Consider the readings from April 6th – April 20. What do these texts tell us about potential problems related to state level political elections and representation? In other words, what changes (if any) need to be made to the way in which we elect, finance, organize, and empower our representatives? Possible issues to consider include: political history & culture, campaign financing, gerrymandering, race, and/or gender. Utilize an example to help demonstrate your contention. Write an essay about 750 words. There are several articels and readings you need.
7_1_female_legislators.pdf
7_2_legislative_discrimination.pdf
8_1_shenkman__gross_ignorance____pp._13_36___24_pgs_.pdf
sources.pptx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
REVIEW ESSAY
Women in State Legislatures and State Legislative
Research: Beyond Sameness and Difference
Anne Marie Cammisa, Suffolk University
Beth Reingold, Emory University
ABSTRACT
The literature on women in state legislatures has grown dramatically over the last few
decades, examining in detail their personal characteristics, behavior, and the impact
they have had on state legislatures. Highlighted throughout this body of work are the
many ways in which these female officials differ from their male colleagues. While it
may once have been necessary to identify and categorize women legislators, we now
need to broaden our research to examine both the diversity among women state legislators and the contexts in which they may or may not make a difference. This broader
focus should include analyses of state-level forces, such as legislative professionalism
and state political culture, and it should also investigate more thoroughly policy outcomes and processes. Interactions between gender and other social forces, such as race,
ethnicity, and class, should also be explored in greater depth. This new direction would
build on the richness of the existing literature and allow the two fields of women in
politics and state politics to better inform and contribute to each other.
The scholarly literature on women in American state legislatures
has grown dramatically in volume and complexity over the last 30 years, just
as both the number and diversity of women in these bodies have increased.
Since 1971, the percentage of women in state legislatures has more than
quadrupled. In 2004, women comprise 22 percent of all state legislators, from
a low of nine percent of the South Carolina legislature to a high of 37 percent in Washington state (CAWP 2003a). Although women are still numerically underrepresented in state legislatures, women legislators are now both
visible and vocal. At the same time, the literature on women in state legisla-
tures, which Emmy Werner began in 1968, has grown from a small and often-overlooked addendum to state politics research to a rich and varied subState Politics and Policy Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Summer 2004): pp. 181-210
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:59:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
l82 CAMMISA AND REINGOLD
field unto itself. The literature on women in state legislatures is at the nexus
of two related fields: women in politics and state politics. As we argue
throughout this essay, more attention needs to be paid to how these two fields
can and should interact with, and contribute to, one another.
State legislatures have become a fruitful place to study women in politics. The absolute number of women in these bodies, while small compared
to the number of men, has always been much higher than the number of
women in state-level executive positions or in Congress. Researchers also have
found that the relatively easy access to state legislators and the comparability of institutional arrangements in the state legislatures have made them
more conducive for study than their national, statewide, and local counterparts. Thus, the population of female officeholders in state legislatures has
been neither too small and homogeneous nor too large and heterogeneous
to prohibit research from being either practical or meaningful.
We have two goals in this review essay. First, we outline the research ques-
tions that have guided the study of women in state legislatures and the empirical conclusions reached. Second, we analyze the strengths and weaknesses
of this literature, suggesting new directions for future research. In summarizing existing research and proposing an agenda for future research, we hope
to enhance the discipline’s theoretical and empirical understanding of women, gender, state politics, and legislative policymaking.
We identify two main trajectories in the study of women in state legisla-
tures. First, research on these women as individuals has focused on their
social, economic, and political characteristics and their legislative roles. For
decades, researchers have asked questions about the women themselves: What
types of women enter political life? How do they deal with their dual role as
women (read: mothers and homemakers) and legislators? How are these
outsiders different from the men who created and inhabit these legislatures?
The second research trajectory has focused attention on legislative and political institutions and women’s roles in them. Scholars have asked how well,
and to what extent, women legislators are integrated and included in the
process and how the influx of women into legislatures can change legislative
agendas, processes, and outcomes.
