Search Results

This chapter acknowledges the compelling evidence that women in public office make a difference, even as it explores the controversies that often lurk beneath the surface of such assertions: the probabilistic rather than deterministic nature of the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation of women; the contested legitimacy of women representing women; and disagreement about what it means to represent women. To that end, the chapter explores the need to develop theoretical and empirical models that recognize diversity, to take actions out of a contextual vacuum, to re-examine the appropriateness of the empirical models that structure the analysis, to confront (and ultimately counteract) institutional and cultural pressures that call into question the legitimacy of women representing women, and to acknowledge the conceptual weaknesses that belie the tendency to treat gender difference as a synonym for substantive representation of women.

By going beyond the simple question ‘Do women make a difference?’ and delving into the meaning of elected women’s sense of connection of women using this dynamic framework, the results provide insight into factors that encourage substantive representation of women and shape the meaning of gender. They suggest that women may not only transform institutions, but be transformed by them and the larger political environment. To that end, the conclusion suggests six strategies likely to further substantive representation of women at any given level of descriptive representation: (1) strengthening the voices of women on the outside to encourage those on the inside to challenge masculinist values and amass the majorities they need to effect change; (2) electing men who see women as a political group with legitimate needs and interests; (3) strengthening the recruitment of gender conscious women, while nurturing gender consciousness among women inside and outside the institution; (4) increasing the legitimacy of substantive representation of women by casting achievement of such goals in terms consistent with institutional norms; (5) confronting the legitimacy of women’s claims to act for women by rejecting essentialist assumptions; and (6) confronting the contested meaning of substantive representation of women in theory and practice, while simultaneously accommodating the realities women face as actors within institutions with norms and values beyond their control. These strategies in the long term may help determine whether any compromises women make as ‘team players’ will contribute to the regendering of this political institution or simply mean more political jobs for women who reinforce long established norms, and whether ultimately we can expect ‘regendering’ within Congress to transform the nature of partisan political debate or simply reinforce the divisions of contemporary partisan politics.

The ratings of ten interest groups, along with party unity and presidential support scores, are analyzed to explore the broader evidence of change and stability in gender difference and women’s impact across the strikingly different environments of the 103rd and 104th Congresses. Although the results suggest that increased descriptive representation will enhance substantive representation of women, these findings of gender difference coexist with evidence that descriptive representation might not necessarily contribute to increased substantive representation of women. Gender differences narrowed in the 104th, primarily due to the influx of a new cohort of Republican women who were in some cases even more conservative than their male colleagues, but also due to ‘conversion’ effects, as veteran Republican women shifted rightward in an institutional environment where the cost of difference increased. With Democratic men on average being more feminist/liberal than Republican women on average, the question is raised whether substantive representation of women would be better served by increasing the proportional presence of Democrats (regardless of gender) or by increasing women’s presence regardless of party.

This chapter deconstructs gender differences to explore the contested issues surrounding gender difference, when the politics of presence converged with partisan politics in the struggle over health care reform during the Democratic-controlled 103rd Congress. The impact of the institutional environment on women’s agenda and actions, along with differences in environmental pressures across parties and committees, are explored. The analysis attempts to move beyond the simple question of whether women make a difference to an understanding of how political environments, structured by partisanship and steeped in masculinist values, affect and can be affected by the feminale. The case study suggests that one cannot truly understand gender differences in an institutional vacuum, even as it forces us to confront the relationship between gender difference and substantive representation of women, and to consider the value of the concept of feminist protest in understanding partisan differences in gender difference and women’s impact.

Drawing on the strikingly different records of the 103rd and 104th Congresses — congresses in which women’s proportional presence was roughly similar — this introduction to Part I highlights the empirical evidence of the complexity belying the probabilistic relationship between descriptive and substantive representation of women. This lays the foundation for comparing and contrasting gender’s impacts on policymaking as the environment changes, examining how women’s efforts to bring (feminale) gendered perspectives to the policymaking process affect and are affected by (masculine) gendered institutions, assessing the implications for the connection between descriptive and substantive representation of women, and exploring what this may mean for all citizens in a representative democracy. Special attention is devoted to why the 103rd and 104th Congresses are an ideal laboratory for exploring the dynamic, probabilistic relationship between descriptive and substantive representation of women.

Women’s health policy united women across party lines in the 103rd and yielded numerous victories. These successes continued a trend established in earlier Congresses and, relatively speaking, would not come under attack in the 104th when almost every other political gain previously made by women was vulnerable. As such, juxtaposition of women’s health case studies with the reproductive rights case studies allows us to go once again beyond the simple question of ‘Do women make a difference?’ to explore not only how the confluence of individual, institutional, and cultural factors gives meaning to gender and shapes the probabilistic relationship between descriptive and substantive representation of women over time and across policy areas, but also to suggest strategies for advancing substantive representation regardless of women’s proportional presence. The results illustrate the value of diversity and suggest strategies that can sustain unity amid diversity. They suggest that in addition to increasing women’s presence, substantive representation of women will be facilitated by raising the gender consciousness of women in the mass public, by reinforcing awareness (and fear) of the gender gap, and by women’s advancement within the institutional hierarchy. In short, even with a ‘mom and apple pie’ issue, making a difference requires efforts by women inside the Congress to put matters on the agenda and the mobilization of women outside the institution to give legitimacy and political teeth to demands that challenge masculinist values.

