Gender and Politics April 13, 2005
When we speak about politics, we are essentially speaking about power – the power to distribute scarce resources, to institutionalize particular values, and to legitimately use force or violence .
Currently more women are running for and being elected to public office, and more are obtaining political appointments than ever before. Nevertheless the percentage of women in general decision making and in the military remains small.
To the extent that men and women have different degrees of political power, they will have unequal input into political decision making, and consequently, their interests and experiences may be unequally represented in law and public policy.
The Gender Gap: Political Attitudes and Activities.
Voting – Between 1920 and 1960, men’s rate of voting exceeded women’s rate by a considerable margin, although there was a gradual increase in women’s voting rates over the four decades. During the 1960s, there was sharp increase in women’s voting rates and, by 1978, the margin of difference between women’s and men’s voting rates was just about 2 percent. Lake and Berglio have attributed this to the rise in women’s level of educational attainment during this period as well as the rapid increase in the number of women working outside the home.
In the 1980 President election, two significant changes occurred: more women than men cast ballots, and women voted significantly differently than men. 47% of women voted for Reagan compared to 55% percent of men.
54% of women voted for Clinton – while only 43% of men voted for Clinton. In the 2000 election, 54% of women voted for Gore vs. 42% of men..
This difference held in the 2004 election. (as per exit polls) The majority of men voted for Bush (55%). 44% of men voted for Kerry. On the other hand, 51% of women voted for Kerry and 48% voted for Bush (George W.)
The gender gap involves more than voting behavior; there are particular perspectives on political issues that underlie individuals’ votes. Research consistently shows that women more than men express concern about health care, childcare, education, poverty, and homelessness. In contrast, men more than women express concern about the federal deficit, taxes, energy, defense and foreign policy.
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, women have expressed greater pessimism about the economic condition of the country and have showed greater favor toward increased government activity in the form of programs to help families, even if such programs require increased taxes.
Women prefer domestic social spending over military spending. Women more than men express concern about crime and drugs. Women are also more likely than men to favor gun control laws.
However, since 9/11, there has been a change in some women preferring spending on anti-terrorism. These have been labeled “Security Moms.” But the situation is much more complicated than that. The Lake Snell Perry poll says that women, security means more than averting terrorist attacks. It means issues such as preventing violence against women, health care an social security.
Despite sex differences in these areas, on other topics, men’s and women’s political opinions are more likely to converge. For example, women and men share similar views on protecting the environment, reproductive freedom and abortion. Also, after 2001, women and men shared similar views on terrorism.
Other factors besides gender are race and ethnicity, social class, age, education and employment status. Example, both African American women and African American men overwhelmingly supported Kerry.
However, race is as important as gender. In the 2004 election:
62% of white men voted for Bush.
55% of white women voted for Bush.
30% of non-white men voted for Bush.
24% of non-white women voted for Bush.
Contrary to the popular myth that men are more interested and active in politics, there are actually few differences between the sexes in their level of political activism. Although women are well represented among campaign staff and volunteers, men have traditionally dominated party conventions. Women’s political participation includes what Doan and Leighley call “nonelectoral participation- such as interest-group activities and community participation.
Although women are well represented among campaign staff and volunteers, men have traditionally dominated party conventions. People of color are underrepresented as well.
The nature of the gender gap in political activism is small, varies across types of political activities and can largely be explained by the greater resources (time and money) that men have and by the different experiences that men and women have at both work and in politics (belief that it is a man’s game.)
There does not seem to be a gender gap in working for a party or candidate, wearing a button, displaying a sticker or sign or attending a political meeting. Men discuss politics and contribute money more often that women, but is a small difference.
Individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to vote and discuss politics. Being married increases the likelihood that individuals will vote or wear political buttons. And being employed or being a student increases the likelihood that an individual will discuss politics.
Doan and Leighley analyzed the 1996 election. They found that the emphasis on the “soccer moms” misrepresented both these women and did not address the opinions of other women nor men as the fathers of young children. Doan and Leighley believe that “the imagery of the soccer mom was developed and sustained partly by conventional beliefs regarding fundamental differences in the political nature of men and women.”
The soccer mom was characterized as being white, middle class, tends to vote republican, drives a minivan or SUV, very busy because she is family oriented. Since 9/11, The soccer mom has been reinvented as the “Security Mom.”
