Rachelle Cardona
Lisa Thomas (TA)
MCWP 50 Section #010
4 June 2010
Women in American Politics: The Fight Against Gender-Restrictive Stereotypes
The struggle for equal rights, not solely limited to women, but all classes and races, has
been an ever-present fight in America for generations, yet the struggle for women’s equality in
politics continues to be a challenge. Feminism, a slow yet effective progression towards total
equality for the female collective, has improved due to the efforts of women pursuing feminist
ideals in American politics. Men have dominated the American political sphere since the United
States was founded and have left little room for women, on the basis that they are mentally and
emotionally inferior to men. Yet, the biological aspects, both chromosomal and hormonal, that
differentiate women from men physically and behaviorally, lend evidence that women make
exceptional political leaders. In fact, cross-national comparisons observed in Now: Women,
Power and Politics enforce the idea the women are successful in prominent governmental
positions, and the United States, a proud promoter of progressivism, has fallen far behind other
countries in respect to equal gender opportunities. Younger generations who believe the feminist
fight is over must realize the need for their fervor for feminism in order to close this gender gap
and create total equality. Women political leaders such as Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and
Michelle Obama exemplify the growing role of women in the American political sphere and the
struggles they endure due to their gender. Three main aspects of the gender gap in American
politics are to be discussed the history behind this gap, biological differences between men
and women contributing to political leadership, and current examples of women exhibiting these
Cardona
2
attributes in the American political sphere. A removal of the sexist stereotypes and expectations
that have weaved their way into our society over hundreds of years, combined with the effort to
attain beneficial traits that characterize and divide male from female, will provide well-rounded,
successful and respectful individuals who work together to establish complete equality for
women in the American public and in politics.
In order to understand what we must work to achieve, we must first understand how
gender came to be so important in politics. American society in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and
early twentieth centuries placed men in the public, political sphere, and women in the private
sphere of domestication, generating the present stereotype that women belong in the home. Yet
recent growing employment of women and their participation in the work force currently
challenge gender role stereotypes. During the centuries leading up to Y2K, it was commonly
understood that women were the caregivers for society; they served their husbands every needs,
raised their children, and positioned their needs after the familial needs. The Industrial
Revolution of the late 1800s allowed young women to escape their domestic bubble by working
in factories and marked the first time in American history where a large mass of women became
economically independent (LaFeber 38). The initial inclusion of women in the American
workforce was very much criticized by men, but became an initial step towards full equality for
all genders. A constant progression towards employee equality and increasing economic
disparity has affected the number of working women who now cooperate with their husbands to
support the family. As observed in Feminism with Men: “The gendered basis of American
society has changed dramatically during the past fifty years. Financial necessity had made the
two-check family a norm of today, and women are now entering every occupation in burgeoning
numbers” (Schacht and Ewing 165). It is difficult to attribute improving workforce equality to
Cardona
3
diminishing sexism, though, as sexism is too often present today. It is the financial and economic
necessity that has created such room for women, Steven P. Schacht and Doris W. Ewing explain.
Alice G. Sargent additionally states that the gendered stereotypes of women in respect to work is
now misleading in American Society due to the generations of working women that emerged
from the Industrial Revolution. She argues, “While some might believe that ‘a woman’s place is
in the home,’ the fact is American women have not spent their whole lives in the home for
generations” (159). Sargent uses the past employment of women as a qualifier that current
expectations for women to remain in the home are invalid, archaic, and old fashioned. Since
then, women have maintained a strong presence in the workforce but have yet to attain the
executive, leading roles in government and break the male-dominated political ring, without
resounding sexist negations that plague the United States society. The sexist struggles that
women currently endure should no longer exist, for our mothers and grandmothers have paved
the way towards gender equality in respect to employment and politics, yet chauvinistic ideals
continue to oppress professional women.
