Sara Mitchell

I have been involved in many debates with my friends about the merits of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders as candidates for president. Research on gender and politics identifies issues that we need to keep in mind in these conversations. First, voting for a candidate for president simply because she is a woman is a perfectly legitimate position. Women voters’ interests are better represented by female politicians. Second, if we think gender is irrelevant to our preferences, we need to examine our implicit biases carefully. As a mother of a 14-year-old daughter and as a scholar who works in a male-dominated profession, I think a lot about why voting for a female president really matters.

Descriptive representation matters

Political scientists spend a lot of time studying representation. Do women elected to Congress or state legislatures better represent issues that women voters care about, such as parental leave policies or reproductive rights? Do countries with more women in executive or legislative offices behave differently from countries with fewer women in these positions?

Political science research suggests that the answer to both questions is yes. Female legislators, especially Democratic officeholders, are more likely to sponsor bills for issues associated more clearly with female voters. Countries with more women in elected political offices have more peaceful foreign policies and better human rights practices.

So what difference would it make if we selected a female president? We would expect female voters to be better represented by the domestic and foreign policy agenda of a female president than a male president. Clinton, for example, has advocated very strongly for closing the wage gap between men and women, and it is not surprising that she is supported by groups like Planned Parenthood that advocate for women’s issues. The president’s ability to influence the legislative agenda could also affect the kinds of bills Congress would consider. The president’s use of executive orders offers another avenue for women’s issues to be addressed.

Female role models and political aspirations

Political scientists seek to understand why women are so under-represented in American politics. Women who run for office are not less successful than men who run for office. However, women are much less likely to put themselves forward as potential candidates for elected offices than their male peers.

Part of this dynamic stems from the lack of role models. When young women look at the presidency, Congress, or the Supreme Court and see few women in those political bodies, this discourages them from seeking such offices in the future. We see this at a more micro-level in the college classroom. A study conducted at the Air Force Academy found that female cadets performed significantly better in math and science classes taught by female rather than male professors.

We cannot change the dynamics of male-dominated environments until women break through the glass ceiling and inspire others to follow in their footsteps. My own career was strongly influenced by observing Madeleine Albright as secretary of state, Sandra Day O’Connor as a Supreme Court justice, and of course, Clinton as a senator and secretary of state. Having a female president is the next important glass ceiling to shatter.

Moving past implicit biases

Many of my friends claim that gender has nothing to do with their candidate preferences. Yet we see in recent polls a higher percentage of women supporting Sanders than the percentage of men supporting Clinton. This asymmetry in the gender gap can be understood by research on implicit bias.

For example, women used to be severely under-represented in major orchestras. When orchestras started using blind auditions where applicants played behind screens, the percentage of women accepted into these orchestras increased dramatically.

Experiments show many results where implicit biases influence subjects’ behavior. If you take a resume and change the name from male to female, both male and female subjects will offer less pay to the hypothetical job applicant. Women are viewed as less competent leaders than male subjects in experiments.

In my own research, I find that women’s research is less likely to be cited by male scholars in my field than published work by men. These kinds of implicit biases have long lasting effects in society including a gender wage gap and differential treatment of women in leadership positions.

While Clinton has a great deal of leadership experience in both domestic and international political arenas, many voters see her as being less competent than her opponents. Once you know more about how implicit biases affect our everyday lives, such an observation is not too surprising. We cannot recognize gender biases until we attempt to see gender in our everyday lives.

My hope is that no matter who my friends vote for in the end, that they will consider the role of gender in their decision-making more fully.

Sara Mitchell is professor of political science and department chair at the University of Iowa. Contact: sara-mitchell@uiowa.edu