for this realignment lies in declining religiosity cross-nationally. Given that women tend to report higher degrees of religiosity, this secular shift influences vote choice.

This relationship is especially prominent in Western European countries where religion has been historically structured by party systems, with centrist and rightist parties more tightly linked with religious voters (Emmenegger & Manow, ). The sea change in women's entrance into the paid workforce in the post-World War II era may also account for this shift in some countries but does not fully explain the patterns in postcommunist countries. Further, research across Western European countries finds that women are significantly less likely to cast their vote for radical right parties than men (Givens, ). Even after controlling for a host of social, economic, and political variables, the gender gap in support for the radical right remains. Although more research is needed to uncover the underpinnings of this relationship, gender differences seem to be rooted in differences over the issue of immigration.

Trends in American elections reflect those found cross-nationally. Figure displays the difference between the proportion of women who voted for the Democratic Party and the proportion of men doing the same in U.S. presidential elections from 1948 to 2008. Positive values signify more women voting for the Democratic Party than men. These data come from survey respondents' reported vote choice from the American National Election Studies (ANES). Despite the ebb and flow over time, the overall pattern clearly shows that women are more supportive of the Democratic Party over time. For example, the 1960 ANES found that the difference was 8 percentage points in favor of men casting more votes for the Democratic Party. By contrast, in 2012 that very gap had reversed, with more women than men voting for the Democratic Party. In the United States, important recent research attributes the gender gap in choice to the movement of men toward the Republican Party (Box-Steffensmeier, De Boef, & Lin, ; Kaufmann & Petrocik, ). While both white men and women have shifted their support in a conservative direction, the movement has been stronger among men.

These differences among men and women vary across racial and ethnic groups in the United States. Among Latinos, women are more likely to hold liberal ideology and to support the Democratic Party than their male counterparts, and this gender gap is especially pronounced among younger Latinos (Bejarano, ). Among African Americans, support for the Democratic Party is strong among men and women alike, and so gender differences in voting behavior are minimal. Comparison among groups of women illuminates some important patterns. Smooth () points out that Democratic support among Latinas and black women account for much of the total gender gap. Despite the importance of Latina and black support, the news media most often relies on stories about white suburban "soccer moms" to account for the gender gap.

Some studies link gender gaps in partisan support to gender gaps in political attitudes. Studies of Western Europe, Canada, and Australia since the 1980s consistently find that women are more leftist in their issue preferences and, specifically, more supportive of feminist values, welfare state, and social spending and less supportive of market-based solutions than men (Gidengil, Blais, Nadeau, & Nevitte, ; Jelen, Thomas, & Wilcox, ; Studlar, McAllister, & Hayes, ). The salience of particular issues in any given election can shape fluctuations in the gender gap in the vote across elections. Men and women prioritize different issues, and feminist values and social spending appear to be more important to women in the American electorate (Kaufmann & Petrocik, ). For instance, elections that highlight social welfare issues may yield larger gender gaps in vote outcomes. In addition to salience, men and women often react differently to policy shifts. When government spending rises, both men and women's attitudes become more conservative-men's more rapidly than women's (Kellstedt, Peterson, & Ramirez, ).

Gender and Political Involvement

Do women participate in politics at similar levels to men? Research shows that sweeping generalizations are often inaccurate. Instead, the answer instead depends on the decade, country, type of participation, and subsets of women under consideration. Therefore, we map patterns in the gender gap across types of participation, beginning with the most pervasive forms of electoral participation and moving on to newer forms of protest participation and then to the participatory attitudes and activities that encourage engaged participation.

Gender and Voting Turnout

In contemporary elections, we observe only small gender gaps in voter turnout. Figure presents gender differences in voter participation across 16 countries. Differences are found by subtracting the percentage of men who cast a ballot from the percentage of women. Thus, negative values signify more men casting a ballot in a given election. For 11 of the 16 countries in the figure, men still turn out to vote at higher rates in recent elections. Yet countries vary in the size of the gap. For example, in Germany the gender gap reaches nearly 8 percentage points in favor of men's turnout. At the same time, in the United States the gap is 3 percentage points in favor of women's voter participation.

More egalitarian levels of voter turnout in recent decades can be attributed to greater equality in some of the factors that encourage voting for men and women alike. Relative to the past, many societies today witness greater gender equality in education and workforce participation. It is important to note that women have not yet achieved full equality in these areas. Further, voting is a unique political activity because it is pervasive and, among different modes of participation, requires the fewest resources such as time, information, and civic skills.

The Gender Gap and Other Electoral Activities

Although women's voter turnout has caught up to men's in recent decades, women's participation in other forms of electoral activity continue to trail. Even in recent years Burns, Scholzman, and Verba () find that U.S. women are consistently less likely to participate in many activities in American politics-including making campaign contributions, joining political organizations, and writing letters to elected representatives.

Patterns from the United States hold up in comparative perspective: men remain significantly more likely than women to have contacted a politician, joined a political party, or attended a political meeting. Across 18 industrialized democracies, "controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, women's odds of participation in political parties are 32.8% less than men's ..." (Coffe & Bolzendahl, ). Recent research shows that in nearly all of the 31 democracies in the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), men continue to outpace women in persuading others, working on campaigns, and contacting public officials (Kittilson & Schwindt-Bayer, ). At the same time, however, substantial variation exists across democracies.

