Suchergebnisse

Roll call votes for the 1993 legislative session of the New York State Assembly are examined to investigate whether female state legislators actually are more supportive of women's issues than are their male colleagues. Findings reveal that female legislators are no more likely than males to view women as a specific constituency when voting on issues regarding women, children, & the family. Instead, both female & male legislators respond to cues from their political party & their electoral constituency when voting on women's issues. 2 Tables, 4 Appendixes, 36 References. Adapted from the source document.

Under what circumstances do men sponsor issues that are traditionally regarded as salient primarily to women? By examining the sponsorship of legislation in the upper and lower chambers of 15 state legislatures in 2001, we explored the conditions under which men are likely to focus attention on policy areas involving women's issues and children's issues. We found little effect of institutional context (such as party control of the legislature or diversity within the legislature) on the sponsorship behavior of either men or women. Personal characteristics such as race, education, age, and family circumstances are associated with sponsorship by men, but not by women. Committee service is also strongly associated with sponsorship behavior, particularly for men. Differences in sponsorship are relatively marked in the sponsorship of legislation that focuses on reproduction or other health issues particularly relevant to women. We conclude that the boundaries of the set of issues traditionally defined as "women's issues" may be changing over time and that it is important to recognize that the influences on the sponsorship of women's issues can be different for men than they are for women.

AbstractThis manuscript examines the political behavior of White union members, with a focus on the differences between private sector and public sector union members. In the last several decades, private sector union membership has drastically declined, but public sector union membership has greatly increased. This has transformed the White unionized workforce from a group composed primarily of non-professional men with no college education to one that is much more female, college educated, and professional. We test the proposition that White public sector union members have greater incentives to support the Democratic Party than their private sector counterparts. The method employed is an examination of the presidential vote among both unionized and non-unionized Whites during the 1950s and the 2000s, using data from the American National Election Studies. Support among unionized Whites for Democratic presidential candidates in the 2000s came primarily from college educated and professional White union members, which represents a reversal of the pattern found during the 1950s. These results provide evidence that the White union members currently voting for Democratic candidates belong mainly to public sector unions.

AbstractPast research has shown that elected officials are generally responsive to the public's attitudes on policy, particularly in domains such as morality policy. But will this responsiveness survive an externally imposed, non-incremental policy "shock"? The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade represents such a shock regarding abortion policy. We examine the responsiveness of state lawmakers to mass abortion attitudes in the post-Roe period through a longitudinal analysis of state abortion policies. We find that the connection between mass abortion attitudes and abortion policies has grown stronger over time, and that mass preferences have become the primary determinant of such policies. Mass abortion attitudes are now a stronger predictor of abortion policies than elite abortion attitudes, and certain elite abortion attitudes that once moderated the link between mass abortion attitudes and policy no longer do so. These findings suggest that lawmakers will attempt to respond to public preferences about contentious morality policies despite the imposition of an external policy constraint.

Past research has shown that elected officials are generally responsive to the public's attitudes on policy, particularly in domains such as morality policy. But will this responsiveness survive an externally imposed, non-incremental policy "shock"? The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade represents such a shock regarding abortion policy. We examine the responsiveness of state lawmakers to mass abortion attitudes in the post-Roe period through a longitudinal analysis of state abortion policies. We find that the connection between mass abortion attitudes and abortion policies has grown stronger over time, and that mass preferences have become the primary determinant of such policies. Mass abortion attitudes are now a stronger predictor of abortion policies than elite abortion attitudes, and certain elite abortion attitudes that once moderated the link between mass abortion attitudes and policy no longer do so. These findings suggest that lawmakers will attempt to respond to public preferences about contentious morality policies despite the imposition of an external policy constraint. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractIn the last 30 years, female state legislative representation in the United States has increased steadily and dramatically. While the cross-sectional variation in this representation has been studied at length, longitudinal changes have yet to be explained. We attempt to do this using two theories of large-scale cultural and political attitude change over the last several decades—postmaterialism and post-industrialism. Our empirical analyses are more consistent with post-industrialism theory than postmaterialism theory. We find that both cross-sectional differences and longitudinal changes in the percentage of state legislators who are female are explained primarily by college education and religious adherence, not age cohort or income. The effects of college education and religious adherence remain strong even in the presence of controls for other cultural and institutional variables that have been found to influence the sexual composition of state legislatures. Thus, our study suggests the existence of an education-religion cleavage on social issues among Americans.

In the last 30 years, female state legislative representation in the US has increased steadily & dramatically. While the cross-sectional variation in this representation has been studied at length, longitudinal changes have yet to be explained. We attempt to do this using two theories of large-scale cultural & political attitude change over the last several decades -- postmaterialism & postindustrialism. Our empirical analyses are more consistent with postindustrialism theory than postmaterialism theory. We find that both cross-sectional differences & longitudinal changes in the percentage of state legislators who are female are explained primarily by college education & religious adherence, not age cohort or income. The effects of college education & religious adherence remain strong even in the presence of controls for other cultural & institutional variables that have been found to influence the sexual composition of state legislatures. Thus, our study suggests the existence of an education-religion cleavage on social issues among Americans. 2 Tables, 83 References. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractThe 2016 nomination of Hillary Clinton as the first female major party nominee for president created an unprecedented opportunity to test for evidence of explicit sexism in the electorate. Presidential elections normally produce two equally matched nominees with impressive public service resumes who behave similarly on the campaign trail. However, while Democrats were making history nominating the first female nominee, the Republicans also made history by selecting a nominee with no public service experience, a controversial personal background, and conduct that conflicted sharply with traditional norms of presidential candidates. In survey after survey, voters recognized that Clinton held a significant qualification advantage over Donald Trump. Yet, despite the fact that both men and women were more likely to rate Clinton as more qualified than her opponent overall, using an innovative approach via an original survey, we find evidence of implicit sexism in the way that some males evaluated Clinton compared to their female counterparts.