Getting Women In The Right House

A record 125 women were elected to serve in the 116th U.S. Congress during the 2018 midterm elections, 40 of whom are new members. However, despite the fact that women make up 50 percent of the U.S. population, 125 seats is still only 22 percent of Congress. These proportions aren’t unique to the federal level either. A 2018 study by the Center for American Women and Politics found that only approximately 20 percent of local mayoral offices and state legislature positions are held by women.

Why are we still seeing this representation gap across the board when it comes to political leadership in the United States? Although progress is being made, women still face strong barriers to holding positions of political leadership. Self-doubt already keeps many women from running, but even when they do choose to run, they face a different set of standards than men that can further obstruct the path to political office. At a time when so many women are trying to enter the American political arena, it’s important that we analyze these barriers to entry so we can work to make our government reflect a more accurate depiction of the U.S. population.

The 2016 presidential election demonstrates a unique opportunity to analyze the higher standards that women in politics face, through the treatment of Carly Fiorina, a presidential candidate for the Republican Party during the primaries, and Hillary Clinton. Both women had to overcome significant obstacles throughout their campaigns, facing gendered criticism on both their physical appearances and personalities.

One example of this criticism was the sexist feedback Fiorina and Clinton dealt with regarding their facial expressions. During the second GOP primary debate, Michael Smerconish, a CNN commentator, targeted Fiorina by stating, “She’s got to smile… [t]here are times to be serious, but you’ve got to loosen it up a little bit.” Clinton dealt with similar sexism in March 2016 while giving a victory speech as MSNBC host Joe Scarborough tweeted, “Smile. You just had a big night.” Though these comments in isolation don’t seem particularly sexist, the media simply didn’t scrutinize the male candidates for their smiles (or lack thereof), demonstrating a harmful double standard.

Fiorina and Clinton also faced gendered criticism about their speech patterns. Though Bernie Sanders, a male candidate for the Democratic Party during the primaries, was known for his style of shouting during speeches to inspire voters, Clinton and Fiorina were attacked for their own strong manners of speaking. During one of his campaign speeches, Donald Trump even called Clinton “shrill.”

[su_pullquote]Women are more likely to be interpreted as “shrill” when they use aggression in speeches.[/su_pullquote]In an interview with New Republic, NPR linguist Geoffrey Nunberg reported that women are more likely to be interpreted as “shrill” when they use aggression in speeches. Additionally, a 2015 study by psychologists Jessica Salerno and Liana Peter-Hagene found that while debating, men tend to become more influential as they become angry, while the reverse is true of women. This puts women at a disadvantage when trying to invoke the same rhetoric that men display.

[su_pullquote]Women face tremendous difficulties while running for political office because they’re expected to assert dominance through masculine qualities… while still maintaining their feminine characteristics[/su_pullquote]Women face tremendous difficulties while running for political office because they’re expected to assert dominance through masculine qualities, such as references to strength and power, to meet candidacy standards while still maintaining their feminine characteristics, such as a softer tone of voice, to meet likability standards. In the words of political scientist Georgia Duerst-Lahti, “They must find the perfect blend of pantsuits and pearls.”

While it’s important to celebrate the advances that women make in politics, it’s also necessary to acknowledge why these advances have happened so slowly and how we can quicken them. It’s irrefutable that U.S. society constitutes a patriarchy, which sociologist Allan G. Johnson defines as a society that’s “male-dominated, male-identified, and male-centered.” Male-dominated refers to the notion that positions of authority are usually for men and promotes the idea that men are superior to women. Male-identified deals with the idea that as a society, we tend to value traits that are typically aligned with masculinity, and characteristics of men are considered to be good and normal. Finally, male-centered considers that our focus is often on men and what they do, thus allowing them to control the conversation more. This entire structure gives men a significant advantage in shaping public opinion and perception.

[su_pullquote align=”right”]Men, and especially white men, in high positions of political power have a responsibility to support and speak up for hardworking, qualified female candidates and make sure that they have the space to be heard, just as white women in power have a responsibility to speak up for female candidates of color.[/su_pullquote]Because of this advantage, men, and especially white men, in high positions of political power have a responsibility to support and speak up for hardworking, qualified female candidates and make sure that they have the space to be heard, just as white women in power have a responsibility to speak up for female candidates of color. Additionally, the media must refrain from perpetuating gender biases. Until people in positions of power and privilege use their privilege to dismantle the institutions and ideals that enforce inequality, our government can’t be truly representative of the diversity the U.S. contains.

Hannah Anderson ‘22 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at hannahanderson@wustl.edu.