Gender Gaps
Tom Schaller hangs out with some Blue Dogs and observes that women are underrepresented in their caucus relative to their numbers among House Democrats as a whole:
I asked Democratic pollster and women’s vote expert Celinda Lake about this as we strolled along downtown Denver’s 16th Street pedestrian walkway. “I think that women voters and women Democrats believe in a proper role for government, and the corporate stuff is a bit of a turnoff,” said Lake. “Even the women in the coalition have the most progressive voting records for Blue Dogs, by far.”
I think the interplay between identity and ideology doesn’t always get the play it deserves. Most people, even those with sound views, aren’t very good at being politicians. And the vast majority of people with progressive political views aren’t white men, while the vast majority of white men don’t have progressive political views. Thus, insofar as one draws one’s candidates from a disproportionately white male pool, it’s going to be very difficult to actually come up with an adequate number of talented politicians with sound political views. What’s more, in the case of women there’s actually no evidence that women are at a disadvantage when running for election. Rather, they’re underrepresented because they’re discriminated against in the recruitment process which would be an easy thing to change. And if it was changed, the pool of potential candidates would be both much larger and more progressive — vastly increasingly the odds of politically talented progressives coming to the fore and going on to higher office or leadership positions.
31 Responses to “Gender Gaps”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 27th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Image is wrong. This is what a Blue Dog looks like.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:17 am
This is wrong in a number of ways. The over-arching one is that it’s not as though the number of progressives in a population of Democratic congresspeople (or Democratic congressional candidates) is a random variable with a distribution determined by the gender balance of the population.
More specifically, 1. it’s not an easy thing to change gender discrimination in recruitment; and 2. political talent is not appropriately modeled as a hidden but absolute property of some individuals in a population of recruits.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:46 am
What’s more, in the case of women there’s actually no evidence that women are at a disadvantage when running for election.
In 2006, women Democratic challengers for House seats notoriously underperformed in competitive districts in the general election. Rahm Emmanuel was complaining on Election Night, “What happened to my women?” People speculated that it was because security was still an issue. Whatever the truth is or even if it can be determined, this can’t be waved away.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Also Ezra skewed the numbers somewhat to make his point. The problem of under recruitment was seen as only one of three major takeaways from the study, the others being women’s greater aversion to the negativity of campaigning and women being anchored to traditional family relationships.
Of the samples of equally qualified professionals, 23% of women and 29% of men reported getting the suggestion to run from a party official. The one third less likely number likely comes from the finding that 10% of women but 15% of men actively discussed running with party officials.
Of the overall samples, 42% of women and 56% of men reported ever considering running for office. I did not see in the study how well general interest in running correlated with being recruited or actively discussing running with party officials.
The problem is deeper than the recruitment rates.
August 27th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I’ve been thinking the biggest cultural and political problem in this country is its morally decrepit and fearful image of masculinity. It’s as though feminism blew away the last phony shreds of the American male cultural costume, revealing the rankness beneath. We need a renewal of what it means to be a man: generosity and justice instead of “aggressiveness” (a word that only in my lifetime began to take on a positive connotation).
August 27th, 2008 at 11:53 am
By the way, I think Obama projects some of what I’m talking about. McCain, on the other hand, not so much.
August 27th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
It might be harder for women to win in Blue Dog districts. I could see a relationship between conservative districts and voting patterns favoring male politicians.
Any studies out there?
Also, on the recruitment side, EMILY’S LIST might make it easier for pro-choice female politicians to decide to take the plunge and run for office. I’m assuming most pro-life Dems are also Blue Dogs, which I think is right.
August 27th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Of course, judging by who comments on Matt’s blog, it appears that males make up the vast majority of people in America who are highly interested in politics.
August 27th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Or that the women are far less likely to slack off and surf the intertubes during work.
August 27th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
the vast majority of people with progressive political views aren’t white men
Are there some real numbers on this?
August 27th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Re:I think the interplay between identity and ideology doesn’t always get the play it deserves.
I don’t think there is much of one. Át least not in regards to overall ideology. What you will find is a tendency for various groups to support specific progressive policy positions which very directly benefit that group: Blacks supporting affirmative action, gays supporting gay marriage etc. (Curiously this does not extend to abortion where, feminist rhetoric notwithstanding, there isn’t much of a gender difference in support or opposition).
Re: And the vast majority of people with progressive political views aren’t white men, while the vast majority of white men don’t have progressive political views.
The second part of this is the simply because political progressivism is a minority phenomenon in American politics, where most people cluster around the middle, or are politically alienated. However I would like to see some evidence why you think white men are rare among progressives. This isn’t scientific, but I don’t notice any shortage of white guys at political rallies for progressive causes, or in online forums like this one.
February 28th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Hi, I can
March 1st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
cialis
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 5:13 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 13th, 2009 at 12:09 am
Incredible site!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:56 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
xanax
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:33 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
It seems like something is missing, no?
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:48 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:28 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 8:25 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
The style of writing is very familiar to me. Did you write guest posts for other blogs?
April 14th, 2009 at 9:39 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
viagra