Stagnation Nation: Despite efforts, women's wins in political races fail to accelerate

1. Why Women Still Are Not Running for Office ( http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2008/05_women_lawl... )

A study from the Brookings Institute that works with data from a larger study about gender, ambition and race:

Women are less likely than men to be willing to endure the rigors of a political campaign. They are less likely than men to be recruited to run for office. They are less likely than men to have the freedom to reconcile work and family obligations with a political career. They are less likely than men to think they are “qualified” to run for office. And they are less likely than men to perceive a fair political environment. 

 2. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office ( http://books.google.com/books?id=vfUlu1Kgp5wC )

This is the book that came out of the same research - circa 2005.

3. Here are the numbers I first remember seeing some time in 2006, from an article called, Why Don't Women Run for Office: ( http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/20... )

The impact of self-perceived qualifications on a woman’s decision to run was nearly double that of men. Surprisingly, although many of those surveyed had attained success in male-dominated professions, women were twice as likely as men to rate themselves “not at all qualified” to run for office. Men were about two-thirds more likely than women to consider themselves “qualified” or “very qualified” to run for office.

Women were also significantly less likely than men to think they would win their first race. Only 25 percent of female potential candidates, compared to 37 percent of males, thought that an electoral victory would be “likely” or “very likely.”

Not only did they not think themselves qualified, women received less encouragement to run than men. Thirty-two percent of women, compared to 43 percent of men, received the suggestion to run for office from either someone involved in the political arena or within their personal life. Such encouragement often more than doubled the likelihood of considering a candidacy.

Across all factors – age, party affiliation, income and profession – women were significantly less likely than men to express interest in seeking public office. Among women, there were some interesting differences:

Women with higher incomes were more likely to consider a candidacy than women with lower incomes. Men were as likely to consider running for office across all income levels.

Women with more responsibilities for household tasks were less interested in holding office. Forty-eight percent of the women whose partner was responsible for the majority of the household labor had considered running for office, compared to 33 percent of women who were responsible for the majority of tasks. There was no difference for men.

When women did think of running, they were more likely to be interested in local-level politics. Just one office attracted substantially more interest from women than men: the local school board.

“These results suggest that we are a long way from a political reality in which women and men are equally likely to aspire to attain high-level elective office,” said the researchers.

Yet the findings offer some direction. The number of women who said they would definitely be interested in running for office “someday” was equal to that of men. Women also viewed the activities associated with campaigning as positively as men. Those included such things as attending fundraisers, dealing with party officials, going door-to-door to meet constituents, dealing with the press, and devoting time to running for office.

So - these reasons are not so different from reasons related to why women might opt-out of other careers - its often very related to having a supportive partner. But again, the demands are high and the expectations of society, as have been set up historically, unless we work to alter them or simply just buck them, aren't going to shift enough to impact the representation.

We have a lot of work to do. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Jill wrote:

This stat has been published many many times, but women need to be asked to run for office, men usually just do it. The average age at which men start to run for political office is somewhere in the late 20s - for women, it's far older - I can't find the stat at the moment but its at least well into the 30s. 

 I don't understand this at all, yet I accept it as true because I've caught myself doing this in my own life. I'll sit back like a teen-ager hoping the cute guy asks me to the prom instead of stepping up and asking him myself. Or even going it alone. Maybe it's a vestige from growing up in a time and place where it is was unladylike -- or even worse (gasp!) aggressive -- to go for what you wanted.

I think in some quarters, the message is getting out that in politics we can and we're needed. But you're right: The spotlight needs to remain bright.