The bulk of the literature on gender and political behavior focuses on the United States, and most of the cross-national research is limited to Western, industrialized nations. Recently, however, important research has considered the gendered nature of political participation in other regions of the world. Across Latin America, men's participation in both electoral and protest participation is noticeably higher than women's (Desposato & Norrander, ). Similarly, across sub-Saharan Africa, Coffe and Bolzendahl () find that women are less likely than men to contact a politician or participate in collective actions

Only recently has research begun to compare levels of political participation across different types of women. In the United States, black men and women participate at similar rates. Among women, Brown () finds that across forms of electoral participation, white and Asian women record higher levels than Latina or black women.

One of the most prominent sets of explanations for gender gaps in participation emphasizes individual-level factors, such as women's lower levels of the sorts of resources that enable political participation. Women simply have fewer resources, relative to men, and resources are crucial predictors of engagement. Women average lower levels of education, income, occupational prestige, civic skills, and ties with mobilizing groups such as trade unions (Norris, ; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, ). Importantly, gaps in political participation stem "much less from gender differences in the way that participatory factors are converted into activity than from gender differences in the levels of participatory factors, and not from a big difference in a single factor, but from the accumulated effects of deficits in a variety of factors" (Verba, Schlozman and Brady, p. 38).

Another set of explanations for gender gaps rests upon socioeconomic development. Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris () argue that perceptions of appropriate roles for women and men in politics are shaped by broader patterns of societal values and priorities, which in turn rest on economic development and religious traditions. More economically developed and secular countries are associated with more egalitarian gender attitudes. Given the speed of secularization in Europe and other democracies since the 1970s, religion may play a smaller role in structuring traditional gendered patterns among contemporary electorates. With fewer women tied to traditional social roles, the political arena has opened up to women's participation in politics.

The structure of the economy may influence gender and political behavior in a variety of ways. In addition to shaping values and attitudes, economic growth has also been considerably gendered. As more women have entered paid employment, they have often found themselves in particular sectors of the job market, often the types of occupations that are undervalued and underpaid. In this way, the gendered nature of paid employment continues to shape the distribution of resources. In a different fashion, Iversen and Rosenbluth () highlight the role of the welfare state in influencing men's and women's connections to the political landscape. Because public sector employment offers opportunities for women's paid employment, countries with a larger public sphere see strong support from women for leftist parties.

Group ties can encourage political participation. Shared gender identities or common "women's interests" may bolster women's participation. However, we have noted that gender is only one identity among many. Instead, among groups of women, shared interests may hold greater potential for mobilization. Given the historic importance of the civil rights movement, collective consciousness may be especially important among black women. Brown's () research shows that a psychological sense of collective group consciousness has the strongest impact among African American women, relative to other groups of women.

Nonelectoral Participation

Since the 1960s, citizens have increasingly participated in new forms of political activity. Whether categorized as "protest" or "unconventional" participation, these new activities are less electoral or partisan in nature and more focused on single issues. Examples of these protest activities include signing a petition, attending a demonstration, or boycotting a product. Following the complex patterns found in electoral participation, we cannot make blanket statements about gender differences in protest participation. Instead, gender differences vary across different forms of protest participation.

In the United States, women and men are equally likely to attend a protest or sign a petition (Burns, Scholzman, & Verba, ). And among these women, protest participation is higher among white and Asian American women (Brown, ). Across 18 industrialized democracies, women are more likely to sign a petition or raise money for a social or political group but less likely to join a demonstration (Coffe & Bolzendahl, ). Political consumerism, a set of political activities including buying or boycotting products or services for political or ethical reasons, is on the rise across most democracies. The pioneering work of Stolle, Hooghe, and Micheletti () reveals that women are more likely to engage in political consumer activities than men.

Gender equality may be stronger for some forms of nonelectoral participation because some of these activities (especially political consumerism) transcend the artificial boundaries between what is considered "political" and "personal." Historically, women were excluded from voting and more recently have experienced subtle (and not-so-subtle) signals that party politics is an arena for men, not women. Given the traditional gendered division of labor, women often spent more time caring for their families than men. In the past, women did more shopping than men, and buying or boycotting a particular product for ethical reasons is a natural extension of careful consumer activity. In fact, it is possible that some citizens do not perceive boycotting as a political act, in the traditional sense. Further, nonelectoral activity may be more gender egalitarian because of the close connections between protest movements in general and the feminist movement since the 1970s. The women's movement often relied on activities such as signing petitions and attending demonstrations. It is likely that women's initial involvement in the women's movement has translated into greater activity in these forms of participation for other issues.

Gender and Political Engagement

Gender gaps in political engagement persist today and are found across democracies. Although there is variation across countries, into the 2000s for nearly all 31 countries surveyed, men reported greater political interest, discussion, political knowledge, and attention to news about politics (Kittilson & Schwindt-Bayer, ). And these gaps are statistically significant in most instances. At the same time, gender gaps vary across countries. For example, the gender gap in political knowledge is 20 percentage points in Poland and 11 percentage points in the United States. Further, gender gaps in political engagement are not limited to the United States or Western Europe. Across Latin America, statistically significant gender gaps emerge for following political news, talking about politics with friends, and trying to convince others of one's political opinion (Desposato & Norrander, ).