“The whole security mom thing is bogus," says pollster Anna Greenberg, a chief debunker. For openers, those legendary security moms, white married women with children younger than 18, are only 22 percent of all women. And only one in four put terrorism at the top of her list. They are no more or less swayed by security than by their husbands. More to the point, they aren't swinging. The married white women with young children are mostly and reliably conservative. They are already Republicans.
According to Doan and Leighley, the results of their study directly contradicts the soccer mom image. There research supports the empirical evidence that individuals with children are significantly less likely to participate in various political activities.
The empirical evidences provides no support for the soccer mom hypothesis. Soccer moms were no more mobilized in the 1996 campaigns than were “soccer dads,” working moms, or professional women.
What Doan and Leighley want us to understand is that “while women and men are participating at roughly the same rates, women’s political identities are still defined by society in ways that do not reflect this reality.”
The stereotypical soccer mom or the transformed “the security Mom” is not representative of most women. Many of the political issues that affect women (i.e. abortion and reproduction issues, sexual harassment in the work force, pay inequities, domestic violence, child care) were not addressed in the 1996 campaign. Nor were they discussed in the 2004 election. Instead both presidential candidates focused on concerns that catered to soccer moms (e.g. crime and taxes).
In the 2004 elections, both Kerry and Bush emphasized the war on Iraq, terrorism – although Kerry addressed the economy and choice. Bush emphasized moral values. The media was quick to asset that "moral values" was the main reason for Bush's victory. However, the Lake pll said that when voters were given more categories to choose from in the exit polls, "moral value" fell to 10% (compared to the CNN poll that said 22% but gave respondents few ategories to choose).
In the Lake Poll (Votes for Women 2004), jobs and the economy was the number one issue. Homeland security and terrorism followed with 19 percent. 61% of the women voters felt that "women's equality under the law" was a top issue that candidates did not discuss enough. 60% listed "equal pay for wome," 58% said "prevention of violence against women" and 54 percent said "appointing women to leadhership positions in the administration. More than a third of women polled said abortion rights did not receive enough attention during the campaign. These opinions were shared by younger and older women, married and unmmaried and
Deomocartic, Republian and Independent women.
A majority of voters, 55% agreed that if US women had equal rights under the law it would strengthen their economic well-being. 64% women; 43% men.
However, since so few women hold higher political offices, we need to evaluate the explanations given for this extreme difference.
Explanations of why this is include: socialization. This argument suggests that boys are told they can grow up to be president some day; the best girls can do is hope to grow up to marry the man who will be president. Therefore, they are not socialized to the possibility. However, current research found no gender differences in the political views of school-age children.
Another theory - not many role models for women
Another explanation - women have greater difficulty meeting the demands of public life given their domestic responsibilities. It is not surprising therefore that women typically enter politics at a later age than men do and the at female political candidates are more likely than men to be single, widowed or divorced.
Another explanation - women lack the credentials (education) - this doesn’t seem to be a viable argument.
Better explanations - women may be relatively scarce in public office because of prejudice and discrimination against them that may occur on two levels: among the electorate and within political offices. The public has grown more accustomed to women running for political office. However, they often view women and men candidates through stereotypical views, e.g. women would be better at social issues such as education, child care, health care, while men would be more capable than female cnadidates in handling deense, foreign policy, economic issues.
Recent research demonstrates that female and male candidates are covered differently by the media. For example the media give greater coverage to female candidates' positions on what are typically considered female issues (e.g. education, drugs) and greater coverage to male Candidates' positions on so-called male issues (e.g. national security trade). However, research shows that candidates whether male of female, who receive female-typical media coverage are perceived as less viable than candidates who receive male- typical media coverage.
Prejudice and discrimination against female candidates can be found at a second level as well: within the political practices.
Research indicates the more formidable obstacles for women seeking public office today are incumbency and access to campaign funds.
It is at the state level that women have made their greatest political gain in recent years. 29.6% - state legislatures. Racial and ethnic minorities have also made their greatest inroads at the state and local level.
A record number of women will serve in the US House of Representatives next year, while the number of women in the Senate will remain steady at 14. Eight women picked up open seats or unseated incumbents, and 57 female incumbents retained their seats, in addition to three non-voting delegates (representing Washington, DC, Guam, and the US Virgin Islands). Of the eight new women elected to the US House, five are pro-choice, pro-women’s rights Democrats who were endorsed by the Feminist Majority PAC: Melissa Bean (IL-8), Cynthia McKinney (GA-4), Gwen Moore (WI-4), Allyson Scwartz (PA-13), and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FL-20). In a close race, Bean ousted Rep. Phil Crane (R-IL), a longtime opponent of women’s rights and reproductive rights. Three are Republicans, all of whom are anti-choice.