The constant insistence of men ruling the public sphere and women ruling the private
sphere molded and shaped United States society into one of harmful and limiting stereotypes,
which affected the mindset of many Americans, as these sexist beliefs have been passed from
generation to generation. Yet there has to be an explanation for these assumed qualities that
define men as aggressive and superior, and women as meek and inferior. The basis for these
assumptions lies in the research of biology and the significant inherent differences between men
and women. Feminists do not deny that women and men differ biologically, but rather, insist that
despite these differences, women should not be considered subordinate or less capable than their
male counterparts. Sargent provides research that shows the difference between the male and the
Cardona
4
female brain and how the female brain may be considered superior to that of a male due to the
structure and relation between hemispheres. The male brain is “more asymmetrically organized
than the female brain, both for verbal and nonverbal functions” (qtd. in Sargent 125). This means
that damage to either hemisphere of the male brain is more likely to cause permanent loss of
function, where the female brain may use the opposite hemisphere to compensate for the
damage. Women’s brains are more likely to coordinate left hemisphere with right, articulating,
refining, and solidifying brain function. Sargent’s research on the female corpus callosum, the
thick branch full of axons responsible for connections and communications between the two
hemispheres, is much thicker than that of the male brain (125). This accounts for the greater
communication between hemispheres for females and the asymmetrical organization of the male
brain. The ability of the brain to communicate effectively and efficiently between hemispheres
provides a brain better suited for reasoning and decision-making. Therefore, the longstanding
belief that women do not have the mental capacity for politics or the ability to make tough
political decisions is biologically incorrect. Who would not want to have government leaders and
politicians with strong, lasting brain function and fluidity in communication between
hemispheres?
The physical and hormonal differences between the sexes and how these differences
affect behavior create and promote gendered stereotypes, yet should not determine whether men
or women are more qualified for the political lifestyle. Testosterone and estrogen, the two main
hormones characterizing males and females respectively, account for certain stereotypes and
behavior in the differing genders. The male sex relies on testosterone for physical qualities such
as larger muscle build, facial hair, a deeper voice, and behavioral qualities such as
competitiveness and aggression. Estrogen in females creates a womanly, pear-shaped figure and
Cardona
5
also the stereotypical reputation of being highly emotional. Men do not have to deal with great
hormone changes every month as women do, and these spikes and dips in hormone levels affect
the behavior of women. Sargent brings this argument to light and notes, “Bardwick speculates
that self-assertiveness, self-esteem, and competitiveness are all highest at mid-cycle, and that
anxiety, tenseness, and depression are highest during pre-menstruation and menstruation” (126).
Estrogen and other hormones are the reason for women’s dynamic emotional state, not a
predisposed inferiority in reasoning, as was the common belief for hundreds of years. Men
insisted that women were irrational and incapable of deciding their own fate due to their
unsteady emotional characteristics, and therefore, deemed women incapable of political
positions. Roberta S. Sigel explains that this emotional stereotype is what holds women back
from full influence in American politics:
Politics, so the popular phrase went, was men’s business. Their “natures” and
temperaments differed because their biological make-ups differed. “Biology is
destiny,” and destiny it seemed favored the male species, for women were judged
to lack the prosperity for political conflict or at least the appetite for its
competitiveness and aggressivity. Their tender or ‘emotional’ nature caused them
to avoid making the tough decisions required in the political process. (Sigel 8)
Women, consistently chided for their range of emotions, have been barred from politics for that
very reason. Women’s supposed irrationality and range of emotion in cooperation with a
nurturing and compassionate nature deemed them unfit to make tough, political decisions and to
care for her people, yet certainly compassion and a nurturing instinct have a place in politics.
Sargent reports, “The traits women have been criticized for in the past appear to be the attributes
of the future” (Sargent 208). The biological and hormonal qualities, which previously accounted
Cardona
6
for the male discrimination of females in politics, now lend themselves to the support of women
in American politics.
