The most important and interesting question about women’s political behavior is why so few seek and wield power … Whether women have the capacity to participate fully in the power processes of society [and] why they have so rarely sought to do so … are empirical questions which can be answered only by systematic inquiry.
Women are active in politics in sizeable numbers – as party activists, as convention delegates, as staff members for other politicians, as community activists, as leaders in civic and community groups, as members of appointed boards and commissions. Yet few of these women seek elective office. Existing research has provided some clues as to why women might not run for office, but with very few exceptions, research has focused on women who became candidates for office or who were elected to office, not those who were dissuaded from running or who never considered running despite having qualifications and experience to do so.
We miss half the story of women’s representation if we only study women who run for office and ignore the women who do not run. The pre-candidacy stage remains as one of the great unexplored avenues of research.
For more than fifty years, political scientists have been issuing the challenge to examine the initial decision to run for office and the gender dynamics that underlie that process. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office, published in 2005, took up that challenge. In doing so, we uncovered three critical findings that provided dramatic evidence of gender’s role in the candidate emergence process:
Women were less likely than men to consider running for office.
Women were less likely than men to run for office.
Women were less likely than men to express interest in running for office in the future.
Twenty years later, and despite dramatic changes to the political environment, this book demonstrates that the gender gap in political ambition is the same size as it was two decades ago. Moreover, the reasons for the gap remain tightly tethered to patterns of traditional gender socialization. Survey responses from more than 5,000 potential candidates in 2021, coupled with interviews with more than 100 of them in 2023, make clear that women in the candidate eligibility pool today remain less likely than men to envision themselves as candidates and to be considered by others as potential candidates. Given that a central criterion in evaluating the health of democracy is the degree to which citizens believe the political system is open and accessible to them, the seemingly invincible gender gap in political ambition continues to upend notions of democratic legitimacy.
In this concluding chapter, we turn to the persistence of the gender gap in political ambition. Why hasn’t it begun to close? How can we reconcile its intractable nature with women’s steadily increasing numeric representation? What do women and men in the candidate eligibility pool believe contributes to the static gap? After providing a brief summary of the book’s central findings, these are the questions to which this chapter turns.
Summary of the Findings
On November 9, 2016, Hillary Clinton publicly conceded the presidential election to Donald Trump. “We have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling,” she told supporters in New York. “But someday, someone will. And hopefully sooner than we might think right now.”Footnote 4 Four years later, US Senator Elizabeth Warren crisscrossed the country in an effort to win the Democratic presidential nomination. Whenever she encountered a young girl on the campaign trail, she’d kneel down, look her in the eye, and say, “My name is Elizabeth and I’m running for president, because that’s what girls do.”Footnote 5 She’d end each encounter with a “pinkie promise” to remember the can-do spirit of girls. And four years after that, in a speech ending her bid for the Republican presidential nomination, former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley delivered a message to the women who had supported her: “Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid. Do not be discouraged.”Footnote 6 Although none of these women made it to the White House, all three used their experiences and platform as presidential candidates to encourage women and girls to get involved in politics and to voice optimism about women’s political leadership.
High-profile female political role models such as Clinton, Warren, and Haley are not the only reason many analysts might conclude we’re on a path toward gender parity in US politics. Women’s increasing presence in the candidate pipeline better situates them to run for office than ever before. Every election cycle, voters and donors demonstrate their willingness to support and fund female candidates. The media cover women and men who run for office quite similarly, both in volume and substance. And more women – on both sides of the political aisle – hold elective office now than at any time in history.Footnote 7 Indeed, if we use numeric representation as a gauge to assess prospects for political gender parity, then there’s reason to believe that circumstances will continue to improve, albeit slowly.