Men also register higher political knowledge scores across democracies, including the United States and Britain (Burns, Schlozman, & Verba, ; Delli Carpini & Keeter, ; Dow, ; Frazer & Macdonald, ). During the 1996 American election, men averaged nearly 10 percentage points higher in their correct responses on political knowledge scales (Delli Carpini & Keeter, , p. 27). Similarly, responses to a question about Britain's electoral rules elicited correct responses from 83% of men and only 73% of women, excluding those who responded "don't know" (Frazer & Macdonald, , p. 71).

Importantly, the types of knowledge questions posed can affect whether or not a gender gap emerges. For standard factual items, such as government structures and party politics, gender gaps in political knowledge are exacerbated. However, gender gaps narrow for questions that are related to gender or more practical types of political knowledge questions, including suffrage, abortion rights and program benefits, and health-related questions (Delli Karpini & Keeter, , Dolan, ; Norris, ; Stolle & Gidengil, ).

In addition to actual political knowledge scores, there are gender differences in perceptions of political knowledge. In a study of social networks of political discussion partners, Mendez and Osborn () found that both men and women perceive women to be less politically knowledgeable than men, without regard to actual levels of knowledge. Given that political knowledge is often regarded as a prerequisite for political discussion and other forms of political involvement, perceptions of women's political knowledge may inhibit subsequent political activity.

The inability of individual-level factors to fully account for gender differences in the participatory attitudes and activities that lead to full political engagement has led scholars to consider the ways that social, economic, and legal change have altered gender differences in political involvement. Socialization of traditional gender roles may discourage women from participating in politics. Examining gender differences in political knowledge, Delli Carpini and Keeter () theorize that women's psychological connections to the political arena may be weaker due to "the legacy of de jure gender discrimination and attendant societal views of the 'proper' (i.e., nonpolitical) role of women" (p. 32). However, measuring the impact of gender role socialization on political activity at the individual level has proved difficult.

Even as women's levels of education and workforce participation have increased, gender differences in political engagement stubbornly endure in most countries. Socialization processes may work differently across political systems. Nancy Burns () points out that the social and political context can make gender more or less relevant. The salience of particular issues or policies may highlight gender inequalities in a given election. In addition, policy changes can mobilize certain groups around gender issues.

One of the most promising contextual influences has been the presence of women in politics at the elite level. The very presence of women in elected office may have a transformative influence on women and men, altering shared perceptions about the appropriate role of women in the political arena. In studies of the United States, there are mixed findings linking the presence of women in elected office to mass-level participation. Burns, Schlozman, and Verba () and Atkeson and Carrillo () suggest that women who live in U.S. states with women elected to visible political offices are significantly more likely to be politically informed, interested, and efficacious than similarly situated men. Sapiro and Conover () find that women residing in districts with women candidates are more politically engaged than women residing in districts without. However, other studies of American politics offer contradictory findings. Dolan () controls for party congruence among representative and constituent and finds little support for women in office bolstering women's efficacy or political activity. These contradictory findings may be explained by the fact that only particular forms of descriptive representation heighten women's participation. Having women in highly visible elected positions appears to be a crucial mechanism in linking the effects of women in office to increased political activity and more positive attitudes toward politics (Campbell & Wolbrecht, ). Highly visible offices are covered more often in the news media and signify power. In the United States, Atkeson () finds women candidates must be both competitive and visible to affect women's political efficacy, discussion, and knowledge.

Similarly, comparative studies of the links between women in office and mass participation offer contradictory results. Within Latin America, the gender gap in political participation narrows in countries where women have a greater share of seats in parliament (Desposato & Norrander, ). Across a set of European nations, Wolbrecht and Campbell () find descriptive representation narrows gender differences in political participation. Drawing on a cross-national survey of adolescents, differences in intentions to participate between girls and boys decline in countries with more women in office. The findings suggest a socialization effect in which women politicians serve as role models, inspiring young women to become active in politics. In contrast, other cross-national studies find little relationship between women in office and increased political involvement (Karp and Banducci, ; Kittilson & Schwindt-Bayer, ).

Contextual influence includes more than the economy and women's numerical representation. Important research has recently examined the ways electoral institutions and party systems influence political behavior (Dalton & Anderson, ). Indeed, political institutions and party systems may also condition gender gaps in political involvement. Kittilson and Schwindt-Bayer () find that inclusive electoral institutions that produce more proportional electoral outcomes narrow gender differences in mass political engagement. Examining an array of political activities and orientations across 31 democracies, they find proportionality heightens women's participation even more than men's by incentivizing parties to reach out to a variety of social groups. Indeed, electoral rules originally designed to promote social inclusion at the elite level also promote inclusion among the electorate.

Conclusions

Importantly, the burgeoning field of gender and political behavior shows that the way that ordinary citizens connect to the democratic process is gendered. On average, relative to men, women prefer different parties, are less engaged and less active in politics, and participate in different ways. Overall, voting is the mode of participation that yields the most gender equality. Casting a ballot is the most ubiquitous form of participation and carries the least amount of policy-specific input. Far fewer citizens engage in campaign work, donate to a party or candidate, or engage in other forms of electoral participation. These forms of participation also require more political resources, information, skills, and time. Gender differences in other forms of electoral participation mean that party and elected officials hear less from women in the electorate.

