Women and Elective Office Past Present and

Future 2nd Edition Sue Thomas pdf download

https://ebookgate.com/product/women-and-elective-office-past-present-and-future-2nd-edition-sue-
thomas/

★★★★★ 4.8/5.0 (39 reviews) ✓ 205 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Excellent quality PDF, exactly what I needed!" - Sarah M.

No Image Available

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Women and Elective Office Past Present and Future 2nd
Edition Sue Thomas pdf download

No Image Available

TEXTBOOK EBOOK EBOOK GATE

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

Dalits Past present and future 1st Edition Anand Teltumbde

https://ebookgate.com/product/dalits-past-present-and-future-1st-
edition-anand-teltumbde/

ebookgate.com

Courtyard Housing Past Present and Future 1st Edition

Brian Edwards

https://ebookgate.com/product/courtyard-housing-past-present-and-
future-1st-edition-brian-edwards/

ebookgate.com

Juvenile Justice Sourcebook past present and future 1st

Edition One

https://ebookgate.com/product/juvenile-justice-sourcebook-past-
present-and-future-1st-edition-one/

ebookgate.com

Work Motivation Past Present and Future 1st Edition Ruth

Kanfer

https://ebookgate.com/product/work-motivation-past-present-and-
future-1st-edition-ruth-kanfer/

ebookgate.com
Climate of the Past Present and Future A scientific debate
2nd Edition Javier Vinós

https://ebookgate.com/product/climate-of-the-past-present-and-future-
a-scientific-debate-2nd-edition-javier-vinos/

ebookgate.com

Climate Present Past and Future Volume 2 Climatic History

and the Future 1st Edition H. H. Lamb

https://ebookgate.com/product/climate-present-past-and-future-
volume-2-climatic-history-and-the-future-1st-edition-h-h-lamb/

ebookgate.com

Criminal Punishment and Restorative Justice Past Present

and Future Perspectives 1st Edition David J. Cornwell

https://ebookgate.com/product/criminal-punishment-and-restorative-
justice-past-present-and-future-perspectives-1st-edition-david-j-
cornwell/
ebookgate.com

Psychotherapeutic Approaches to Schizophrenic Psychoses

Past Present and Future 1st Edition Yrjö O. Alanen

https://ebookgate.com/product/psychotherapeutic-approaches-to-
schizophrenic-psychoses-past-present-and-future-1st-edition-yrjo-o-
alanen/
ebookgate.com

General Circulation Model Development Past Present and

Future 1st Edition David A. Randall (Eds.)

https://ebookgate.com/product/general-circulation-model-development-
past-present-and-future-1st-edition-david-a-randall-eds/

ebookgate.com
Women and Elective Office:
Past, Present, and Future,
Second Edition

SUE THOMAS
CLYDE WILCOX,
Editors

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

WOMEN and ELECTIVE OFFICE
This page intentionally left blank
Edited by S U E T H O M A S a n d C LY D E W I L C OX

WOMEN and
ELECTIVE OFFICE
PA S T, P R E S E N T, A N D F U T U R E Second Edition

1
2005
1
Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further
Oxford University’s objective of excellence
in research, scholarship, and education.

Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam

Copyright © ,  by Oxford University Press, Inc.

First published in  by Oxford University Press, Inc.

 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 
www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Women and elective office : past, present, and future / edited by Sue Thomas,
Clyde Wilcox.—nd ed.
p. cm.
ISBN- ----; ---- (pbk.)
ISBN ---; --- (pbk.)
. Women in public life—United States. . Women in politics — United States.
. Women political candidates—United States. I. Thomas, Sue, –
II. Wilcox, Clyde, –
HQ.UW 
⬘.— dc 

        
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
To Brittany — for inspiration

and

To Elaine Wilcox-Cook — to remind

her of what is possible
This page intentionally left blank
Acknowledgments

We want to publicly thank Carin Larson, Lisa Rickert, and Shauna Shames for
their careful, thoughtful, and important work on this volume. Much gratitude
also goes to Dedi Felman, Christine Dahlin, and Jim Cohen at Oxford Univer-
sity Press for their support of this topic and of us.
This page intentionally left blank
Contents

Contributors xi
Introduction 
Sue Thomas

1 Campaign Financing: Women’s Experience in the Modern Era 

Barbara Burrell

2 How the Public Views Women Candidates 

Kathleen Dolan

3 Women Candidates for Congress 

Heather L. Ondercin and Susan Welch

4 Different Portraits, Different Leaders? Gender Differences

in U.S. Senators’ Presentation of Self 
Kim L. Fridkin and Gina Serignese Woodall

