Why should we elect more women in the U.S.?
By Tracy Osborn
During the 2016 election, the buzz about sexism, gender stereotyping, discrimination and sexual assault has been electric. Can a woman win the U.S. presidency, the last remaining vestige of male-only American national politics, despite these obstacles? Perhaps this question is only half of what we as the American public should be asking, however. Also of import is understanding the importance of electing women to office in general. Does it make a difference whether women are elected to, or excluded from, American political office?
From my own research on women in U.S. politics, as well as the research of other scholars, the answer to whether women “make a difference” is a resounding yes. This “difference” is multifaceted and contingent upon the political environment and types of offices women occupy. One reason women in office make a difference is that electing legislatures and executives who better resemble the population they serve sends important symbolic messages about inclusion and participation to the U.S. population and the world. When a legislature excludes pertinent political groups like women or African Americans, those groups receive a subtle signal that their views and problems are not important or wanted.
From a larger perspective, a country struggles to identify itself as truly democratic when large portions of its population are excluded from decision making. To this end, many countries transitioning to democratic government even use specific rules to make sure women and ethnic groups receive a portion of legislative seats. Over time, including political minorities in public office signals to these political minorities that they, too, can and should run for office; for example, adolescent women have higher interest in political participation when they grow up in an environment where women hold elected office. (Read more about David Campbell and Christina Wolbrecht’s research here.)
A second reason to elect women to public office is that they have different public policy interests. Generally, women in office have greater interest in so-called “women’s issues,” or those issues related to their traditional roles as caregivers, such as health care, education and family and childhood issues. Women also address concerns directly related to women, such as reproductive politics or gender equality problems.
Of course, these interests of women legislators must be considered with a political caveat. While women across political parties may have similar priorities based on their gendered experiences, they may work for very different policy solutions to these gendered problems. A Republican woman and a Democratic woman might both prioritize child care, but each might offer a different bill to address child care problems.
My own research shows that this pattern plays out in the U.S. state legislatures. Women legislators, particularly Democratic women, concentrate a larger portion of their policy efforts toward issues that disproportionately affect women. Republican women do so as well, albeit to a lesser extent. However, the types of bills Republican and Democratic women propose to address women’s issues tend to differ. Occasionally, Republican and Democratic women’s interests overlap — particularly on women’s healthcare issues. On other women’s issues, such as reproductive policy and family law, however, partisans represent women from different perspectives. (Read more about this work here.)
Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, women in political office may actually change the ways in which “politics” happens. Research on women inside legislatives bodies demonstrates that women actually run committee meetings differently. They focus on educating committee members rather than winning debate, and they look for solutions based on consensus rather than zero-sum policy making. (Read more about Cindy Simon Rosenthal’s research here.) Anecdotal evidence of these traits among women leaders abound. For example, Republican woman senator Susan Collins (R-ME) gained renown for brokering a compromise plan between parties in the Senate to prohibit a government shutdown over the budget in 2013. (Read more here.)
Time magazine political correspondent Jay Newton-Small’s recent book, Broad Influence: How Women Are Changing the Way America Works, uses such examples from interviews with women leaders in government and business to discuss how women influence decision making in American politics. Newton-Small especially discusses the influence of the number of women in public office, and how increases in women’s representation in office can influence how policies are made that affect women. Excerpts from her interviews with prominent women in the House of Representatives and the Senate demonstrate the subtle effects of gender on each of the dimensions I discuss above. Women leaders feel that they change both the substance of legislation and the process of policy creation itself; they also embrace the symbolic role of increasing the number of women in public office.
Newton-Small will present, The Effect of Women in Politics: Do They Make a Difference, at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 1 in the University of Iowa Old Capitol Senate Chamber. For the first 25 students with a valid student ID, a copy of her book, Broad Influence, will be free! Newton-Small’s talk promises to be thought-provoking and timely. A panel afterwards featuring Newton-Small, myself and former Iowa state legislator Jean Lloyd-Jones will allow the audience to discuss the impact of women in office at length. Please join us for the event.
Tracy Osborn is the director of the Politics and Policy Research Program at the University of Iowa Public Policy Center and associate professor in theDepartment of Political Science. Her research focuses on women, politics, and public policy in the U.S. state legislatures and Congress, women’s political behavior, and gendered violence. Learn more about Osborn and her work here.