Our analysis of the existing literature on women in state legislatures leads
us to suggest shifting the research agenda in two related ways. First, to un-
derstand women legislators more thoroughly, scholars should take fuller
account of the diversity among them. Taking this diversity into account will
move us beyond the dualistic “female as other” framework that has focused
attention on sex differences in legislators’ personal characteristics, professional status, and behavior in office. Second, scholars should focus more atten-
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:59:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SUMMER 2004 / STATE POLITICS AND POLICY QUARTERLY 183
tion on the impact of state- and institutional-level forces on legislative behavior, thereby integrating the two existing research trajectories we identify.
The extant research is rich with information about individual characteris-
tics and behaviors of women (and men) in state legislatures, but we need to
consider more thoroughly the contexts that give meaning to such character-
istics and shape such behaviors. Acknowledging that state legislatures have
been and continue to be male-dominated is necessary, but not sufficient. To
explain women’s behavior and role in state legislatures more fully, we must
do so in the context of variations in state political culture, legislative norms
and structures, and the continuing process of legislative professionalization.
In other words, we need to examine more closely the role of gender in the
interactions between institutions and individuals. Such a neo-institutional
approach has taught us much about comparative politics and American
national politics, and it holds much promise for the study of women, gender, and politics in the states.
INDIVIDUALS
The earliest research on women state legislators focused on their individual
characteristics: age, income, professional experience, and family background.
Women state legislators have been examined as newcomers and compared
to the men who already inhabited state legislatures. This comparison also
extended beyond demographic traits to analyses of how women’s behavior
in state legislatures differed from men’s. This trajectory of research, which
continues even now, has spawned a large body of knowledge about who
women state legislators are and how they behave in, and are integrated into,
the male world of legislative life. A second trajectory of research, influenced
by the feminist movement and building on the first, explored how women
might transform state legislatures.
Demographics
The first females entered a United States state legislature in 1894, when three
Republican women were elected to the Colorado statehouse (CAWP 2003c).
However, it was not until three-quarters of a century later that women state
legislators, still a small but growing minority, captured the attention of political scientists (Werner 1968). In the late 1960s, politics was still largely a
man’s world. Upper-middle-class white women (those women who would
be most likely to run for office) were underrepresented in the workforce,
particularly in decisionmaking positions in business and government. Instead, most of these women stayed in the private sphere, focusing their en-
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:59:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
l84 CAMMISA AND REINGOLD
ergies on home and hearth, and perhaps community or church service (Di-
amond 1977; Kirkpatrick 1974; Stoper 1977; Thomas 1994). Thus, early
scholars of women state legislators tended to ask questions related to wom-
en’s gender roles: What type of women would enter the male-dominated
realm of elective office, and how would they behave once they got there?
Emphasis was placed on the “otherness” of women legislators, who were
newcomers to, and a distinct minority in, legislative life. There was an underlying assumption, both in this literature and in society at large, that a
woman already had a career, that of wife and mother (Stoper 1977). To take
on political office was to take on a second career, and there were questions
as to whether one or both of these careers would suffer because of it.
How do women in state legislatures differ from their male colleagues?
Early studies concluded that they came to office in a less direct route, fulfilling
private sphere expectations before entering the public sphere. Most early
women legislators had raised families and done volunteer civic or party work
before making their way into office (Johnson and Carroll 1978; Kirkpatrick
1974; Prestage 1977; Werner 1968). A variety of studies done over several
decades have demonstrated that women enter political office at a later age
than men and that they come from different backgrounds, especially educa-
tion and social work (CAWP 2001; Diamond 1977; Dolan and Ford 1998;
Kirkpatrick 1974; Mezey 1978; Stoper 1977; Werner 1968). Women lawmakers are more likely than men to be divorced or unmarried, although the large
majority of them are married (Diamond 1977; Dolan and Ford 1998; Stoper 1977; Thomas 1994). Women legislators have fewer children than their
male counterparts, and their children are likely to be older when these women
enter political life. All of these factors are related to the role of women in the
private sphere: “It was more difficult for women to maintain a demanding
professional career at the same time they fulfilled the role of wife. It was
apparently even harder to maintain careers as well as the responsibilities for
children” (Thomas 1994, 32).