Schacht and Ewing, male and female respectively, address the effect of harmful gender
stereotypes in Feminism with Men and their effects on both men and women. In the introduction,
the authors present their case as follows: “We argue that the continued exclusion of men may
explain why feminism is at present a stalled revolution.…Although coming from different
perspectives, we both agree that women and men suffer from the harms of misogyny and male
dominance” (xiv). While effectively using their differing sexes to address stereotypes currently
affecting American society, both Schacht and Ewing recognize that men must participate in the
feminist revolution for it to become fully effective. The misogynist expectations society has for
men and their effects must also be addressed in order to push feminism forward, as the
stereotypes society encourages in men, in turn, create the sexist limitations placed upon women
of the United States. Schacht and Ewing effectively break down the construct of male
stereotypes into “the four pillars of masculinity and manhood  sex, money, power, and
violence” (Schacht xv). These “four pillars” of manhood explain the need for men to dominate
and objectify women and deem them subordinate to the male sex, as evidenced in American
media and popular social trends. Men are expected to exhibit characteristics of a dominant male
in most situations, such as physical stature and social standing. This can be observed in the
comedy The 40 Year Old Virgin. Every minute of this film pours forth sexist comments harmful
to the female sex as Andy, the protagonist, is encouraged to use women in order to define his
manhood. The basis of the production lies in the social requirements that are held for men, who
are expected to exude dominance and masculinity in most situations. In this comedic production,
supporting characters repeatedly tease each other about not being masculine enough, and
Cardona
7
therefore they are called “gay.” When two men were caught in a meaningful embrace, one of the
characters teases, “Do you know how I know you’re gay? Because you are holding each other
ever so gently.” This type of banter is common among boys and men in American society to
make the accuser feel more masculine, and can have obvious detrimental effects to social
constructs of men and the gay community. The expectation for males to exude masculinity harms
those who fall short of social standards and creates young men who may be considered awkward
or outcasts. Men consistently feel the need to enforce their dominance, whether it be physically,
mentally, or verbally according to the four pillars of masculinity. Schacht states, “on the surface,
most men would be considered huge manhood failures” (xv). Like Andy in The 40 Year Old
Virgin, men commonly do not meet the standards set by media and society, and are in Schacht’s
terms, “manhood failures.” The men who do not meet these standards, in order to compensate for
their failure at manhood, oppress and subjugate women, effectively contributing to the
downward spiral of sexism present in the United States.
In recent decades, the fervor for feminism has diminished due to the accomplishments
and changes set in place by women of the 1900s. The Roaring Twenties, the 1920s are popularly
called, saw women morphing their role in society and emerging into the public sphere. Women
still commonly maintained the home, but began to embrace sexuality, individuality, and legal
freedoms. In a snowball effect towards more and more gender equality, women were forced to
fight for every civil right, something unfamiliar to their descendants who make up the youth of
American citizens. It is the accomplishments of older generations that lessen the gender
challenges that younger generations of American women face today. Michael Barone refers this
issue and how it affects today’s feminist revolution by stating, “These young women don’t react
defensively to antichoice politicians and don’t feel a need to be liberated from restraints that
Cardona
were never urged on them…Politically the idea of a first woman president does not transfix
them or at least not enough for them to prefer Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama” (Barone par.
3). Men and society as a whole constantly challenged women of the early and mid 20th century,
yet their offspring have not had to face the challenges that their elders endured, lessening their
zeal to fight for women’s role in politics. The gender ratio in politics may only be improved
when the American youth recognize the necessity of their support. In an article examining the
role of women in politics, Derrick Z. Jackson reported, “Meanwhile, in the United States,
although a record number of women sere in Congress, women are still only about 17 percent of
the members” (par. 1). American politics severely lack the presence of women, who make up
half of the population. Action needs to be taken in respect to these numbers in order to
effectively accomplish the goal of total gender equality. It is the young women descending from
boomer generations that are what the feminist revolution lacks, and must they must embrace the
need for total parity in the political sphere, which will lead to more women in politics, and
possibly the first woman president.
Interestingly, the United States is not as progressive as its citizens proudly claim to be as
feared the election of a woman president, but other nations, such a Chile, have had successful
female leadership for years. In a documentary called NOW: Women, Power, and Politics, Maria
Hinojosa, a reporter for PBS, interviews Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, a woman who
held the position currently unknown to any woman in the United States. Hinojosa examines the
social settings that allowed for these conditions, in accordance with the beneficial properties of
female leadership and how that compares to the sexism present in American politics. Bachelet
worked her way up through government positions, including Minister of Health and Minister of
Defense, and a picture of her in action surfaced after a destructive flood swept through parts of
8
Cardona
9
Chile. Hinojosa reports the effectiveness of this photo on her political career and stated, “This
female Minister of Defense wearing a military cap and riding a tank created a sensation. Bachelet
was seen as a compassionate protector” (NOW). The image of a female in a predominantly male
position, let alone atop a military tank, affected the citizens of the Chilean country; they began to
view Bachelet as the caring leader they long needed, and her political party soon supported and
led her into presidency. Hinojosa interviewed Bachelet during her presidency on significant
topics, one being the social reforms she instituted as the Chilean president, and the other about
the sexism she encountered in her political position. Firstly, Bachelet accomplished much during
her first years as president and reformed the country to guarantee social rights for everyone, with
a specific focus on women. In a traditionally patriarchal country, women were undermined and
lacked much of the rights and legal protections that men enjoyed. In her interview, Bachelet
addressed her social reforms and proudly said, “When I am talking about social protection, it's
not a Mom issue. It's a social justice issue. It's a way I understand the society must be” (NOW).
