To save content items to your account,
please 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 account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items 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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
Women receive a disproportionate share of the online abuse and violent threats made against politicians. Yet, mounting cross-national evidence also suggests that the long-observed gender disparity in citizens’ voting preferences has rapidly diminished – and arguably reversed – in recent decades. Emerging experimental research likewise suggests the broader public in many democratic countries is particularly sensitive to online abuse and threats against women politicians. Herein, we highlight the sexist beliefs of audiences as an important explanation for this apparent inconsistency. Analyzing data from a vignette experiment embedded within a wider survey administered to a demographically representative sample of the British electorate, we demonstrate that the sex of the candidate has only limited influence on observers’ tolerance for threats against politicians. However, respondents that held more sexist attitudes were both more tolerant of violent threats against politicians and particularly tolerant of abuse directed against female candidates. More concerningly, we find that priming sexist respondents to think about female candidates increased support for abusive behaviors against politicians more generally, irrespective of their sex. Our results add to the growing evidence that tolerance for political violence is driven not so much by partisan hostility and ideological polarization as by specific personality traits.
What causes increased spending on family work policies? The empirical record suggests that increasing women’s representation leads to an increase in welfare spending when the representational increase reflects a legislative shift to the Left. Here, we argue that family work policy is an issue that spans the ideological spectrum, with women on the Left and Right more likely than their male counterparts to prioritize spending on policies that directly enable women’s presence in the formal labor force. The adoption of a gender quota that applies only in larger Italian municipalities enables us to causally evaluate whether greater women’s political representation translates into more spending on the provision of preschool education. Our findings support the argument that women’s descriptive representation can lead directly to women’s substantive representation, particularly when we focus on a policy area – in this case, pre-primary education – with shared implications for women across the political spectrum.
What is the relationship between gender and mental health? What social forces shape this relationship? Evidence reveals that there are no differences by gender in overall rates of psychopathology, but gender predicts the types of psychopathology diagnosed and reported. Women suffer from higher rates of depression and anxiety (referred to as internalizing disorders), and men have higher rates of substance abuse and antisocial disorders (referred to as externalizing disorders). Sarah Rosenfield, Dena T. Smith, and Maleah Fekete concentrate on dominant gender conceptions – those held by groups in positions of power, which in the United States are primarily White and affluent. Focusing on the US adult population, the authors describe differences between men and women in power, responsibilities (i.e., different role positions), and personal characteristics that are relevant for mental health. For example, women earn less money, have jobs with less power and autonomy, and experience an overload of job and family demands more often than men. They have closer social ties, which bring more support but also more negative interactions. Women have personal characteristics of lower self-esteem and mastery than men. They are more nurturant and emotionally engaged, compared to men’s greater independence and assertiveness. Finally, gender predicts self-salience, that is, beliefs about the importance of the self versus others in social relations: women put others’ interests first more often, which promotes internalizing problems, while men tend to privilege the self more strongly, facilitating externalizing problems. It is important to note that most research on gender and mental health compares men and women while ignoring minority gender identities. It is also important to consider gender’s intersection with other social determinants of mental health such as socioeconomic status (SES), race, and ethnicity. The authors suggest that socializing practices encouraging high self-regard along with high regard for others improve mental health. What role can colleges play in encouraging high self-regard and regard for others for all students?
We argue that more female candidates on the ballot will decrease the gender participation gap at the polls. We test this hypothesis with data from Italian local elections between 2008 and 2020, taking advantage of a 2012 law requiring at least a third of local council candidates to be women in localities with 5000+ inhabitants. Exploiting the exogenous geographic variation and timing in the implementation of the electoral reform, we evaluate the effect of this exogenously driven variation in women's candidacy on the gendered voting gap. We find a significant and substantively strong causal relationship between the share of women on the ballot and the gendered gap, driven by an increase in women's, but not men's, participation at the polls.