Women legislators’ level of education, which once was behind that of
men, has recently caught up, although fewer women than men in state leg-
islatures have law degrees (CAWP 2001; Diamond 1977; Dolan and Ford
1997, 1998; Thomas 1994). This latter disparity may be because more lucrative careers in law firms and more prestigious careers on the bench have re-
cently been opened up to women, siphoning off women lawyers from the
pool of potential legislators (Gertzog 1995). Women legislators in the 1980s
and 1990s were also increasingly coming from professional backgrounds,
including business and other occupations not traditionally associated with
women (Dolan and Ford 1997; Rosenthal 1998; Thomas 1994). In 2001, 53
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:59:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SUMMER 2OO4 / STATE POLITICS AND POLICY QUARTERLY I85
percent of women legislators had attended graduate or professional school
(CAWP 200 1 ) . Women legislators have long been just as likely as men to have
held previous political office (Carroll and Strimling 1983; Diamond 1977;
Thomas 1994), but until recently, their experience was more likely to have
been on the local school board (Diamond 1977; Dolan and Ford 1997).
Women now are entering state legislative office with political experience that
is very similar to that of their male counterparts (CAWP 2001; Dodson 1997;
Dolan and Ford 1997, 1998; Thomas 1994).
Over the years, several studies have found evidence of a new breed of wom-
en politicians, less constrained by traditional roles (Stoper 1977), more feminist, more activist, and more experienced than the previous generation of
women in office (Johnson and Carroll 1978). By the 1990s, the new women
in state legislatures were younger, more likely to be married, less likely to have
held appointed positions, and more likely to have had previous experience on
city councils or county boards than their predecessors (Dolan and Ford 1997).
Since the 1970s, these women have been more liberal and feminist than their
male colleagues (Carey, Niemi, and Powell 1998; Diamond 1977; Thomas
1994). Indeed, a national survey of women state legislators in 2001 found that
43 percent self-identified as feminists (CAWP 2001). Dolan and Ford (1995)
posit that a feminist identity influences a woman’s activities in office but that
there is great diversity in feminist identity among women legislators. Fortytwo percent of their respondents never identify themselves as feminist, while
3 1 percent do so frequently. Prestage’s (1977) profile of black women legislators in the 1970s reveals a wide range of attitudes toward the “Women’s Lib-
eration Movement,” but most did not consider it a high priority.
While the number of women legislators from minority groups has increased over the years, it is still quite small. Only 18 percent of women legis-
lators are black, Hispanic, or from another minority group. Only 4 percent
of all state legislators are minority women (CAWP 2003b). This sheer lack of
numbers, among other factors, has led to a paucity of research that explicitly
acknowledges racial differences among women legislators. With few exceptions (Barrett 1995, 1997; Bratton and Haynie 1999; Prestage 1977), the research on women state legislators effectively has been about white women only.
Women and Men as Politicians
If women come to the state legislature by different routes and with different life experiences than men, do they behave differently than men in office?
Differences in professionalism, ambition, activities, and legislative priorities have been identified by researchers and attributed to the differing career paths of male and female politicians. As their backgrounds have con-
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:59:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
l86 CAMMISA AND REINGOLD
verged in recent years, researchers have explored whether those behavioral
differences have decreased.
