Gender, Stereotypes and Campaign Strategy Studied by Rutgers Political Scientist
We’ve barely closed the book on 2014, and we’re already into the 2016 presidential campaign. What do we know so far? Mitt Romney is out before he was in. Chris Christie won’t be bullied into announcing his candidacy, despite top rival Jeb Bush’s unofficial entry in the race. Republicans have no women presidential contenders. Hillary Clinton, also unannounced, might well be the all-but-anointed Democratic nominee.
Kelly Dittmar, assistant professor of political science at Rutgers University-Camden, and scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at the Eagleton Institute in New Brunswick, takes a hard look at the intersection of gender and politics in her new book, Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns (Temple University Press, February 2015). She will discuss her book (available for purchase and signing) and the different realities men and women candidates face, Thursday, Feb. 12, 5 p.m. at Wood Lawn, 191 Ryders Lane, New Brunswick.
How does gender influence candidates’ campaign strategies and behavior, and have these variables changed as more women seek elected office?
Candidates for elective office must convince voters of their fitness for the job. For men, voter expectations of their gender and the job coincide. We expect candidates and elected leaders to exude stereotypically masculine traits like toughness and strength, and value those who have expertise on “masculine issues” like the economy and national security. For women, voter expectations of gender and candidacy can be contradictory, forcing them to credential themselves on masculine issues and traits while also meeting voter expectations of femininity. Especially in mixed-gender contests, I found that women often capitalized on gendered perceptions that they are more honest, empathetic and capable of fixing a broken system, while male candidates adjusted their strategies and tactics, whether to uphold masculine norms of chivalry or compensate for perceived feminine advantages.
As more women run for and win elective office, they can help challenge stereotypes of who can lead, expand the sites for candidate credentials, and potentially revalue the traits and expertise desired by voters for elected officials.
Are the majority of Americans comfortable with woman candidates at all levels, from local to state and higher?
Public polling and election results largely demonstrate that voters are equally willing to vote for candidates of either gender. What that data misses are underlying stereotypes and expectations that inform Americans’ evaluations of male and female candidates in different ways. Voters may be just as comfortable voting for a woman governor, but may want more reassurance that she has the executive credentials and bona fides for the job. They might also spend more time scrutinizing things like personal life and appearance in ways that distract from women’s qualifications.
At the end of the day, gender is rarely – if ever – determinative in vote choice, but the work that candidates and campaigns do before Election Day to make voters comfortable with their vote often entails navigating differently gendered terrain for men and women candidates.
What is meant by the observation, “Candidates’ strategic and tactical decisions can influence the gendered nature of campaign institutions"?
Campaigns have important institutional effects beyond winning or losing, depending on whether candidates and practitioners play by the existing gendered rules or challenge them. The messages and images they communicate to voters can disrupt norms of gender and/or candidacy so that future candidates are less frequently evaluated solely through a masculine lens.
For example, when women bring their young children on the campaign trail or into campaign communications to burnish their credentials (i.e. on education, economic development for the next generation), they challenge stereotypes that motherhood and office-holding do not coincide and dispel notions that being a mother would hinder being an effective leader. When male candidates emphasize such “feminine” traits as compassion or raise “women’s issues” as essential to their agenda, they also contribute to institutional change by which the desired traits and expertise of officeholders are not only those most associated with men and masculinity.
Hillary Clinton has not yet announced her candidacy for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Would her run for office transcend gender-based campaign “rules” and stereotypes?
Voters who know little about candidates are more reliant on stereotypes. Hillary Clinton should face fewer gender-based expectations among voters and media in 2016 because she has become quite individualized in voters’ minds. Still, in 2008 there was much evidence of stereotyping and sexism in the media and popular discourse to evaluate her presidential candidacy.
With her added service as Secretary of State, it seems unlikely her toughness and leadership on issues like foreign policy will be questioned. Time will tell, however, if she is immune from any gendered scrutiny. The idea of a “grandmother-in-chief” has already created quite a buzz. Even more interesting will be how she integrates gender into her campaign communications and tactics. In 2008, her chief strategist sought to downplay Clinton’s womanhood in order to meet the masculine expectations of presidential office. In 2016, Clinton may fare better by embracing the advantages of her gender and being truer to herself and her longtime passions, such as empowering women and girls. Her recent speeches and interviews indicate that she is moving in this direction.