While there has been work on whether women are more tolerant of outgroups, the ethnic politics literature has generally overlooked the role of gender in explaining interethnic trust. Whatever attention exists often focuses on the gender of the subject—that is, who is doing the trusting—with mixed results. One reason is that the object being entrusted is either not specified or assumed genderless. In this paper, we call attention to the gender of an important entrusted object in interethnic relations: children. We argue people are less willing to have their daughters—compared to their sons—marry an ethnic outgroup. Additionally, this willingness declines as the cultural distance widens. We test this using a survey experiment in Romania where we leverage the diversity in ethnicity and a gendered language structure. Our results highlight the importance of accounting for gender-based differences in studying interethnic trust.
from
Part II
-
The Social Context of Mental Health and Illness: Introduction to Part II
By
Sarah Rosenfield, Department of Sociology, Rutgers University,
Kelly Kato, Department of Sociology, Rutgers University,
Dena Smith, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Maryland
Are there differences between men and women in mental health and why? These are the questions taken up by Rosenfield, Kato, and Smith. They begin by providing an overview of classical psychoanalytical theory (Freud's conceptualization) and more recent approaches (by Nancy Chodorow, for example) that represent the major positions on gender differences: women have more mental health problems than men, men have more than women, or both have equal amounts. Evidence reveals that there are no differences in their overall rates of psychopathology, but men and women do differ in the type of psychopathology experienced. Women suffer from higher rates of depression and anxiety (referred to as internalizing disorders), and men have higher rates of substance abuse and antisocial disorders (referred to as externalizing disorders). Rosenfield, Kato, and Smith consider various explanations for these differences. They concentrate on dominant gender conceptions – those held by groups in positions of power, which in this society are primarily white, middle-class conceptions. Divisions between men and women in power, responsibilities (i.e., different role positions), and personal characteristics are relevant for mental health. For example, women earn less money, have jobs with less power and autonomy, and experience an overload of job and family demands more often than men (Simon, 2014). They have closer social ties, which bring more support but also more negative interactions. Women have personal characteristics of low self-esteem and mastery relative to men. They are more nurturant and emotionally reliant compared to men's greater independence and assertiveness. Finally, males and females differ in self-salience, that is beliefs about the importance of the self versus others in social relations: women put others' interests first more often, which promotes internalizing problems, while men tend to privilege the self more strongly, facilitating externalizing problems. The authors suggest that socializing practices encouraging high self-regard along with high regard for others benefit mental health. This is an interesting idea, and students may want to discuss their own socialization into “appropriate” feminine and masculine behaviors.
Introduction
Among the most profound social divisions in our culture is the one we make by gender. Whether we are male or female shapes our access to resources and our life choices and options. It colors the ways we relate to others, what people expect of us, and what we expect of ourselves.
In this article we set out a fine-grained measure of the formal authority of intermediate subnational government for Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand that is designed to be a flexible tool in the hands of researchers and policymakers. It improves on prior measures by providing annual estimates across ten dimensions of regional authority; it disaggregates to the level of the individual region; and it examines individual regional tiers, asymmetric regions, and regions with special arrangements. We use the measure and its elements to summarize six decades of regional governance in Southeast Asia and conclude by noting how the Regional Authority index could further the dialogue between theory and empirics in the study of decentralization and democratization.
Are there differences between men and women in mental health and why? These are the questions taken up by Rosenfield and Smith. They begin by providing an overview of classical psychoanalytical theory (Freud’s conceptualization) and more recent approaches (such as by Nancy Chodorow) that represent the major positions on gender differences: Women have more mental health problems than men, men have more than women, or both have equal amounts. Evidence reveals that there are no differences in their overall rates of psychopathology, but men and women do differ in the type of psychopathology experienced. Women suffer from higher rates of depression and anxiety (referred to as internalizing disorders), and men have higher rates of substance abuse and antisocial disorders (referred to as externalizing disorders). Rosenfield and Smith consider various explanations for these differences. They concentrate on dominant gender conceptions – those held by groups in positions of power, which in this society, are primarily White, middle-class conceptions. Divisions between men and women in power, responsibilities (i.e., different role positions), and personal characteristics are relevant for mental health. For example, women earn less money, have jobs with less power and autonomy, and experience an overload of job and family demands more often than men. They have closer social ties, which bring more support but also more negative interactions. Women have personal characteristics of low self-esteem and mastery compared to men, as well as high emotional reliance as opposed to men's greater independence. Finally, men and women differ in self-salience, which constitutes beliefs about the importance of the self versus others in social relations: Women put others’ interests first more often, which promotes internalizing problems, while men tend to privilege the self more strongly, facilitating externalizing problems. As African Americans exemplify, the authors suggest that socializing practices encouraging high self-regard along with high regard for others benefit mental health. This is an interesting idea, and students may want to discuss their own socialization into “appropriate” feminine and masculine behaviors.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.