Here it is evident that Bachelet understands the social and economic rights deserved by
everyone, yet does not attribute it to a “Mom issue,” enforcing the idea that women are capable
of decision-making not restricted to female or motherly mindsets. She recognized the need for
complete civil equality because she is fair and just, not a radical feminist. Bachelet, a living
challenge to traditional values as she was unmarried and birthed a child out of wedlock,
respectfully dealt with criticisms that attacked her personal life during her presidency. As an
influential and effective female president, Bachelet led the way for women of today, and her
story encourages other women to pursue political goals and not let sexism and gendered
stereotypes restrict opportunities available to them.
Cardona 10
Another major focus in Maria Hinojosa’s report on Women, Power and Politics was the
Rwandan government and how this undermined country is now more potentially progressive
than the United States. The horrific genocide that in recent years destroyed the country’s
population and structure led way to a reformed government, which carved out a specific
requirement for female leadership. At the time of the documentary, Rwanda led the world in the
percentage of women in lower houses, as the parliament required a thirty percent minimum
female occupation (NOW). Since this requirement was put into effect, female participation in the
government has risen to almost fifty percent, and the country reported positive changes that
affect the women and men in Rwanda. In two interviews, one with a man and one with a woman,
they specifically discuss how this change in parliament encouraged more gender equality in the
country, especially in areas of employment. The woman interviewed discussed more freedom to
be out and about and enjoy providing for her family, and the man discussed newly enjoyed
equality for his wife (NOW). The requirement of women in the political sphere positively
reformed Rwanda into a more gender equal nation, as observed through the PBS documentary.
Since the release of this documentary, women have gained more influence in Rwandan
government, and the United States has fallen in its ranking of female politicians. The Gap in
Women’s Power in Politics states, “The United States, where affirmative action has been
demonized into disuse, ranks a paltry 73rd in the world for its percentage of women in the House.
At the top are Rwanda, Sweden, South Africa, Cuba, Iceland, the Netherlands, and Finland, all of
which have lower houses where between 40 percent and 56 percent of the members are women”
(Jackson par. 6). Here is evidence that Rwanda has improved its gender ratio in politics, and that
disappointingly, the American government is failing to close the political gender gap. For all the
pride in freedom and equality that American citizens hold, the numbers do not show The United
Cardona 11
States to be leader in political gender equality. Hinojosa’s report on female leadership and how
countries have flourished elsewhere in the world, especially in nations we often consider less
politically advanced, serves as an encouraging example for the people of the United States to
strive for female leadership in the political sphere.
The women who do stand up to the challenge and attempt to shatter the pattern of maledominated politics face much scrutiny, despite the criticism’s lack of relevance to the woman’s
political career; specifically, women’s bodies, ties to motherhood, and links to their husbands are
often used to define them as political subjects. Michelle Obama, the current First Lady of the
United States, is often judged for her muscular, toned body. An article by Jeannine Stein directly
addresses this topic as she quotes USC Professor Sarah Banet-Weiser, “It crosses the boundary
from having sexy, toned arms to having arms that display, ‘Hey, I’m working on being strong.’