Women senators and representatives rarely have held leadership positionsin the federal government. One of the reasons for women's exclusion from some positions and committees is their lack of seniority.
Other positions of power - government positions - such as National Security Advisor (Condoleezza Rice) , US. Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg). The Justices themselves have not done much to increase diversity in employment within the Court itself. - Majority are white and male.
Military– Bourg and Segal -
The military is clearly recognized as a heterosexual, masculine institution.
The military has played a significant role in helping to create and does play a role in sustaining, gender and sexuality stratification. The military reflects and enforces the traditional stereotypes.
Militarism perpetuates the equation between masculinity and violence and war encodes violence into the notion of masculinity generation after generation.
Women make up about 14% of active-duty personnel. More racially diverse than in prior decades. Women have always played a military role. But during the last 40 years, there has been expansion of what roles they played.
In the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, a series of events took place that greatly expanded both the number and the roles of female military personnel.
First, in 1967, Congress passed Public law 90-30 which removed the limit on the number of enlisted women and the number of promotions for women officers.
In 1973 the military draft was replaced by the all-volunteer force, causing worried military planners to turn to the recruitment of women as a means to keep enlistment up. Several court cases overturned the military’s policy of awarding dependent benefits to female personnel using different standards from those applied to male personnel.
1975 - Defense Department lifted its ban on parenting for female personnel and made discharge for pregnancy available on a voluntary basis.
In 1976 ROTC began to accept women as were military academies. Flight schools were open to women.
In 1978 the federal court struck down the Navy’s policy of barring women from sea duty.
During the Carter administration, there appeared a strong commitment to recruit women for the military which was pared down under the Reagan era.
From the 1970s to 1994 the US military utilized what was called the risk rule to determine the military jobs from which women would be barred. For the most part, these were ground combat and combat support jobs that entail substantial risk of being killed in action or captured as a prisoner of war.
In 1993 then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin, on behalf of the Clinton administration issued a directive ordering the armed services to permit women to fly aircraft in combat.
In 1994 the Air Force and the Navy announced they had female pilots who were combat ready.
Also in 1994 the Army and Marine Corp opened some combat jobs to women but continued to exclude them from direct combat, such as armor, infantry, and field artillery on the grounds that they lacked the physical strength needed for these jobs and their presence would disrupt morale.
Informally, the branch makes the decision as to whether or not women can serve in combat positions.
However, despite several other exceptions – for example, women are prohibited from serving in units where the cost of renovations to accommodate them would be prohibitively expensive and in support jobs that operate and remain with direct ground combat troops – it is estimated that about 95% of military posts are open to women.
The exclusion of women from combat roles has historically had important consequences for female military personnel, since such positions command substantially higher salaries on average than support positions do. They are all critical for promotion to the highest military ranks, in fact, it has been argued that combat exclusion has been women’s greatest impediment in achieving promotions.
Many recent analysts have argued that the difference between many combat roles and combat support roles is more a matter of semantics than a reflection of the actual danger attached to the positions. For example, women were permitted to fly combat aircraft, they regularly piloted the tanker aircraft that refuel fighters. They participated in the US invasion of Panama and were commanded by a female Army captain. In 1990 and 1991 women accounted for more than 10% of the military troops deployed in the Persian Gulf crisis. Nevertheless, while the probability of women using this training increases with every military conflict that the US enters, the official exclusion of women from direct ground combat remains in place.
Currently women make up 14% of active-duty U.S. military personnel. Varies - in the Navy 94% of positions are open to women; women constitute 12% of Navy enlisted personnel and 14% of officers. Women serve on almost all classes of ships except submarines.
Army 70%, 15% of enlisted personnel and 13% of officers. , Marine Corps 62% and smallest percentage of women, 5% of enlisted women and 4 percent of officers.
A number of arguments have been made over the years to justify the exclusion of women from military combat and now from certain aspects of military combat. These include : women lack the necessary physical strength to perform adequately;their capacity for pregnancy and childbearing makes them inappropriate combatants. Women’s participation in combatants would reduce unit cohesion by disrupting male bonding and promoting fraternization.
MAXWAC and REFWAC studies in the 1970’s showed that women performed well and without negative impact on unit performance
Widespread sexism exists often in the form of sexual harassment. 75% of women in the military have personally experienced sexual harassment.