Measuring the scope of gender gaps in political preferences and political activity has proven easier than explaining the forces behind these dynamic gaps. Established explanations tend to fall within four categories: 1) women's lower levels of resources; 2) economic development and the welfare state; 3) socialization of gender roles; and 4) political context. To date, no single explanatory factor accounts for gender gaps across all types of participation, nor across different types of women. Certainly these sets of explanation are interrelated and likely interact in complex (and to date largely untested) ways.

Recent research in the context of American elections may offer some lessons for cross-national research. First, studies in the United States simultaneously examine patterns of men's and women's voting behavior (Kaufmann & Petrocik, ; Norrander, ). In contrast, much of the cross-national research focuses on explaining movement in women's voting preferences with explanations such as women's entrance into the workforce, divorce rates, and secularization. Gender is not synonymous with women, and we must account for shifts in men's voting patterns as well.

New research also highlights that gender interacts with race, ethnicity, sexuality, and class. Following Hancock (), future research in political behavior should account for multiple identities. These interactions are important not only for predicting political preferences but also for understanding how and why citizens engage with the democratic process in the first place. Studying these interactions is another important area of research because it helps us understand who has voice and the causal factors affecting these patterns. Research in the American context has begun to consider patterns among different types of women. Comparative research should follow suit by unpacking the relationships among gender, class, sexuality, race, and ethnicity. If we are to understand how parties can connect with subsets of women and men, then we must compare these relationships across a variety of party systems.

Individual-level, resource-based explanations for gender gaps in political involvement implicitly place the burden of equal participation on women themselves. The implications are that if-over time-women gain more resources, more education, more free time, and higher incomes, then women's political involvement will catch up to men's. In contrast, more recent contextual explanations offer an alternative perspective. Political institutions are not neutral but rather privilege some groups over others. To gain a rich understanding of contemporary political behavior, we must account for the contexts that hinder or bolster the political engagement of different types of people.

The role of political parties in shaping gender differences in political involvement may be an important avenue for future research. Parties decide whether or not to mobilize on the basis of gender. In this way, the gender gaps observed in political preferences may connect with gender gaps in political involvement. When and where political parties mobilize on the basis of gender or reach out to women as a potential bloc of voters, new issues may be prioritized in the political process. The very social and economic inequalities that are often cited as explanations for gender differences in participation are also sources of women's perspectives and interests in the political process. By highlighting specific interests and policy issues, parties may mobilize particular groups of women, drawing them into the political process.

Theories of gender and political behavior have evolved in recent years. As a discipline, we have come a long way since the early days of entering a dichotomous explanatory variable to "control for" gender, or for race or ethnicity, in that regard. Recent research highlights the rich diversity among women and reminds us that gender itself is a contested and dynamic concept. Future research on gender and political behavior must include more theorizing about complex interactions and a wide variety of methodological approaches to examine these relationships.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender and Political Behavior - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The burgeoning field of gender and political behavior shows that the way in which ordinary citizens connect to the democratic process is gendered. Gender differences in voting behavior and participation rates persist across democracies. At the same time, countries vary substantially in the size of these gender gaps.

# data[].attributes.headline
Global Issues: Gender Equality and Women'a empowerment 

# data[].attributes.subject
Global Issues: Gender Equality and Women'a empowerment 

# data[].attributes.headline
Facts and figures: Leadership and political participation

# data[].attributes.subject
Facts and figures: Leadership and political participation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Women in parliaments

Only 24 per cent of all national parliamentarians were women as of November 2018, a slow increase from 11.3 per cent in 1995 [1].

As of January 2019, 11women are serving as Head of State and 10 are serving as Head of Government [2].

Rwanda has the highest number of women parliamentarians worldwide. Women there have won 61.3 per cent of seats in the lower house [3].

Globally, there are 29 States in which women account for less than 10 per cent of parliamentarians in single or lower houses, as of November 2018, including 4 chambers with no women at all [4].

Across regions

Wide variations remain in the average percentages of women parliamentarians in each region. As of November 2018, these were (single, lower and upper houses combined): Nordic countries, 42.3 per cent; Americas, 30 per cent; Europe including Nordic countries, 27.7 per cent; Europe excluding Nordic countries, 26.6 per cent; sub-Saharan Africa, 23.6 per cent; Asia, 19.4 per cent; Arab States, 17.8 per cent; and the Pacific, 17 per cent. [5].

Other domains of government

As of January 2017, only 18.3 per cent of government ministers were women; the most commonly held portfolio by women ministers is environment, natural resources, and energy, followed by social sectors, such as social affairs, education and the family [6].

The global proportion of women elected to local government is currently unknown, constituting a major knowledge gap [7].

Women's representation in local governments can make a difference. Research on panchayats (local councils) in India discovered that the number of drinking water projects in areas with women-led councils was 62 per cent higher than in those with men-led councils. In Norway, a direct causal relationship between the presence of women in municipal councils and childcare coverage was found [8].