When the 1994 elections gave control of Congress to a conservative, Christian Coalition-dominated, Republican majority, what some had over-optimistically touted as a critical mass of women became a token group, notwithstanding a slight increase in numbers. Nowhere was that more evident than in the ability of that new Republican majority to re-define the agenda, raising new issues (Partial Birth Abortion Ban) and challenging seemingly non-controversial, bipartisan, well-established programs (funding for the Title X Family Planning program and international family planning programs). The continued evidence of the gender gap in prochoice support, along with the critical role played by the shrinking cohort of prochoice Republican women in challenging their leadership’s anti-reproductive rights agenda, reinforce the importance of increasing descriptive representation. Nevertheless, the gendered roles assumed by a growing vocal cohort of female Republican reproductive rights opponents, reluctance by some ostensibly prochoice Republican women to challenge their leadership, a shrinking gender gap in prochoice support within Congress, and the frustrations of those who attempted to fight these often futile battles, all highlight the critical role that institutional environments, increased ideological diversity among women, and extra-institutional forces play in shaping the probabilistic relationship between descriptive and substantive representation, in strengthening or weakening perceptions of legitimacy surrounding gender difference, and in defining and redefining the meaning of substantive representation of women and realizing the potential for difference. These case studies explore gender differences in perspectives of reproductive rights opponents, provide insight into the value of bipartisan support for reproductive rights policy agendas (despite Republicans being less prochoice than Democrats), and point to the important role of women voters in maintaining bipartisan support and political resolve.

This chapter uses four legislative battles (the Freedom of Choice Act, Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances bill, Medicaid funding of abortion, and abortion provisions in the Federal Employees’ Health Benefit Act) as case studies for understanding the contested issues and complexity belying gender difference and women’s impact. While women members were seen as united around reproductive rights, institutional dynamics in this partisan environment and extra-institutional pressures encouraged the increasingly diverse group of women to give voice to diversity, defined (and re-defined) women’s priorities and their understandings of their roles and responsibilities as representatives of women, and influenced their prospects for political success within an institution whose agenda they did not control. While the case studies suggest the need to bring more women into office, they remind us that the potential of presence is limited without positional power, and that mobilized women voters who pose a gender gap threat can provide legitimacy for difference within institutions steeped in masculine values.

The analysis of women’s self-described roles as representatives of women finds both convincing evidence of consensus among women members over time and across parties as well as an abundance of complexity, pointing once again to the importance of going beyond what women say to other factors that give practical meaning to their words: perceptions of women as a group, resentment of perceived gender-related problems facing women, commitment to advancing women, and differences in the relative priority of working on behalf of women. Deconstructing ‘women’ and ‘women’s issues’ reveals differences in meanings that may contribute to different actions on different issues, benefiting different women. A closer look at partisan differences in the institutional and extra-institutional environments reveals challenges and opportunities for surrogate representation of women, which contribute to disunity among women in practice and perhaps diversity in the way feminist protest is manifested.

The story of health insurance reform in the 104th brings to life many of the contested issues surrounding gender difference in impact. It illustrates the importance of going beyond quantitative evidence of gender difference to look carefully at the substance of those differences that emerge, to understand their relationship to the broader political context, and to explicitly consider the motivations belying difference. That those who were seen as advocates for women in the health care reform battles of the 103rd played little role in health insurance reform, while some of the more visible vocal women critics of the Clinton plan led the effort some saw as ‘radical’, that the prime [female] motivator and facilitator of the effort was not seen as driven by gendered forces or even connected with women’s organizations, and that Republican women who had supported women’s health also supported a measure likely to have reversed state mandates protecting women’s health benefits all make health insurance reform a unique laboratory for addressing the contested issues that surround difference. The conclusions suggest a growing gap between gender difference and the standards of third wave feminism, the need for an active engaged women’s movement to counter the threat posed by essentialist assumptions that grant legitimacy to any pronouncement women make on behalf of women, the contribution differences in the masculinist cultures of parties may make toward partisan differences in the manifestation of feminist protest, and they caution against the gendered consequences of ostensibly gender-neutral institutional procedures.

Women’s health did not suffer the same endless litany of political defeats as other policy areas in the Republican-controlled 104th. While the case studies of women’s health research funding, breast cancer screening, and women veterans’ health suggest that women’s presence within the institution is important for ensuring substantive representation of women, they also suggest that other factors play a critical role in giving meaning to women’s presence. These include the political environment of Congress, the ideological perspective of those who hold positional power, and the extra-institutional pressure generated from the gender gap in the mass public, which gives legitimacy to action on behalf of women’s health among male members concerned about the next election.

