Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Even Before Election Day, Women Can Count Some Wins

By Peggy Drexler, Women's eNews. Posted November 4, 2006.


The month of political reckoning has arrived, but Peggy Drexler reckons that women already have something to celebrate. With 134 women winning House primaries, and many running for lower-tier state positions, the pipeline is filling up.
Advertisement

November is upon us. The bloggers are blogging earnestly, the spinners are spinning madly, decision day is looming.

Amid all the high-stakes focus and fulmination over this vote serving as a Bush administration performance review, something else important is happening, something historic.

The 134 women running for House seats in the general election is just shy of the record 141 who ran in 2004. Twelve women have won their party's nomination for the Senate, beating a record set in 1992 and tied in 2002. Ten women are running for governor, matching a record set in 1994. Rutgers University's Center for American Women in Politics counts a record 2,431 women running for state legislative seats.

That is clearly good news for those who believe that a louder, stronger female voice is good for women and good for government.

Sometimes, though, good news is delivered in smaller packages.

I recently saw that CosmoGirl! magazine -- where you might go to find "10 ways to get him to notice you" -- has launched a project (call it a promotion if you're cynical) to put one of their readers in the White House by 2024.

It includes internships in places such as the United Nations Association and the office of New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney.

It caught my attention for two reasons. One, a magazine that makes its living understanding young women believes that politics sells magazines. Two, they believe their young female audience would see running for president as a logical thing to do.

And that is important. Even with the record and near record numbers of women running in mid-term races, we still have a long way to go.

15 Percent of Congress

Women make up half the U.S. population and more than half the voters, but represent just 15 percent of Congress. The world parliamentary average is over 16 percent. For a country that bills itself as the world's model of democracy and equality, that's shabby. Many developing countries boast far better numbers.

Former Rep. Pat Schroeder once called the White House the "the ultimate tree house with a 'No Girls Allowed' sign on it." There are currently a record 13 women running countries as presidents or prime ministers. In the United States, we are still running polls to test the idea of a female president.

Not all of the under-representation can be blamed on not being allowed in the tree house.

Women now hold about half of all professional and managerial positions in business. You can argue about how fast they've risen to the very top, but there is no argument about the numbers pouring through the door. Why aren't we seeing that same rush to politics?

It appears that there are co-dependent answers: Many capable, experienced women don't feel they are qualified for a political race, and they don't get the support and encouragement to think otherwise.

A 2005 Brown University-Union College Citizen Political Ambition Study gave us the first broad national study of why people run for office. The study and a subsequent book, "It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office," were written by Richard L. Fox and Jennifer Lawless, who recently lost a tough congressional primary race in Rhode Island.

Women Wonder: Am I Qualified?

They found that even among those who excelled in other areas, women were twice as likely as men to say they were not qualified to run for office. Women in the study were significantly less likely to think they would win their first race. They also found that women received less encouragement to run; 37 percent of women versus 43 percent of men received a suggestion to run from someone in the political arena or their personal lives.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election06, women in politics

Peggy Drexler, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of psychology at Weill Medical College of Cornell University and a former gender scholar at Stanford University. She is the author of Raising Boys Without Men (Rodale, 2005) and can be reached at www.peggydrexler.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Non-humans included?
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Nov 4, 2006 1:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Twelve women have won their party's nomination for the Senate, beating a record set in 1992 and tied in 2002.

I think the jury's out on whether Katherine Harris is a human being. Let's say 11 women and one female of an indeterminate species.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Non-humans included? Posted by: rsaxto
win
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 4, 2006 1:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real political win for women in the USA will come when the majority of the Congress is female as is the case in the population. That will be in the far distant future when the USA will also become a real democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» November 5 is near Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: November 5 is near Posted by: rsaxto
No they wont! Women are still dominated by male chauvinists in chambers!
Posted by: hot_rad_man on Nov 4, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The power brokers in politics control the gate, and women are not allowed to pass through yet. This system is corrupted and must be derailed. No election will change anything for women, they are still dominated and influenced by the money changers that rule this fucked up country!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 4, 2006 6:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Women' will win when they realise that they can vote for a candidate who support their political opinion whether that candidate is a woman, man, transexual, black, white, chinese, mexican, etc. I guess, by your logic, I should only vote for white people so that I 'win'. Get with the times.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is 80% stupid an acceptable quota?
Posted by: eddie torres on Nov 4, 2006 10:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
48/52 male-female representation in the US Congress is a meaningless objective. 80% of Americans are stupid - should 80% of Congress be stupid too?

How about 100% responsible, efficient, and effective leadership? Your country needs a psychological gauge, not a gender gauge.

Get your priorities straight already.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More than 10 women
Posted by: anothername on Nov 4, 2006 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know of at least 4 women running for governorships who are not Republican or Democrat. The 10 women referenced in the article are only Democrat or Republican. The problem with pushing parity in numbers only is that women may not want to run for office under their current options. Moreover, the best comment I have heard from anyone about No Child Left Behind came from one of those 4 women. Loretta Nall, the Libertarian candidate in Alabama said that the federal government only gave the state 6% of the states's education budget and that was just not enough to push NCLB on the Alabama.

There is still a benefit for women who choose to marry and support a man for higher office than there is for the woman herself to seek the office. If a woman believes she has a better shot at wealth and power by marrying an ambitous man than seeking the wealth and power directly, I am not going to criticize her choice. In the last episode of The West Wing, the scene in which the soon-to-be new first lady stood with the president elect and remembered the schoolmate who grabbed the date for the prom; she said she didn't mind, because look where she was now. In other words, because she married the man who woudl be president, she's a hot shot.

I want to see women elected to office because I continue to witness too many people commenting that a woman couldn't be effective. Yet, everytime a woman breaks through, suddenly, women as candidates are everywhere. (Just look at Alaska this year.) That does not, mean, however, that I would vote for a person based on gender. I vote for the candidate that best represents the direction I want my city, state, or country to go (or I vote for None of the Above).

I think counts of women running are useful, but without a wider count and without insight into who is running and why, the counts remain trivial items.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]