Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-8r4lv Total loading time: 0.257 Render date: 2021-07-29T21:53:48.859Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

She Who Shall Not Be Named: The Women That Women's Organizations Do (and Do Not) Represent in the Rulemaking Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2018

Ashley English
Affiliation:
University of North Texas
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Though the concept of intersectionality has been in circulation for nearly 30 years and women's organizations have long been criticized for failing to prioritize the concerns of women of color, poor women, and LGBTQ women, more research is needed to determine precisely why women's organizations do and do not discuss those intersectional identities during policy debates. This study analyzes 1,021 comments that women's organizations submitted to rulemakers to test a series of hypotheses about how women's organizations’ references to women's intersectional identities increase or decrease depending on the organization's primary constituency and ideology, the proposed rule's target population, and other features of the policy-making context. Using automated text analysis and a series of models, it shows that women's organizations do discuss intersectionally marginalized women in their comments. However, not all subgroups of women are equally represented during the process. Women's organizations focus on women's sexual orientations and gender identities more than their races, ethnicities, nationalities, or socioeconomic statuses. Intersectionally marginalized women also tend to receive the most attention when commenters are from organizations that are explicitly focused on representing intersectionally marginalized women and when bureaucrats include references to intersectionally marginalized women in their proposed rules.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramovitz, Mimi. 1996. Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy from Colonial Times to the Present. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
Cassese, Erin, Barnes, Tiffany, and Branton, Regina. 2015. “Racializing Gender: Public Opinion at the Intersection.” Politics & Gender 11 (1): 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celis, Karen, Childs, Sarah, Kantola, Johanna, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2014. “Constituting Women's Interests through Representative Claims.” Politics & Gender 10 (2): 149–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). 2018a. “History of Women in the US Congress.” http://cawp.rutgers.edu/history-women-us-congress (accessed July 2, 2018).Google Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). 2018b. “Women Appointed to Presidential Cabinets.” http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/womenapptdtoprescabinets.pdf (accessed July 2, 2018).Google Scholar
Cohen, Cathy. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Congressional Quarterly (CQ). 2012. Washington Information Directory 2011–12. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989: 139–67.Google Scholar
Deckman, Melissa. 2016. Tea Party Women: Mama Grizzlies, Grassroots Leaders, and the Changing Face of the American Right. New York: New York University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Julie. 2000. “The Senior Executive Service: Gender, Attitudes, and Representative Bureaucracy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (3): 513–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Julie. 2002. “Representative Bureaucracy in the Federal Executive.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12 (3): 353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Julie. 2004. “Gender Equity: Illusion or Reality for Women in the Federal Executive Service?Public Administration Review 64 (3): 299308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovi, Suzanne. 2002. “Preferable Representatives: Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?American Political Science Review 96 (4): 729–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dziak, John, Coffman, Donna, Lanza, Stephanie, and Li, Runze. 2012. “Sensitivity and Specificity of Information Criteria.” Methodology Center, Pennsylvania State University. https://methodology.psu.edu/media/techreports/12-119.pdf (accessed February 9, 2018).Google Scholar
English, Ashley. 2016. “Rewriting Title IX: The Department of Education's Response to Feminists’ Comments in the Rulemaking Process.” Politics & Gender 12 (2): 491517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escobar-Lemmon, Maria, and Taylor-Robinson, Michelle. 2014. “Dilemmas in the Meaning and Measurement of Representation.” In Representation: The Case of Women, eds. Escobar-Lemmon, Maria and Taylor-Robinson, Michelle. New York: Oxford University Press, 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golden, Marissa Martino. 1998. “Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 245–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss, Kristin A. 2013. The Paradox of Gender Equality: How American Women's Groups Gained and Lost Their Public Voice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2004. The Politics of Disgust: The Public Identity of the Welfare Queen. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2012. “Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act.” Federal Register 77 (55): 16501–8.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2013a. “Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act.” Federal Register 78 (25): 8456–76.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2013b. “Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act.” Federal Register 78 (127): 39870–99.Google Scholar