The growing number of women winning legislative seats in Latin America augurs important questions about the causes and consequences of women’s representation. The introduction to this book articulates a comprehensive theory of women’s representation that provides a multifaceted and integrated model of women’s representation linking together formal, descriptive, substantive, and symbolic representation. It then describes how this theory will be tested empirically with data from Latin American legislatures in the remaining chapters of the book.

Disadvantaged groups may want to be represented by individuals who in their own backgrounds mirror the typical experiences of that group; these are descriptive representatives. The analysis presented in this chapter stresses two specific contexts in which shared descriptive traits allow a representative to represent constituents’ substantive interests better than, say, a shared party label. These contexts are (1) when communication between representative and constituent would otherwise be undermined by mistrust, and (2) when the legislature must decide on ’uncrystallized’ issues, i.e. issues that did not appear on the political agenda at the time of the representative's election. If representation is judged by deliberative as well as aggregative criteria, it is found that, in the two contexts identified, the descriptive representation often furthers the substantive representation of interests.

In setting the foundation for a closer look at women’s impact, this introduction to Part II draws on the extensive interviews with women members to provide evidence that almost every woman interviewed — regardless of party and across Congresses — expressed some basic sense of responsibility to women. Yet this unity in theory suggested by their words posed a sharp contrast to what was often disunity (or limited unity) of action in practice, pointing to the need to deconstruct seemingly similar sentiments surrounding responsibility and connection to women.

This chapter deconstructs women’s words of connection to women, focusing on the connection women members of Congress feel towards other political women. Content analysis of transcripts shows that women members of Congress seem to conceptualize political women as a group with shared experiences and comradery, common concerns, and/or interrelated fates. However, the data also show that beneath the veneer of unity and connectedness revealed in women’s words is considerable complexity, driven not only by individual level forces — ideology, life experiences, race, etc. — but also shaped by the institutional environment of Congress and the constraints posed by its partisan structure.

This chapter returns to a large, cross-national study of Latin American countries to examine whether the use of proportional electoral rules and gender quotas (formal representation), having more women in legislatures (descriptive representation), and passing women-friendly policies (substantive representation) evokes greater support for government in the electorate (symbolic representation). It presents a statistical analysis using Americas Barometer (LAPOP) survey data and shows that all three forms of representation affect both men’s and women’s democratic satisfaction, perceptions of corruption, trust in legislation, and trust in government, though to varying degrees. Countries with greater formal, descriptive, and substantive representation of women also have higher levels of support for representative democracy.

The final part of the book deals with the relationship between transitions to democracy, women's substantive representation, and policy outcomes. It completes the analysis of the circumstances under which a transition to democracy can alter different women's access to policymaking and with what results. After examining women's access to policymaking and gender policies under state socialist and authoritarian regimes, it moves on to look at post-transition outcomes. It focuses on the machinery of the state with regard to women, constitutional/legal frameworks, and codes, before turning to look at gender policy outcomes in three different areas: divorce and family law, domestic violence, and reproductive rights, particularly abortion. The final section examines how the social and economic transitions that have so often accompanied transition to democracy are gendered through an exploration of market reforms and welfare structuring.

The comparative analysis of the 27 policy cases suggests that feminist policies appear to be quite feminist in action, although successful feminist policies do not always achieve the same level of women's substantive and descriptive representation throughout the policy process. Success does not seem to neatly correspond with a given sub‐sector, country, or feminist family of nations. Whereas feminist strategic partnerships and feminist advocacy coalitions emerge around more feminist policies, they do not appear to be a prerequisite for highly successful policies. The presence of left‐wing governments and more woman‐friendly states and societies also may be one part of the feminist policy recipe for success; they are by no means the only ingredients. One of the most important determinants of feminist policy success may very well be the presence of sympathetic non‐feminist allies in key decision‐making positions. Thus, although feminist policy as a sector of government action is an undeniable feature of Western post‐industrial democracy at the beginning of the twenty‐first century, it appears to be quite different from more established areas of government action with more uniform and predictable dynamics and policy styles.

This chapter summarizes and analyses the findings from the comparative analysis of abortion policy debates in 11 countries. The first section describes similarities and differences in abortion politics, including how abortion reform came to the public agenda, which institutions are responsible for abortion policy, and the pattern of conflict. In the second section, the summary of frames of the abortion debates show policy makers eventually incorporating gendered ideas that promote the status, rights, and autonomy of women, leading in most cases to increased substantive and descriptive representation of women. The third section shows that most women's movements have been unified in support of women's abortion rights, but have not achieved their full demands. The fourth section reports comparative findings testing the five hypotheses of the state feminist theory, and showing conditions under which states’ women's policy agencies have helped women's movement activists achieve feminist policy and participation goals.