Numeric representation, however, is only part of the story. To be sure, some semblance of gender balance among elected leaders is necessary to achieve gender parity in politics. But it’s not sufficient. Women’s full political inclusion requires more than an increase in the number of female candidates. It requires creating an environment where women and men are equally likely to see themselves, and be seen by others, as candidates for public office. It requires that women are just as likely as men to think they’re qualified to run for office and just as likely to receive the encouragement and support so vital to a political campaign. It requires that regardless of whether they choose to run, women are not systematically less likely than men to consider the possibility. It requires closing the gender gap in political ambition.
On this front, we’ve seen little progress. The gender gap in political ambition remains linked to three deeply embedded aspects of traditional gender socialization. Traditional family role orientations, a masculinized ethos, and the gendered psyche overlap, interact, and simultaneously affect potential candidates’ inclinations to pursue public office. More specifically, traditional family role orientations, in which women assume the majority of household and childcare responsibilities, lead many women to conclude that entering politics would restrict their ability to fulfill existing personal and professional obligations. A masculinized ethos in political organizations and institutions that have always been controlled by men continues to promote men’s, not women’s, full participation in the political arena. The gendered psyche imbues many women with a sense of doubt as to their ability to compete in the electoral sphere. Table 8.1, which summarizes and categorizes our evidence, highlights the sociocultural, institutional, and psychological obstacles women are more likely than men to encounter in the candidate emergence process.
Table 8.1 Summary of findings
Evidence of Traditional Family Role Orientations among Potential Candidates
|
Evidence of a Masculinized Ethos among Potential Candidates
|
Evidence of the Gendered Psyche among Potential Candidates
|
It’s important to note that the gendered roles that pervade early family life and persist into the professional spheres potential candidates navigate are not a thing of the past. The gender gap in political ambition is larger among respondents under the age of forty than it is for those over sixty. Relatively young women who are well situated to pursue a future political career – whether local, state, or federal – are significantly less likely than relatively young men to consider running for office. Moreover, a national survey of college students revealed a sizeable gender gap in political ambition. Men were twice as likely as women (20 percent versus 10 percent) to report that they’ve frequently thought about running for office at some point in the future. Women were twenty percentage points more likely than men (63 percent versus 43 percent) never to have thought about it.Footnote 8
Framed in this light, the gender gap in political ambition raises grave concerns over the quality of democratic governance. As gender politics scholar Sue Thomas argues, “A government that is democratically organized cannot be truly legitimate if all its citizens … do not have a potential interest in and opportunity for serving their community and nation.”Footnote 9 Thus, the enduring effects of traditional gender socialization that transcend all generations pose serious obstacles for true gender equality.
Reconciling the Gender Gap with Women’s Increasing Representation
Despite dramatic shifts in the political environment throughout the last two decades – including a steadily increasing stream of female candidates and office holders – running for office remains a more remote endeavor for women than men. Moreover, the roots of the gender gap remain as deeply entrenched as they were two decades ago. The unchanging gender gap in political ambition amid women’s increasing numeric representation presents a puzzle. Although it is difficult to pinpoint an explanation, electoral trends, coupled with our survey data and interviews, point to four broad possibilities.
Targeted Recruitment
Perhaps the most straightforward way to reconcile the static gender gap in political ambition with women’s increasing numeric representation is the simple math required for gender parity in US political institutions. It’s possible to increase women’s numeric representation by targeting a relatively small number of women to run for specific offices, despite unequal numbers of politically ambitious women and men. And even if only a fraction of the women who are recruited to run win their races, it still results in a notable uptick in the number of women serving in elective office.
Just consider the US Congress. Every election cycle, the Cook Political Report typically classifies anywhere between twenty and thirty seats in the US House of Representatives as “toss-ups” – either party has an equal chance to win.Footnote 10 In most cases, Democrats and Republicans hold a roughly equal number of these seats. If each political party recruited women to run in the seats held by the other, and just half of these women won their races, then somewhere in the neighborhood of ten additional women would be elected to Congress.Footnote 11 That doesn’t sound like a large number, but ten new women in the House of Representatives would be double the increase that occurs in many election cycles.