5 Do Women and Men State Legislators Differ? 

Michael J. Epstein, Richard G. Niemi, and Lynda W. Powell

6 Women in Congress: Do They Act as Advocates for Women’s Issues? 

Michele L. Swers and Carin Larson

7 Making a Difference: Behind the Scenes 

Debra L. Dodson

8 Indelible Effects: The Impact of Women of Color in the U.S.

Congress 
Lisa García Bedolla, Katherine Tate, and Janelle Wong

9 Change in Continuity in the Geography of Women State Legislators 

Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox

10 Women Leading Legislatures: Getting There and Getting Things

Done 
Cindy Simon Rosenthal
x Contents

11 In a Different Voice: Women and the Policy Process 

Lyn Kathlene

12 Institutional Gendering: Theoretical Insights into the

Environment of Women Officeholders 
Georgia Duerst-Lahti

13 Women as Political Leaders Worldwide: Cultural Barriers

and Opportunities 
Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart

14 Prospects for Cracking the Political Glass Ceiling: The Future

of Women Officeholders in the Twenty-first Century 
Jean Reith Schroedel and Marcia L. Godwin

References 
Index 
Contributors

The Editors

Sue Thomas is senior policy researcher at Pacific Institute for Research and Evalua-
tion. She has previously served as associate professor in the Department of Govern-
ment and as director of women’s studies at Georgetown University. Dr. Thomas’s
publications include How Women Legislate (Oxford University Press, ); “The
Personal Is the Political: Antecedents of Gendered Choices of Elected Represen-
tatives” in Sex Roles: A Journal of Research (); and “Cracking the Glass Ceil-
ing: The Status, Significance, and Prospects of Women in Legislative Office,” in
Gender and American Politics.

Clyde Wilcox is professor of government at Georgetown University. He writes

on gender politics, religion and politics, and campaign finance. His most recent
books include Financiers of Congressional Elections: Investors, Ideologues, and Inti-
mates (Columbia University Press, ) and Religion and Politics in Comparative
Perspective: The One, the Few, and the Many (Cambridge University Press, ).

The Authors

Barbara Burrell is associate professor of political science and associate director

of the Public Opinion Laboratory at Northern Illinois University. She is the au-
thor of A Woman’s Place Is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist
Era (University of Michigan Press, ) and Public Opinion, the First Ladyship
and Hillary Rodham Clinton (Routledge, ).

Debra L. Dodson is senior research associate at the Center for the American
Woman and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers Uni-
versity, and author of the forthcoming book, The Impact of Women in Congress
(Oxford University Press).

Kathleen Dolan is associate professor of political science at the University of

Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Dr. Dolan has recently published Voting for Women: How
the Public Evaluates Women Candidates (Westview Press, ).

xi
xii Contributors

Georgia Duerst-Lahti is professor of political science and faculty of women’s

and gender studies at Beloit College, where she has served as department chair
and associate dean. She is best known for scholarship at the nexus of theory and
empirical research, including her coauthored work with Rita Mae Kelly, Gender
Power, Leadership, and Governance (University of Michigan Press, ).

Michael J. Epstein is a doctoral student in political science at the University of

Rochester. He is also an evaluator in the University’s Psychology Department and
was formerly a political analyst with Global Strategy Group.

Kim L. Fridkin is professor of political science at Arizona State University. She

is the author of The Political Consequences of Being a Woman (Columbia Univer-
sity Press, ) and coauthor of The Spectacle of U.S. Senate Campaigns (Prince-
ton University Press, ) and No Holds Barred: Negative Campaigning in U.S.
Senator Campaigns (Prentice-Hall, ). Her work has also appeared in the
American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and the
Journal of Politics.

Lisa García Bedolla is assistant professor of political science and Chicano/Latino

studies at the University of California, Irvine. She is the author of Fluid Borders:
Latino Identity and Politics in Los Angeles (forthcoming from the University of
California Press). She has also recently published articles in the Journal of Poli-
tics, Latino Studies, and State Politics and Policy Quarterly.

Marcia L. Godwin is visiting assistant professor of public administration at

the University of La Verne. She has published research on electoral and interest
group politics, including an analysis of Maria Cantwell’s election to the U.S. Sen-
ate in  and a forthcoming book chapter on Senator Barbara Boxer’s  re-
election campaign for Roads to Congress  (Nova Science, ).