Expanding participation

As of November 2018, only 3 countries have 50 per cent or more women in parliament in single or lower houses: Rwanda with 61.3 per cent, Cuba with 53.2 per cent and Bolivia with 53.1 per cent; but a greater number of countries have reached 30 per cent or more. As of November 2018, 49 single or lower houses were composed of 30 per cent or more women, including 21 countries in Europe, 13 in Sub-Saharan Africa, 11 in Latin America and the Caribbean, 2 in the Pacific and 1 each in Asia and Arab States; more than half of these countries have applied some form of quotas - either legislative candidate quotas or reserved seats - opening space for women's political participation in national parliaments [10]. Gender balance in political participation and decision-making is the internationally agreed target set in the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action [11].

There is established and growing evidence that women's leadership in political decision-making processes improves them [12]. Women demonstrate political leadership by working across party lines through parliamentary women's caucuses - even in the most politically combative environments - and by championing issues of gender equality, such as the elimination of gender-based violence, parental leave and childcare, pensions, gender-equality laws and electoral reform [13].

Notes

[1] Single House or Lower House. Inter-Parliamentary Union. "Women in national parliaments, as of 1 November 2018.

[2] UN Women calculation based on information provided by Permanent Missions to the United Nations. Some leaders hold positions of both head of government and head of state.

[3] Inter-Parliamentary Union. "Women in national parliaments, as at 1 November 2018

[4] Ibid.

[5] Inter-Parliamentary Union. "Women in national parliaments, as at 1 November 2018

[6] Inter-Parliamentary Union and UN Women. "Women in Politics 2017 Map" Available at http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2017/4/women-in-politics-2017-map

[7] UN Secretary-General's Report on Women and Political Participation (2013). " Measures taken and progress achieved in the promotion of women and political participation ", A/68/184.

[8] R. Chattopadhyay and E. Duflo (2004_. "Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India," Econometrica 72(5), pp. 1409-1443; K. A. Bratton and L. P. Ray, 2002, "Descriptive Representation: Policy Outcomes and Municipal Day-Care Coverage in Norway," American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), pp. 428-437.

[9] Inter-Parliamentary Union. "Women in national parliaments, as at 1 November 2018

[10] UN Women calculation based on IDEA, Stockholm University and IPU, Global Data Base of Quotas on Women, http://www.quotaproject.org/, accessed November 2018, and IPU, http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm.

[11] Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, Critical Area G 'Women, Power and Decision-Making',

[12] UN Women. ' In Brief: Women's Leadership and Political Participation.'

[13] Inter-Parliamentary Union (2008). Equality in Politics: A Survey of Men and Women in Parliaments.

[Page updated January 2019]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facts and figures: Leadership and political participation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Only 24 per cent of all national parliamentarians were women as of November 2018, a slow increase from 11.3 per cent in 1995 [1]. As of January 2019, 11women are serving as Head of State and 10 are serving as Head of Government [2]. Rwanda has the highest number of women parliamentarians worldwide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was Henry Higgins who once exclaimed, "Damn, damn, damn, damn. Why can't a woman-be more like a man." ¹ Today, we might ask, "Why can't a man be more like a woman"-when it comes to being human, without extolling the virtues of male moral behavior.

Contrary to Freud's position on the superiority of male moral behavior, Robert Stoller, a psychoanalytic theorist back in the 1960s, believed girls are more inclined to experience a greater sense of social justice than males, who are prone to identify personal success with their position in the male hierarchy, allowing social inequities to fall where they may. ²

Also in contrast to Freud's position that masculinity is the natural state and femininity is at best a successful modification of it, Stoller believed the little boy's relationship to his mother makes development of feminine qualities more likely. To create her femininity, a little girl does not have to surmount her relationship with her mother. The little boy, however, has to break away from the pull of his mother's femaleness and femininity, a task often difficult and frequently overcompensated with masculine hubris.

Little boys, in defining themselves as masculine, not only emerge from an early age as less able to experience another's needs or feelings as their own, but in their quest for personal achievement, to disregard others and further separate from feminine values. Since girls do not have to separate from their mothers to establish their identities, it can be said that femininity is a more "natural" state.

Charles Horton Cooley, a sociologist in the early twentieth century, noted that while women were gaining the right to vote, the overriding fear among men was the uprooting of social organization, along with civilization itself. ³ He saw the difference between Americans and the tribes of Caesar's day not in human nature or capacity, but in social organization. Cooley believed the aspirations of democracy, including socialism, sprang from primary groups, such as the family, the play group of children, and the neighborhood or community group of senior citizens. These groups were held together by a sort of sympathy and mutual identification, for which "we" was the natural expression, embracing equal opportunity, fair play, service to the common good, free discussion, and kindness to the weak.

The cause of moral failure was the heavy fallout of crude commercialism and continuing economic concentration that had obscured the course of history in a society with vast mobile wealth. And wealth would have its way in American politics. Cooley mused that nothing in social psychology was more certain than that if we desired the good will of a rich or powerful person that we would adopt our way of thinking to that person. We abandoned our long-term goal for social equality and, having a few extra dollars in our pockets, became so entirely dominated by the habits of a democratic aristocracy that even leaders of the labor movement upheld the corporate establishment without knowing it.