Expanding those recruitment efforts beyond toss-up contests would yield even bigger gains. Recruiting women from each political party to run in the roughly 10 percent of districts across the country in which an incumbent is not on the ballot would result in approximately thirty additional women elected to Congress (even after accounting for the average number of female incumbents who retire each cycle).Footnote 12 Focusing just on these open seats could yield an overall increase of 7 percent – an increase in the raw number of women serving that’s 50 percent greater than we’ve ever seen.Footnote 13
We understand that these are hypothetical scenarios. The point is that strategically recruiting and then supporting women in just a few dozen races can fundamentally change the profile of the US Congress. Recruiting a few hundred women for state legislative seats would make a similar difference in state houses across the country. It’s possible to increase women’s numeric representation by targeting women to run in a relatively small number of specific contests, despite dramatically unequal numbers of politically ambitious women and men throughout the country.
The Representation Paradox
A second explanation might be what we call a representation paradox. Many scholars assumed that as women’s candidacies for high-level office became routine, more women – especially younger women – would see the political system as open to them.Footnote 14 Representation in US political institutions, in other words, would trickle down to the candidate eligibility pool. Female potential candidates would come to embrace the possibility of a candidacy as they saw more and more women in positions of political power.
That speculation is intuitively appealing, and several potential candidates we interviewed were surprised, for this very reason, that the gender gap in political ambition had not closed. Political activist Sally Jensen, for example, was “shocked” when we shared our results.Footnote 15 “Maybe your data are wrong?” she wondered. “How can that be? We have so many more women in top offices these days.” Richard Pardo, a lawyer who practices in Ohio, was “totally surprised” as well, especially because “with Hillary, Pelosi, Harris, Haley, Cheney, there’s been so much progress.” The stagnant gender gap caught Boston attorney Jonathan Shanahan off guard too. “There are so many more women in prominent political roles than there were twenty years ago,” he noted. “I would have thought that would have a major impact.”
What scholars (and some potential candidates) didn’t necessarily account for was the way perceptions of how female candidates are treated might offset any positive “role model” effects. Instances of sexism and discrimination against women in politics, especially at the highest levels of office, persist. Ironically, the emergence of more high-profile, but heavily scrutinized women in politics may reinforce the perception that women venturing into the electoral arena will face an inhospitable environment. An extensive 2023 national survey about women and leadership conducted by Pew found that large majorities of citizens believe that women pursing higher elective office face discrimination, sexual harassment, and bias in media coverage and from political party leaders.Footnote 16 Accordingly, even as women’s numeric representation increases, the “trickle down effects” may be mitigated by women’s heightened sense that they’d be held to unfair standards.
This theme emerged time and again throughout the course of our interviews. Female potential candidates referred to women such as Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Kamala Harris, and Nikki Haley, and used their experiences to dismiss the idea of running for office before it could ever take hold. Lauren Mark, who owns a small business outside of Sacramento, California, explained this thought process:
You see someone like Hillary, Nancy Pelosi, or Liz Cheney. And at first, they make it seem like there’s been so much progress. That women can get so far in politics. But then you stop and think and look at the struggles they have to go through. Criticism and unfair treatment every day. It’s just so hard for them. And the only reason is that they’re women and there are still so many people who think they shouldn’t be at the top.
Ms. Mark wondered, “How can a woman see that and not question whether she belongs?” Professor Francine Tarleton agreed, noting that “women are turned off to the idea of running as soon as they see how other women are treated.” She referred to the “gendered and sexist language” the press, and even some members of Congress, use to describe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren. “I can even recognize this across the party aisle,” Professor Tarleton continued. “I don’t like Sarah Palin, but I’d never disparage her the way so many other people did.” “Hillary Clinton was destroyed by everybody,” Kim Bateman told us. “Her experience made me realize that women in politics are more likely to be criticized just because we’re women, because we’re the minority.”