Debra Legg
9to5to9 ( http://debralegg.com/ )

So we added ten women to Congress, and some of these women replaced other women. . . . well, thank goodness for small blessings, I guess.  Unfortunately, the United States still runs far behind even smaller, less developed countries in terms of female leadership. As usual, this time around, many awesome women candidates did not win their races, and I suspect, at least some would have won if they had been men.  Case in point:  Democrat Dr. Judy Feder, who ran in the 10th Congressional District in Northern Virginia against 28-year incumbent, Frank Wolf. Wolf is a do-little Congressman who takes credit for a lot more than he actually does.  He has shored up popular support over the years by playing the Godfather, doling out personal favors and fixing personal problems for his constituents, while abdicating his real job as a federal Congressional representative.  In the meantime, Wolf's district faces the same problems it faced ten years ago - congested roads, struggling schools, gang activity, and rising taxes, along with new issues affecting the country - a weakening economy, increasing unemployment, foreclosed homes, health care, the war in Iraq, and the energy crisis.  On these issues, Wolf has taken the path of least resistance, and voted with Bush 92% of the time.

On the other hand, Dr. Judy Feder, a former Dean of Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute is capable, intelligent, knowledgable, articulate, energetic, and feisty. She is a health care expert who worked with Hillary Clinton on Clinton's health care initiative.  She also raised nearly 2 million dollars.  Feder's platform was essentially the same as President-elect Obama's platform, and she would have been a strong ally of President Obama's in Congress.

This was Dr. Feder's second try against Wolf. Her fellow running mates on the ballot - Barack Obama and Mark Warner - were both elected.  In my opinion, Feder was not elected primarily because she is a woman, and women candidates don't do well in Virginia, particularly in statewide and federal races.  Virginia has elected only two congresswomen in it's 230-year history.  There have been no women Senators, no women Lt. Governors, and no women Governors.  Women candidates are second class in Virginia. Too bad. Dr. Feder would have been a first-class Congresswoman. 

Hi Debra -

Thanks for reading and commenting - you mention a number of other really good and true points about the topic of women and running for political office.

A few additional comments about what I've learned too - from talking to women who research this stuff and observation:

I'm in total agreement with you about how we don't run and if you don't run you can't win.  What We Know About Why Women Don't Run ( http://www.womensfund.com/files/barriers_to_electe... ) is a great document to start with.

This stat has been published many many times, but women need to be asked to run for office, men usually just do it. The average age at which men start to run for political office is somewhere in the late 20s - for women, it's far older - I can't find the stat at the moment but its at least well into the 30s.  

Now, also, like you say - when women do run, they do well. In part, it's that sense that I'm not going to do this unless I think I can win or unless I totally commit. And the issue is about becoming an incumbent.

But we also need to select other women to run to fill women's spaces, and fill other seats. There are a lot of books and studies out there about the need for mentoring.

I did come across this article ( http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/womenpolitic... ) which includes some good information broken down by other demographics such as race and ethnic background.  The good news is, we women are taking the initiative and putting a spotlight on how we can do better.  We just can't let up or let anyone convince us that it doesn't matter.  It does.  

JillWrites Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

You can't win if you don't play.

Where I live, at least, it seems the lack of women in office is due largely to a lack of women running. Where they did run locally, they did really well this time. One led the ticket for a city council seat (blasting past an incumbent) and another woman might have also beaten the incumbent for the second seat. Who knows when they'll finish counting the votes on that one.

Another woman easily won re-election to state Senate. And ...

Oh. That's the problem. There wasn't any "and" Those three women, plus Cynthia McKinney were the only female names on my ballot.

I agree with Ziegler on term limits. In California, they haven't appeared to help anyone other than staffers, who wind up holding way more sway than they should because they're more experienced than most, of not all, of the lawmakers. Ironically, the woman state Senator was a former staffer.

I think you're spot-on in suggesting training and mentoring programs to help candidates. And to encourage them to keep trying.

What the two City Council women had in common is that both had run before. They knew the system, they knew how to campaign. They had name recognition in reserve from previous unsuccessful efforts.

I hope these two take it upon themselves to ask questions when people are appointed to city commissions during their terms, particularly to panels such as planning and zoning, which often serve as City Council trainers. Is this the best applicant pool we have? Are there no qualified women or members of one of the many ethnic groups in this city? They're terribly unrepresented, too, though the mayor is ethnic so I suppose that counts for more than one slot!

Debra Legg
9to5to9 ( http://debralegg.com/ )