The evidence of that work … is quite threatening” (qtd. in Stein par. 7). The American public
expects women to be physically feminine and petite, and Michelle Obama challenges the gender
norm and is viewed as “threatening.” The fact that her muscle tone is debated is irrelevant, as it
has nothing to do with her politically and solidifies the sexist notion that women are to be
physically satisfying to the public, and being too fit, as in Michelle Obama’s case, is
unacceptable. Meanwhile, Sarah Palin and reports on her personal life provide another example
of how the media aids in sexism against female politicians, as she has been criticized for
attempting to attain the position of vice president while maintaining a large family. In and article
titled “Feminists Attack Sarah Palin,” Mark Whittington states “that a woman with five children,
including one with special needs, and a daughter who is a 17 year-old-child who is pregnant and
about to have a baby, probably had to rethink her priorities” (par. 3). Here, Palin is criticized for
trying to establish herself politically while at the same time caring for her family. Yet, there is an
Cardona 12
underlying assumption that Palin and her husband run their household according to traditional
familial constructs, but her husband plays the role of a stay-at-home father supporting Palin and
her political career. The irony that these criticisms come from feminists is also observed when
Cathy Young argues, “You’d think that, whether or not they agree with her politics, feminists
would at least applaud Mrs. Palin as a living example of one of their core principles: a woman’s
right to have a career and a family” (par. 3). Young is accurate when she says that feminists
should support Palin because she embodies the feminist ideal of being able to simultaneously
work and raise a family, the exact subject for which she is criticized in Whittington’s article. If
feminists would like to reach gender equality in the political sphere, they should at least support
Palin as an example of the feminist goal. Last but certainly not least is Hillary Clinton, the first
female candidate for the presidency of the United States, who was often viewed as Bill Clinton’s
wife. Even when she attempted to reform the health care system, the public reacted with cries
such as, “She’s his wife, not the vice president!” (“Woman” par. 11). Hillary Clinton is
constantly defined as a person through her husband and is even then simply “his wife,” not an
influential politician or individual being. All of these women are critiqued on physical
appearance and personal matters such as raising a family, obstacles that male politicians do not
encounter. The public, influenced by the media, hold highly sexist and gender-restrictive
expectations for the female politicians who dare to enter a man’s world, the political sphere of
American politics.
Women have ventured a long way from the sole duty of caretaker of the home to
challenging the stereotypical gender roles and stepping into the world of American politics.
Misleading biological beliefs and harmful gender expectations, which originally denied women
any legal independence, now socially restrict the rights women presently possess. Despite the
Cardona 13
improvements established by the women of the boomer generation and the examples set forth by
Chilean President Michelle Bachelet and the women of the Rwandan parliament, American
sexism still restricts talented women from effectively leading the United States to a more gender
equal society. Equal opportunities and representation for women in politics will only be
experienced when both sexes recognize the abilities of an individual instead of limiting them
based on sex and popular gender assumptions. Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, and Hillary
Clinton, prominent women in American politics, have cracked the glass ceiling that restricts
women’s rise to political power. Until the harmful gender stereotypes placed upon both men and
women in American society are broken down and discarded, that glass ceiling will likely remain
intact rather than uniting the United States citizens in a society of respect and gender equality.
Cardona 14
Works Cited
The 40 Year Old Virgin. Dir. Judd Apatow. Prod. Judd Apatow, Clayton Townsend, and Shauna
Robertson. By Judd Apatow and Steve Carell. Perf. Steve Carell and Catherine Keener.
Universal Pictures, 2005. Film.
Barone, Michael. "Young Women, Feminism, and Hillary Clinton.” USNews.com. US News, 7
Jan. 2008. Web. 3 May 2010.
Jackson, Derrick Z. "The Gap in Women’s Power in Politics." Boston.com. The Boston Globe,
23 Mar. 2010. Web. 6 May 2010.
LeFeber, Walter, Richard Polenberg, and Nancy Woloch. "The Progressive Era." The American
Century: A History of the United States Since the 1890s. 6th ed. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe,
2008. 31-42. Print.
NOW: Women, Power and Politics. Perf. Maria Hinojosa. PBS, 2008. Now. PBS, 19 Sept. 2008.
Web. 22 Apr. 2010.
Sargent, Alice G. Beyond Sex Roles. 2nd ed. St. Paul: West, 1985. Print.
Schacht, Steven P., and Doris W. Ewing. Feminism with Men: Bridging the Gender Gap.
Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Print.
Sigel, Roberta S. Ambition and Accommodation: How Women View Gender Roles. Chicago:
U of Chicago P, 1996. Print.
Stein, Jeannine. "Michelle Obama's Toned Arms Are Debated." Los Angeles Times.
Articles.latimes.com, 29 Mar. 2009. Web. 5 May 2010.
Whittington, Mark. "Feminists Attack Sarah Palin." Associatedcontent.com. Associated Content,
3 Sept. 2008. Web. 6 May 2010.
Cardona 15
"A Woman in the White House? It's Possible." BBC NEWS. BBC, 7 Jan. 1999. Web. 6 May
2010.
Young, Cathy. "Why Feminists Hate Sarah Palin." The Wall Street Journal. Online.wsj.com, 15
Sept. 2008. Web. 6 May 2010.