Men in the candidate eligibility pool recognized this dynamic too. Jonathan Shanahan, the Boston lawyer who was surprised that the gender gap in political ambition remained intact, reflected on how Hillary Clinton’s appearance was “utterly torn apart.” He concluded that many women might look at the way she was treated and think they’d face an “uphill struggle.” Mario Toms’ assessment was even more damning. The business leader from Texas concluded that Hillary Clinton’s experience in the electoral arena is evidence of a “ceiling effect” for women in politics: “They’re let in, but when everyone sees how poorly they’re treated, how disheartening it is, it becomes clear that we’ll never have a world where women want to enter our political institutions.”
Sexism and the 2016 Election
When reflecting on why the gender gap in political ambition hasn’t closed, many women and men we interviewed referred to the political climate. This third explanation relates to the representation paradox in that several potential candidates suggested that the 2016 election and Donald Trump’s presidency exacerbated hostile attitudes toward women in leadership roles.Footnote 17
For some potential candidates, Trump’s words and actions conveyed to portions of the electorate that it’s acceptable to demean and belittle women who enter the political sphere. “I will never understand Trump’s anger focused on Hillary Clinton. He dug up every misogynist trope he could,” Cheryl Danson, a Democratic activist from Texas, told us. She determined that Trump’s treatment of Clinton “gave license” to men to treat women in politics that way. Connecticut attorney Don Tarante agreed. He explained that “sexism toward women in power has always been around,” but Trump “made it OK to vocalize.” Even Norm Rupp, a Maryland Republican who was “disgusted by and never would have voted for Hillary Clinton,” referred to “what Trump unleashed.” He concluded that the former president “didn’t make men sexist, but he made them realize that lots of other men feel that way too. He allowed men to think that powerful women took something away from them.”
As a consequence, some women who might otherwise consider running for office – perhaps inspired by high-profile political role models – may have reconsidered. “Life was different prior to the gold escalator,” Lynne Wisner, who teaches in the Florida public schools, explained. Indeed, several people we interviewed arrived at the same conclusion:
Since Trump was elected, we’ve moved backwards. And that’s turning women off to the idea of running for office.
Trump got in the way of progress. Women were making real strides. He stopped that.
Trump doesn’t want women in positions of power. He supports them when it’s convenient, but then he’ll destroy them … We all see that.
It might be the case that when we move beyond Trump, women will be more inclined to think running for office is a viable option. If that happens, then the gender gap could begin to close. But as Iowa teacher Eliza Davis poignantly concluded, that could take a long time:
Just as women were beginning to figure out how to balance two jobs – mother and career – and we started taking on politics, men out there said, “Not so fast.” That’s what Trump is all about – putting us back in our place and encouraging men to do the same.
“We’ve taken a lot of steps back,” she reflected. “Reversing that damage won’t happen overnight.”Footnote 18
Deeply Embedded Attitudes
A final way to understand the unchanging gender gap in political ambition is to recognize that patterns of traditional socialization are tenacious. When a woman wins the popular vote for president, or serves as vice president, or chairs a prominent congressional committee, she symbolizes women’s potential in politics. But no woman who serves in these positions can undo generations of deeply held stereotypes about gender roles in society, perceptions of female political leaders’ strengths and weaknesses, or beliefs about what running for office entails. We arrive at this conclusion not only from the survey data we’ve presented throughout the book, but also from the way women and men we interviewed described their views of society more broadly.
Part of the challenge, according to many potential candidates, is that beliefs about gender roles and norms are so deeply ingrained that overcoming them requires a constant awareness and vigilance. Yolanda Bush, for instance, shared with us that she often finds herself questioning her own abilities at work, where she’s one of only a handful of women in a leadership position. “I have been working really hard to not view myself as less qualified or capable … I try not to worry that I don’t have the skills, or the knowledge I need. I try not to panic, not to second guess myself.” In very consciously pushing back against her self-doubts, she said that she always finds herself referring back to a pep talk her husband once gave her: “He told me to just channel the confidence of a mediocre white man and I can do and be anything. That really has stuck with me.”