Besides sexual harassment there is also non-sexual harassment. This is known as gender harassment. Gender harassment refers to harassment that is not sexual, and is used to enforce traditional gender roles, or in response to the violation of those roles. This form of harassment also may aim to undermine women’s attempt at gaining power or to describe that power as illegitimately obtained or exercised. Many Army women report that gender harassment on the job is more prevalent than sexual harassment. (Laura Miller)
Laura Miller examined how men in structurally dominant positions use resistance tactics against women in structurally subordinate positions in the military. These men described themselves as unjustly constrained or controlled by military women. Furthermore, these men tend to believe that women’s power is usually gained illegitimately and that women take advantage of their gender to promote their own careers According to her research many men perceive themselves to be disadvantaged in relation to women in the military and retaliate against women in covert ways.
This behavior includes sabotage, foot-dragging, feigning, ignorance, constant scrutiny, gossip and rumors and indirect threats harassment targets women but is not sexual; often it cannot be traced to its source.
Some forms of gender harassment –
Resistance to Authority – they do not outright refuse to obey orders; yet they challenge women’s authority by not complying completely. They feign ignorance about what is expected of them, or encase in foot-dragging Women sometimes hesitate to report uncooperative behavior because it could be interpreted as lack of leadership skills or as inability to get along with other officers. Such an appraisal in turn could affect work evaluations and promotion opportunities.
Constant Scrutiny - . Hostile men use constant scrutiny to catch individual women making mistakes and the use the mistakes to criticize the abilities of women in general. The same is not true for men. Scrutiny as a harassment strategy is particularly safe in the military because it fits into the functioning of the organization. Once cannot be punished for seeking out and correcting errors, and it would be quite difficult to prove that women are being watched more closely than men.
Gossip and Rumors - Research on power and social interactions found that "rumors are especially likely to flourish among people who see that their fates are in other people’s hands." Army women are often the subject of untrue gossip about their sex lives. Stories of sexual harassment or sexual activity between men and women soldiers were often framed in terms of the natural consequences of women "being there": Rumors and gossip about sexuality thus communicated the inappropriateness of women serving among men, or implied that women’s power was often gained illegitimately through sexual favors.
Sabotage – Miller found evidence of sabotage, as a form of gender harassment, only in work fields that are nontraditional for women. Sabotage of equipment and tools was reported by women in mechanical fields. The threats are usually communicated in a tone of concern for women’s safety, for morale, or for combat effectiveness. This concern, whether genuine or not, gives the teller some sense of safety from reprimand for his statements.
Indirect Threats – Some soldiers report that some of their fellow men would rape women who dared to enter infantry or armor units. The men almost always wrote or spoke in terms of what other men would do.
Which men are most likely to object to women’s current or expanded participation in the military?
Minority men did not vary by rank and were most likely to prefer to allow women to volunteer for the combat arms they so desired. Men of color, regardless of rank, may be more likely than White men to identify with women, who are fellow members of a minority; or they may be less likely to feel threatened by equal opportunity issues.
Bourg and Segal - The relationships between the military, gender, and sexuality can be examined at multiple levels.
The military affects gender stratification in at least three ways:
First, it contributes to cultural definitions and images of masculinity and femininity. (e.g. warrior masculinity). This experience has included subtle and not so-subtle messages that women and homosexuals are inferior and not able to or suitable to serve their country.
Second, the military provides its members differential access to power and resources. The military commands large proportions of the national budget and employs more people than any other single organization in the country. It has tremendous power to influence national politics. Further women in the military hit a glass ceiling.
Third, military service has historically had strong connections with the rights inherent in U.S. citizenship.
The effects of social-structural and cultural factors on Women's military roles:
Characteristics of the military, (examples when there are shortages of qualified men, especially during times of national emergency, most nations have increased women's military roles.
Among the social-structural variables that affect women's military participation are demographic patterns, labor-force characteristics, economic factors, and family
structure.
High unemployment rates especially among young men are associated with a ready supply of men to serve in the armed forces and relatively low opportunities for women in the military.
The greater family responsibilities for the average woman, the less women's representation in the armed forces.
structural characteristics of society, and cultural values regarding gender and family.
A culture can exaggerate or minimize the importance of sex differences (in physical or psychological traits) and thereby justify or reject a gender-based division of social roles. The extent to which a culture continues to assign women the primary role of reproduction and childcare affects women's military roles. Shared parenting, extended family, government-sponsored parental leave, and community-supported child care are structures that enable parents to be involved in their societies without neglecting children.
|
|