The two social forces that Cooley foresaw as helping save American democracy were the confused and deprived immigrant, who was likely to be the initiator of a new primary trust in, and kindness toward, others. The other force for reform would involve the participation and guidance of women, organized as a social group. Women had the power of sympathy, as practiced in the family, children's play groups and the elderly community, that would allow for the transforming of our social institutions. The critical question was whether women would develop a group consciousness of their own or succumb to the degenerate thinking of others.

In sum, social equality and social structure need not be incompatible. We need several layers of social structure between children, their parents, and grandparents. Structure is also necessary in schools and the workplace. But social structure cannot be equated with social hierarchy. For example, fascism and democracy both provide structure, but the former is vertical, that is, decisions at the top of the totem pole are transmitted downward, while the latter is horizontal, with decisions across the bottom transmitted upward. The structure of democracy, with its egalitarian principle of one person, one vote, was horizontal from the beginning. The real choice is not between hierarchy and the absence of structure, but between vertical structure and horizontal structure.

*

This blog was co-published with PsychResilience.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was Henry Higgins who once exclaimed, "Damn, damn, damn, damn. Why can't a woman-be more like a man." 1 Today, we might ask, "Why can't a man be more like a woman"-when it comes to being human, without extolling the virtues of male moral behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Race & Gender in Politics
Lillian B. Rubin &squarf; Fall 2008

Race and gender-hot topics, even without the recent primary election that pitted a black man against a white woman. With it, they're incendiary. But even a brief look at the historical record tells us how much the past is parent to the present. The conflicting claims of race and gender, the arguments about who has been this society's greatest victim, whose issues are most immediately in need of redress, have been going on for a long time, most notably dating back to the post-Civil War era when the Suffragists confronted this question: Should they support passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would give black men the right to vote while leaving women out?

In language that reflected the heat of the issue, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who had been a strong and consistent voice for the abolition of slavery, told her followers that it was "a serious question whether we had better stand aside and see 'Sambo' walk into the kingdom first." Further, she argued, women voters of "wealth, education, and refinement" were needed to counteract the effect of former slaves whose "pauperism, ignorance, and degradation" could prove a danger to the American political system.

A century later, when President Lyndon Johnson expanded an earlier affirmative action order to include women as well as men of color, women and blacks once again found themselves in competition for the jobs that were newly open to them. And now again, we've seen race and gender cross swords in the most passionately contested political primary campaign in history. For those of us for whom the causes of gender and racial equality are inextricably linked, it has meant difficult and often painful choices. No matter who won, we lost something.

Yet even as I write those words, a "Yes, but . . ." springs to mind as I recall some of the struggles of the early years-what we felt then, how it looks now. I remember the outrage when the famous Virginia Slims cigarette ad appeared in the late 1960s. It featured a smiling-and, of course, beautiful-young woman smoking a cigarette, with a tagline reading, "You've come a long way, baby."

Never mind that we who had been struggling for gender equality didn't think the right to kill ourselves with cigarette smoke was great progress; we weren't in the mood to celebrate because we didn't think we'd come nearly far enough. Now, looking back, I can see that there was a certain truth to the line. We had come a long way from where we started, just as the civil rights struggle brought important, if not fully realized, gains for black Americans. And it's even more true now than it was then.

It was only a little more than forty years ago-well within the living memory of many of us-that the U.S. Supreme Court declared the statutes banning mixed-race marriage (laws that had been on the books since 1661) unconstitutional. In that same decade, fede...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Race & Gender in Politics | Dissent Magazine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Race and gender-hot topics, even without the recent primary election that pitted a black man against a white woman. With it, they're incendiary. But even a brief look at the historical record tells us how much the past is parent ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Curating Change 2014 | International Museum of Women

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Curating Change features the voices of incredible women thought-leaders, artists, and activists who curate their favorite stories from IMOW's rich global archives and past exhibitions. New curators will be added regularly through Spring 2014!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender and Politics - Research - Politics and International Relations (PIR)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Gender and Politics Research Group, convened by Professor Fiona Mackay, brings together researchers across Politics and International Relations, all of whom use gender and feminist analyses in their research. The members of the GPRG explore issues in relation to the broad themes of gender relations, power, identities, institutions, and change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul first ran for Congress in western New York six years ago, she found herself in the crosshairs of a vicious series of campaign ads.

"Literally millions of dollars were spent against me in negative campaign ads," Hochul says. They dredged up "the worst, most horrible pictures they could," casting her to look like a witch. It got bad enough that the 7-year-old girl living next door asked her mother to turn the TV off whenever the ads came on. "Mrs. Hochul looks too scary," she cried.

Those kinds of deeply personal attack ads can deter other women from running. Women can also be hampered by misperceptions about what women are capable of accomplishing, according to interviews with 30 women who hold elected office in New York. And those perceptions can lead them to make difficult choices between emphasizing their gender in their campaigns or going to great lengths to de-emphasize it.

"I was at the grocery store the other day and I saw one of those tabloid magazines had pictures of Hillary [Clinton], and it said she had gained 105 pounds," says Dina Refki, director of the Center for Women in Government and Civil Society at the University at Albany. The standard for how women should look is different, she says, than the standard for how men should look. "If Chris Christie was a woman, he would never have gotten elected because of his weight," she says.

Refki says there are still pervasive double standards for women in politics. "There's still a lot of commentary about how (a woman candidate) looks and how she dresses and her weight," she says. "It's all about the body and image of women, not their intellect."

"We are definitely scrutinized a little differently," Albany County Legislator Joanne Cunningham, D-Delmar, says. "What we wear, what we sound like, our voices, how we communicate. It's a real dynamic that exists for women."

It's easy to find clips of newscasters criticizing Hillary Clinton, for example, of sounding "shrill" or like a "nagging wife." When she discusses policy, she's criticized as "boring." When she's rehearsed, she's called "inauthentic."

Refki sees hope, though. "Younger people are more progressive toward social issues," she says. "Gender relations and gender roles are definitely changing."

That doesn't mean old attitudes about women don't continue to have influence. Several of the women we interviewed said constituents explicitly told them they wouldn't vote for a woman. When women hear that, they become "hesitant to play up their gender," according to Zoe Oxley, a professor of political science at Union College in Schenectady. "Women candidates have to decide: Am I going to emphasize certain feminine qualities or typically masculine qualities?"

Oxley points out the contrast between Clinton's campaign in 2008 and her campaign now. "Hillary Clinton decided to run strongly on her national security credentials and not talk very much about her role as a wife or a mother or her historical candidacy as the first woman [president]," Oxley says. Clinton and her campaign were "heavily criticized," Oxley says, for "downplaying her gender in 2008." "It appears that by her running the more masculine campaign that she opened herself up to criticism that we didn't really know who Hillary Clinton was because she was ignoring big parts of her identity." Those kinds of dilemmas can add stress to the already stressful process of trying to get elected.

Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan, the first woman to hold that office, spent most of her career working as an attorney. The Democrat was elected Albany's city treasurer before she became mayor.

But she's frequently assumed to have gotten her political start on the school board.

"I find it really interesting that it's a common misunderstanding that people make," she says. Although she points out that women do often get their start in politics on the PTA. "We tend to be on the front line when it comes to our kids and their education."

When women do break into the political scene, they're subject to various misconceptions. Sheehan worries that women are too often seen as more ethical than men. "It's not fair that women get held to that standard," she says. It can be seriously damaging for the women who don't live up to it; studies have shown that women lawyers who violate bar association standards, for example, are punished more harshly than men who commit the same transgressions.

Albany Common Councilwoman Dorcey Applyrs says she hasn't just suffered sexism from men. Women, too, betray their own biases.

"I had two men running against me in the primary," Applyrs, the Democratic 1st Ward representative, says. She'd be asked, "Do you think you're tough enough?"

"Those questions primarily came from women," she says.

"When I campaigned, there were a few difficult people who didn't understand why I was out and not home with my kids," says Cathy Gatta, a Democratic Schenectady County legislator representing Scotia, Niskayuna and Glenville. "When you hear that, it's hard to respond to because [at the time] it was 2013, not 1950. ... The first time it was said to me, I wanted to cry. I was flustered because I just wanted to do what I could for the county and village." She discovered, though, that if she turned it around on them - "My kids are great. How are yours?" - she was able to dodge the implication. "The first time [I was asked that] it was a man," she says. "The next time, it was a woman."

"I don't want to downplay the historic nature of [Obama's] candidacy," says Oxley. But, "breaking the sex barrier is more difficult than breaking the race barrier, just because of the nature of the office and the expectations of the office consistent with our beliefs about masculinity. I do think the challenges that Clinton is facing are more substantial and more significant. [Obama has] even alluded to that."

And for women of color, the challenges of politicking are manifold: Albany County Legislator Lucille McKnight, who represents the South End, says one person told her, "Oh, no, not another black leader." "I have to work twice as hard," she says. "That's how you always feel when you're black or African-American."

When Carmella Mantello, who is white, ran for mayor of Troy four years ago, her opponent Photoshopped her head onto a man's body. "You have to have tough skin," Mantello, a Republican who now serves as the Troy City Council president, says. "I would love to not have to deal with that, but you do have to deal with it."

When Karen Johnson, vice chairwoman of the Schenectady County Legislature, ran for mayor, her Republican opponent, Frank Duci, "said if I was a man he would punch me in the nose, and I should stay home with my children. ... It was a private conversation that ended up in the newspaper, and it didn't look good for him." (The newspaper account has Duci telling his Democratic opponent to stay home and "wash the dishes.")

U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand says the first time she ran for office her opponent disregarded her as "just a pretty face."

"He used the ugliest picture of me he could find ... and put a green wash over it so I looked like a crazy witch," the Democrat says. "It's a tactic that actually does work. When you talk about a woman's appearance, it undermines her. It distracts voters from what she stands for, why she's running, what she cares about."

And once the campaign is over, women say they continue to face discrimination in office.

State Sen. Liz Krueger, D-Manhattan, says women should brace themselves for blowback if they're outspoken. "Women need to understand that some people will attack them because they are seen as strong, opinionated women," Krueger says. She says she noticed that after she and other women legislators began to advocate for stricter gun legislation, they received "threats of violence and death threats."

"I just thought everybody who was outspoken against the NRA and strongly in support of stronger gun-control laws got threatened by the gun crazies," she says. When she and several other women legislators talked to their male counterparts who'd also been outspoken on guns, they discovered a big disparity: "It turns out only the women get death threats," Krueger says.

State Sen. Betty Little, R-Queensbury, said when she first got into politics, she noticed "a difference in friendliness." "The men were chummier with each other," she says. "They would all plan where they were going out to lunch and leave me out."

"When I became supervisor and stepped out of the roles people were used to seeing me in, I encountered gender bias," says state Sen. Kathy Marchione. "I ran meetings and off-color jokes were made, jokes I know were meant to distract me."

"I was criticized initially for being a young woman," says U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-Essex County. In fact, security on Capitol Hill didn't initially believe she was actually a congresswoman, asking to see her lawmaker badge.

"A lot of the advice," Stefanik says, "turned out to be bad advice." She says she was encouraged to downplay her age. They told her to "try to be something you're not and sound like everybody else."

"But I realized pretty quickly that authenticity and embracing the fact I was young, a woman, and not a traditional candidate ended up being a real strength," Stefanik says.
Matthew Hamilton, Leigh Hornbeck, Michaela Kilgallen and Jennifer Gish contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul first ran for Congress in western New York six years ago, she found herself in the crosshairs of a vicious series of campaign ads. "Literally millions of dollars were spent against me in negative campaign ads," Hochul says. [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Women are not new to leadership; think of Cleopatra or Queen Elizabeth. Think of the women who led the civil rights and education reform movements. But women are still outnumbered by men in the most prestigious positions, from Capitol Hill to the board room. Barriers and Bias: The Status of Women in Leadership examines the causes of women's underrepresentation in leadership roles in business, politics, and education and suggests what we can do to change the status quo.

Join the conversation by using hashtag #leadHERship

What Is the Gender Leadership Gap?

In short, women are much less likely than men to be in leadership positions. In universities, businesses, courts, unions, and religious institutions, male leaders outnumber female leaders by wide margins. Our elected state representatives, for example, are far more likely to be men than women:

The gender leadership crisis is even worse in the U.S. Congress, where women make up only 19 percent of our elected officials. And it's plain dismal among governors, only six of whom are women.

For women of color, leadership opportunities are particularly elusive. Asian, black, and Hispanic women make up 17 percent of workers in Standard and Poor's 500 companies but fewer than 4 percent of executive officials and managers. The further you move up the ladder, the fewer women are there.

Why Is There a Gap?

There is no lack of qualified women to fill leadership roles. Women earn the majority of university degrees at every level except for professional degrees, and more women are in the workforce today than ever before. There must be something inherent in the system that's working against them.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports that 30,000 cases of sex discrimination in the last five years were settled or decided in favor of the person who filed the charge. But blatant sex discrimination isn't the only barrier; hostile work environments, negative stereotypes about women in leadership, and bias also keep women out of the top spots.

One key obstacle to women's leadership is unconscious or implicit bias, which can cloud judgment in ways people are not fully aware of. To help better understand the power of hidden bias and how to mitigate its effects, AAUW created an online test in collaboration with Harvard University and Project Implicit.

*Desktop or laptop computer required. Not compatible on mobile or tablet devices.

Why Should We Care about Women Leaders?

Having gender equality at the top benefits everyone. It's good for both men and women to shift stereotypical ideas around gender roles - just as the status quo is holding women back from leadership roles, it is holding men back from embracing caretaking and support roles. It's good for families, whether they rely on women as the sole breadwinners or share a two-earner income. It's good for business to draw on the creativity of a diverse staff and recognize the purchasing power of women. It's good for the country, because the more diverse the pool, the more talented our leaders will be.

From the Experts

Watch the AAUW researchers talk about the importance of women in leadership.

What Can I Do to Close It?

The leadership gender gap is persistent and pervasive but solvable. There are many steps we can take as individuals, employers, and policy makers to create significant change.

Individuals

Learn about your own subconscious biases by taking our brief online test.

Employers

Employers should create an equitable workplace culture, with flexibility and fair expectations for both men and women, and they should enforce fair policies through tools like diversity training and blind résumé screening.

Policy makers

There are many proposed pieces of legislation and regulations that would promote women leaders through pay equity (the Paycheck Fairness Act), family support (the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act), and salary transparency.

Read more about the AAUW recommendations.
Solutions from AAUW programs

AAUW's Start Smart and Work Smart workshops empower women with the tools they need to successfully negotiate their salaries.

Our annual National Conference for College Women Student Leaders brings together 1,000 women for workshops, speakers, and professional development.

Stories from Women Leaders

Check out these AAUW stars who are proving that women can be powerful leaders on campus and beyond. Read more "

The world needs to value women's contributions as much as men's - our economic opportunity, peace, and security are on the line. Read more "

Thanks to deeply ingrained stereotypes, time and again women leaders are labeled as bossy, cold, aggressive, and worse. Read more "

When it comes to civic participation and mobilization (online and on the ground), black women are leaders. But they remain severely underrepresented in electoral politics. Read more "

Barriers and Bias is made possible by the generosity of AAUW's Mooneen Lecce Giving Circle and the AAUW members whose gifts help support AAUW research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Barriers and Bias: The Status of Women in Leadership

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why do men still vastly outnumber women in leadership positions? There is no lack of qualified women to fill leadership roles. Women earn the majority of university degrees at every level except for professional degrees, and more women are in the workforce today than ever before.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Oprah Winfrey's Speech at the 2018 Golden Globes.docx