Adam Cargyle has also consciously tried to push back against these norms when it comes to his daughters, one of whom plays flag football and is the only girl on the team. He said that he and his wife constantly tell her, “You aren’t some delicate flower. Your participation in a sport isn’t determined by your gender or gender presentation. If you want to play the sport, you are welcome to.” Although he believes that these regular conversations “are important,” his daughter “still questions her ability.” For Mr. Cargyle, the link to running for office was clear: “I certainly can imagine this is how women in politics likely feel.”
Navigating a world that clings to traditional gender norms poses additional obstacles for women of color who might think about getting involved in politics. Michael Adams, for instance, recognizes this at work: Women face a lot of stereotypes and a lot of pushback. I mean, I see it in my own life with my boss. My boss is a Black woman and if she speaks up passionately and loudly for something, she’ll get labeled the angry Black woman … There is still so much hate and discrimination directed at women. Sara Blum-Farkas, who lives in the South, made a similar point:
I think a lot of the time women are taught to be quiet and stand off to the side. We are still expected to hush and do as we are told. This is even worse for Black women. My best friend is an African American assistant principal, and she says all the time that she has to be very cautious with respect to how she comes across. If she isn’t, she gets called the angry, bitchy Black woman. There really is a fine line of who can handle that sort of thing.
Several others relayed similar stories that could have been told in the 1960s, 1970s, or 1980s, long before increases in women’s numeric representation were underway.
Perhaps that’s why several women and men we interviewed articulated a resigned acceptance that gender equality in politics may never fully materialize, no matter how long we wait or how many women we elect. Kirsten Wiley, for example, stated matter-of-factly that “the system is stacked against everyone but white men and it has been this way since the beginning of time.” The teacher from Portland, Oregon, thinks that this reality “will continue on forever.” Viola Lincoln’s perception was similar. She thinks “there will always be this patriarchy. Even when people die off, they’ve raised children like that. Men will always have an advantage over women, until maybe 1,000 years from now, and that’s if it all works out well.” Lily Plint agreed: “Throughout history, we have had male dominance in everything … There is a constant generational trickle-down effect of this perceived male superiority. This has become a generation after generation after generation thing.” Norm Rupp’s conclusion was among the most striking: “There’s no way to change this. How do you convince Neanderthals that they’re wrong?”
In laying out a series of possibilities for why the gender gap in political ambition has not closed, we should be clear that not every potential candidate we interviewed articulated these views. Some people thought we were on a steady course toward women’s full political inclusion and that the gender gap would close in due time. Others questioned the entire premise that gender quality requires more women in politics or closing the gender gap in ambition. Still others doubted the potential for role model effects in general. And some had nothing to say when we asked them to react to the survey’s central findings. Nevertheless, the common themes that did emerge in the interviews informed our speculation about why the gender gap in political ambition hasn’t closed and the likelihood that it ever will.
A Final Word
We began this book by asking why highly accomplished and politically minded women like Cheryl Perry and Barbara Gilmour demonstrated no ambition to run for office, while their similarly situated male counterparts, Kevin Kendall and John Whitten, confidently spoke about their prospects of entering the political sphere as candidates. We end the book with an answer to that question – an answer that, unfortunately, is the same one we offered twenty years ago: Deeply embedded patterns of traditional gender socialization pervade US society and continue to make politics a much less likely path for women than men.
Regardless of a robust body of academic research that finds that women perform just as well as men when they enter the electoral arena, traditional beliefs about gender roles permeate the political system. And despite women’s significantly greater – and growing – presence in politics, women continue to be less likely than men to see themselves as candidates for elective office. They also continue to be less likely than men to be seen by others as candidates for elective office. There’s no question that “it takes a candidate” to achieve gender parity in US political institutions. But when it comes to breaking down long-standing beliefs about politics and the very nature of the political domain, this book has made it clear that it takes more than a candidate.