Men and women have long been expected to differ in professionalism and
ambition in their political careers. Professionalism, as we use the term, refers to whether a politician views politics as a career and has experience in
politics and strategies for future political success. One component of professionalism is political ambition – whether a politician intends not only to
run for re-election, but also to contest for higher office in the future. While
early studies (Diamond 1977; Kirkpatrick 1974) found that women state legislators had less political ambition than men, this difference has faded with
time (Carey, Niemi, and Powell 1998; Mueller 1984; Stanley and Blair 1991;
Thomas 1994). Indeed, the most recent research suggests a professionalism
gap between men and women legislators with women showing even more
professionalism than men. Carey, Niemi, and Powell (1998) surveyed legislators in all 50 states and found that women representatives are more likely
than men to think of politics as a career, to plan to run for re-election, and
to plan to run for higher office. According to Carey, Niemi, and Powell, this
increased professionalism in women resolves the seeming paradox as to why
women’s representation in state legislatures has been increasing at the same
time that the professionalization of these bodies has made those seats more
difficult to obtain.
In the early years, women state legislators were also different from their
male colleagues in their activities in, and attitudes toward, office. For exam-
ple, Barber (1965) developed four categories of state legislators based on
activity level within, and willingness to return to, the legislature. Almost all
of the women in his study fit into the Spectator category (low activity, high
return), which was characterized by low ambition and a need for approval,
and none were in the Advertiser category (high activity, low return), where
the primary goal was personal advancement. Perhaps in response to Barber’s
well-known study, Kirkpatrick (1974) and Diamond (1977) developed typologies of women state legislators. These scholars tried to tease out differences in motivation and activity among these women. To do so, they considered the experiences, attitudes, and activities commonly associated with
women ofthat era rather than those commonly associated with men.
Kirkpatrick (1974) interviewed women legislators in 1971, developing
categories based on values, goals, and interpersonal style: Leader (who val-
ues power), Moralizer (who values rectitude), Personalizer (who values affection), and Problem-solver (who has multiple values). More than half of
the women in her study were Problem-solvers who saw “government as an
instrument for serving the community” (Kirkpatrick 1974, 215). The con-
This content downloaded from 128.95.104.109 on Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:59:37 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SUMMER 2004 / STATE POLITICS AND POLICY QUARTERLY 187
sistency between this role and a woman’s traditional family and community role led Kirkpatrick to argue that women’s private sphere roles made them
different from men, but that this difference was not necessarily a liability.
Diamond (1977) classified women state legislators based on their selfimage and perceptions of women’s traditional role in society: housewife/
benchwarmer, traditional civic worker, women’s rights advocate, and passive
women’s rights advocate. The housewife/benchwarmer (negative self-image
and positive view of women’s traditional role in society), was much more
common in the citizen legislature of New Hampshire than in the professional
legislature of Connecticut, where the traditional civic worker (positive self-
image and view of women’s traditional role) was prevalent. Diamond also
took into account the importance of the then-nascent women’s movement,
with some women legislators being passive participants while others were
more active in it. As Kirkpatrick (1974) first suggested, this activity might
come from the women’s traditional private-sphere interests and concerns
(helping the community), or it might come from a non-traditional interest
in promoting and supporting women’s rights. As it did elsewhere in society,
the women’s movement represented a watershed in state legislatures, providing the impetus for agenda-oriented, activist, feminist women to enter the
policy process.
This early literature treated women state legislators as outsiders in an alien
culture, because that is, in fact, what they were. Some were passive and ac-
cepting aliens, others were increasingly active and assertive. These studies
helped to delineate the stark differences between men and women in the state
legislatures and to shed some light on the differences among women legislators. Kirkpatrick and Diamond demonstrated the need for a research agenda and language that acknowledged women legislators in their own right.
While we argue for a full range of comparisons among men and women differences and similarities both between and within the two groups – we
need to remember that at the time of this early research, the differences between these men and women seemed much starker than they do now (Thomas 1994). In addition, the idea of a woman legislator was a novelty, something
that had to be explained and, perhaps, justified. Therefore, acknowledging
the uniqueness and “otherness” of women in state legislatures was the first
step toward a richer and more inclusive research agenda.
INSTITUTIONS
Women’s accelerated entry into st …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Recent Comments