Skip to main content

An Endogenous Approach to Women's Interests: When Interests Are Interesting in and of Themselves

  • Beth Reingold (a1) and Michele Swers (a2)

As Sapiro (1981) pointed out many years ago, recognizing that women's interests are interesting is the vital first step in establishing the significance of women's political representation (or the lack thereof)—both in the “real” world and in the scholarly world. Indeed, the assumption that women's interests exist, that women have political interests that can be defined and measured, is central to much of the subsequent research and discussion of women in politics. It is central to our own research on the relationship between women's descriptive and substantive representation (e.g., Reingold 2000; Swers 2002), and it is central to this symposium. Yet we come together in this symposium not simply because we share this assumption, but more tellingly because we all grapple with this assumption. Defining and measuring women's political interests pose a number of very difficult questions or dilemmas, which we elaborate in the following. We highlight these challenges not to dismiss such endeavors as futile or necessarily misguided. Rather, we argue that the very uncertainty surrounding women's interests is what makes them so interesting.

Hide All
Bratton, Kathleen A. 2005. “Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and Success of Token Women in State Legislatures.” Politics & Gender 1 (March): 97125.
Burrell, Barbara C. 1994. A Woman's Place Is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Carroll, Susan J. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics, 2d ed.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Celis, Karen, Childs, Sarah, Kantola, Johanna, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2008. “Rethinking Women's Substantive Representation.” Representation 44: 99110.
Childs, Sarah, Webb, Paul, and Marthaler, Sally. 2010. “Constituting and Substantively Representing Women: Applying New Approaches to a UK Case Study.” Politics & Gender 6 (June): 199223.
Cohen, Cathy J. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dodson, Debra L. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dodson, Debra L., and J. Carroll, Susan. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State Legislatures. New Brunswick: Center for the American Woman and Politics, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey.
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little Brown.
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced-Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review 97: 529–50.
Jónasdóttir, Anna G. 1988. “On the Concept of Interest, Women's Interests, and the Limitations of Interest Theory.” In The Political Interests of Gender: Developing Theory and Research with a Feminist Face, ed. Jones, Kathleen B. and Jónasdóttir, Anna G.. London: Sage.
Kenney, Sally J. 1996. “New Research on Gendered Political Institutions.” Political Research Quarterly 49: 445–66
Klatch, Rebecca. 1987. Women of the New Right. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’Journal of Politics 61: 628–57.
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex Gender, and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Saint-Germain, Michelle. 1989. “Does Their Difference Make a Difference? The Impact of Women on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature.” Social Science Quarterly 70: 956–68.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. Gender Equality, Political Parties, and the Politics of Women's Place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “Research Frontier Essay: When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.” American Political Science Review 75: 701–16.
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Swers, Michele, and Larson, Carin. 2005. “Women and Congress: Do They Act as Advocates for Women's Issues?” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, 2d ed., ed. Thomas, Sue and Wilcox, Clyde. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thomas, Sue. 1989. “Voting Patterns in the California Assembly: The Role of Gender.” Women & Politics 9: 4353.
Welch, Susan. 1985. “Are Women More Liberal Than Men in the U.S. Congress?Legislative Studies Quarterly 10: 125–34.
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. The Politics of Women's Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Politics & Gender
  • ISSN: 1743-923X
  • EISSN: 1743-9248
  • URL: /core/journals/politics-and-gender
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 8
Total number of PDF views: 130 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 351 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th March 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.