Junn, Jane. 2017. “The Trump Majority: White Womanhood and the Making of Female Voters in the U.S.” Politics, Groups and Identities 5 (2): 343–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 1998. Faithful and Fearless: Moving Feminist Protest Inside the Church and Military. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Karen M., and Petrocik, John R.. 1999. “The Changing Politics of American Men.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (3): 864–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keiser, Lael R., Wilkins, Vicky M., Meier, Kenneth J., and Holland, Catherine A.. 2002. “Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review 96 (3): 553–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Sally J. 2003. “Where Is Gender in Agenda Setting?Women & Politics 25 (1–2): 179207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerwin, Cornelius M., and Furlong, Scott R.. 2011. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Long, Scott J., and Freese, Jeremy. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J. 1999. “Drugs, Sex, Rock, and Roll: A Theory of Morality Politics.” Policy Studies Journal 27 (4): 681–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 1998. Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Mink, Gwendolyn. 2001. “Violating Women: Rights Abuses in the Welfare Police State.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 577: 7993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 1999. “The Politics of Morality Policy: Symposium Editor's Introduction.” Policy Studies Journal 27 (4): 675–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. “The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy.” In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. Mooney, Christopher Z.. New York: Seven Bridges, 320.Google Scholar
National Council of Women's Organizations. 2014. http://www.womensorganizations.org/index.php?option=com_azcontentlist&Itemid=3 (accessed August 18, 2014).Google Scholar
New York Times. 2017. “Room for Debate: Women and Their March on Washington.” https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2017/01/09/women-and-their-march-on-washington (accessed June 29, 2018).Google Scholar
Riccucci, Norma M., and Meyers, Marcia K.. 2004. “Linking Passive and Active Representation: The Case of Frontline Workers in Welfare Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 (4): 585–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2004. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women's Place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne, and Ingram, Helen. 1993. “Social Constructions of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87 (2): 334–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Politics Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2015. “The Affordable Care Act Is Improving Access to Preventive Services for Millions of Americans.” May 14. https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/139221/The%20Affordable%20Care%20Act%20is%20Improving%20Access%20to%20Preventive%20Services%20for%20Millions%20of%20Americans.pdf (accessed July 5, 2017).Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Personnel and Management (OPM). 2014. “Senior Executive Service: Facts and Figures.” https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/facts-figures/#url=Demographics (accessed July 5, 2017).Google Scholar
Voteview. 2016. “The Polarization of the Congressional Parties.” http://www.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm (accessed March 15, 2017).Google Scholar
Weldon, Laurel. 2011. When Protest Makes Policy: How Social Movements Represent Disadvantaged Groups. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, William F. 2004. “Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis.” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 6680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, William F. 2009. “Inside the Black Box: The Development of Proposed Rules and the Limits of Procedural Controls.” Administration & Society 41 (5): 576–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, Vicky M. 2006. “Exploring the Causal Story: Gender, Active Representation, and Bureaucratic Politics.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (1): 7794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, Vicky M., and Keiser, Lael R.. 2006. “Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender: The Case of Child Support Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 87100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Paul. 2015. “The Misuse of the Vuong Test for Non-Nested Models to Test for Zero-Inflation.” Economics Letters 127: 5153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Women of Color Resource Center. 1998. Women of Color Organizations and Projects: A National Directory. Berkeley, CA: Women of Color Resource Center.Google Scholar
Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 103–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, Jason Webb, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “A Bias towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the US Bureaucracy.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 128–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. “Representation and Social Perspective.” In Inclusion and Democracy, ed. Young, Iris Marion. New York: Oxford University Press, 121–53.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

English supplementary material

Online Appendices

Download English supplementary material(File)
File 103 KB
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

She Who Shall Not Be Named: The Women That Women's Organizations Do (and Do Not) Represent in the Rulemaking Process
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

She Who Shall Not Be Named: The Women That Women's Organizations Do (and Do Not) Represent in the Rulemaking Process
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

She Who Shall Not Be Named: The Women That Women's Organizations Do (and Do Not) Represent in the Rulemaking Process
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *