Gender & Political Leadership

Mikaela says:
Oh, thank you, Slate.

Love, love, love this article.

A recent study of villages in India, who have instituted a quota of women elected officials on a council, has found:

the villages headed by women invested in more services that benefited the entire community than did those with gender-neutral elections, nearly all of which were won by men.

[from later in the article]... The greatest improvement was in drinking water, the public amenity found to be most valued by women in earlier research (PDF)—with 30 percent more taps and hand pumps. So while the female pradhans were working for the general good, they were working particularly hard to provide the services valued by their fellow women. They were also less corrupt—villagers with female-headed councils were 25 percent less likely to report having to pay bribes to access basic services like getting ration cards or receiving medical attention.

But as the opinion polls showed, for all their effectiveness, the women's governance was literally a thankless effort, with the new leaders getting lower approval ratings than their male counterparts.

[from later in the article] Despite the objective upgrades in village amenities, both men and women living in villages headed by women expressed lower satisfaction with public services [emphasis added] . This was true even for water—the level of dissatisfaction was 13 percent higher in women-led communities. In fact, there was even greater dissatisfaction about health facilities, a public service not even controlled by the local village council!
...
Countries that come closest to gender parity in government, like Sweden and Finland, are economically advanced democracies with universal health care, child care, and generous maternity and paternity leave policies. Contrast this with the list of nations with zero women in national legislatures—Kyrgyzstan and Saudi Arabia, for example—and the pattern becomes clear: Women in government are associated with lots of good things (PDF). But the obvious problem with this sort of exercise is that Scandinavians are different from Saudis in lots of ways. Their progressive attitudes—not to mention all that free child care—may be what allows women to get elected, not the other way around.

The article suggests the disparity between effective women leaders and their unsuccessful perception is illuminated by the Harvard Business School case study of Heidi Roizen, a hard-charging Silicon Valley venture capitalist. Students described her as "overly aggressive" and undesirable to work with when presented with her article on business networking when her original name was attached as author, but not when presented the same article written by "Howard."

In repeated polls, potential voters similarly find Hillary Clinton extremely competent yet not particularly likable. ... If the experiences of India's female pradhans are any indication, even if Americans are better off after another Clinton administration, they won't line up to thank Hillary. And she may still find herself looking for a new job in 2012. When the women pradhans that came to power under the 1991 law had to compete with male candidates after their first terms in office, almost none were voted in for a second term.

As I mentioned to Marjorie this weekend, I am not looking forward to the overt, over-the-top free-for-all of women bashing that will be unleashed if Hillary wins the primary. If Obama wins, of course there will be a racist, irrational response unleashed, too. But it won't be overt. It won't be on the table. It will be in the dark shadows and hard to discuss, hard to quantify, hard to fight. For sure. But it won't be everywhere in the same way that I think the discussion of women and leadership and PMS and the red nuclear missile button will be. I'm trying to prepare myself, just in case, but ... ugh.

My main problem with Hillary, despite everything, is illustrated by the fact that I continue to call her "Hillary" when I call the other candidates by their last names. Who would ever say "John" to refer to Edwards?? No one. He doesn't even look like a John anymore. Hillary, however, can't just be Clinton because Clinton is ... I can't even think of Bill's first name anymore, he's so Clinton. She's Hillary first and Clinton second. Should we start calling her 44, just to avoid the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton debacle? I hate that she's put herself first, and us women second, in this incredibly awkward position of not even being able to offer parity in our discussion of her candidacy among others with her fucking name.

It's. Annoying. And goes back to pushing all my buttons about legacy and the elite and the oligarchy - yes, I said it, oligarchy - of political families in this country. Bleck. As Marjorie said, at least Obama will bring in a whole cadre of new political blood to the fray. To be attacked by sharks for sure, but at least they're in the water!

It certainly doesn't help me to respect her as a politician or a woman to know that her whole marriage and relationship was calculated to sling-shot "the Clintons" to the heights of the political elite. Just as it doesn't help me respect the Bush's, even knowing that Jeb is a likely contender for President in 2012. Dear lord, help us.

Who chooses among family members in this way, and how is that American on any level? In England? Sure. Here? Wasn't there some narrative about merit and bootstraps and the primacy of the individual? Didn't I read that somewhere, or hear it in some American history class during my indoctrination as a youngster?

Even if that myth is full of crap from "In the beginning" to "They all lived happily ever after," it's still a morality tale I want to vote for above, "Once upon a time in college, my future-husband and I hatched an idea, and we never looked back (oh, we had to OVERlook a lot -- all the time, in fact, but no, we never looked BACK)."

And now, even if she wins and does great things, it won't even matter. He'll still be Clinton, and the most she'll ever be is Hillary Clinton. The vilified or at least underappreciated, no matter what she does to help America. The only difference it will make is the incremental shift to making it just that much easier for the next woman president. Good lord, social evolution is painfully slow.