Ronald Inglehart is professor of political science and program director at the In-
stitute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. He helped found the
Euro-Barometer surveys and directs the World Values Surveys. His books include
Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political Change in
 Societies (Princeton University Press, ), Rising Tide (with Pippa Norris;
Cambridge University Press, ), and Sacred and Secular (with Pippa Norris;
Cambridge University Press, ).

Lyn Kathlene is the director of the Colorado Institute of Public Policy at Col-
orado State University. She has published articles on women officeholders and
the public policy process in the American Political Science Review, the Western Po-
litical Quarterly, Journal of Politics, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
 Contributors xiii

Policy Studies, and Knowledge in Society and has contributed chapters to several
edited volumes.

Carin Larson is a PhD candidate at Georgetown University in American govern-

ment. Her research focus is political behavior and evangelicalism. Her current work
analyzes the Christian Right’s appeal to racial minorities. She has coauthored a
number of book chapters on religion and politics in the United States.

Richard G. Niemi is Don Alonzo Watson Professor of Political Science at the

University of Rochester. He is coauthor or coeditor of Vital Statistics on Ameri-
can Politics –  (CQ Press, ), Comparing Democracies  (Sage, ),
Controversies in Voting Behavior, fourth edition (CQ Press, ), Term Limits in
the State Legislatures (University of Michigan Press, ), other books, and nu-
merous articles on political socialization, voting, and legislative districting.

Barbara Norrander is professor of political science at the University of Arizona.

Her prior research on gender politics appears in Public Opinion Quarterly and
several edited volumes. She also conducts research on presidential nominations,
partisanship, and state public opinion. She is the president of the Western Politi-
cal Science Association for – .

Pippa Norris is the McGuire Lecturer in Comparative Politics at the John F.

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Her books published by
Cambridge University Press include A Virtuous Circle (), Digital Divide
(), Democratic Phoenix (), Rising Tide (with Ronald Inglehart; ),
Electoral Engineering (), Sacred and Secular (with Ronald Inglehart; ),
and Radical Right (forthcoming).

Heather L. Ondercin is a PhD candidate in the Departments of Political Sci-

ence and Women’s Studies at Pennsylvania State University. Her research inter-
ests include political behavior, specifically the gender gap in partisanship and
vote choice, women candidates, and political methodology.

Lynda W. Powell is professor of political science at the University of Rochester.

She is coauthor of The Financiers of Congressional Elections (Columbia University
Press, ), Term Limits in the State Legislatures (University of Michigan Press,
), and Serious Money: Fund-raising and Contributing in Presidential Nomi-
nation Campaigns (Cambridge University Press, ).

Cindy Simon Rosenthal is an associate director of the Carl Albert Congressional

Research and Studies Center at the University of Oklahoma and Carlisle and
Lurleen Mabrey Presidential Professor of Political Science and Women’s Studies.
xiv Contributors

She authored When Women Lead (Oxford University Press, ) and edited
Women Transforming Congress (University of Oklahoma Press, ). Her work
has appeared in Political Research Quarterly, Policy Studies Journal, Legislative
Studies Quarterly, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, and
Women & Politics.

Jean Reith Schroedel is a professor in the Department of Politics and Policy and
the Applied Women’s Studies Program at Claremont Graduate University. Schroe-
del has written three books: Alone in a Crowd: Women in the Trades Tell Their Sto-
ries (Temple University Press, ), Congress, the Presidency and Policy Making: A
Historical Analysis (Sharpe, ), and Is the Fetus a Person? A Comparison of Poli-
cies across the Fifty States (Cornell University Press, ). In  the American
Political Science Association awarded her the Victoria Schuck Prize for the fetal
policy book.

Michele L. Swers is an assistant professor of government at Georgetown Uni-

versity. She is the author of The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of
Women in Congress (University of Chicago Press, ). Her research has also
been published in Legislative Studies Quarterly, Women & Politics, PS: Political
Science, and the Japanese Journal of the International Society for Gender Studies as
well as the edited volumes Women Transforming Congress; Women and Congress:
Running, Winning, and Ruling; and Women and Parliamentary Representation
around the World.

Katherine Tate is professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at

the University of California, Irvine. She has a PhD from the University of Michi-
gan. She is the author of the award-winning Black Faces in the Mirror: African
Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress (Princeton University
Press, ), a study of how black legislators represent their constituents and
what constituents think of their representatives in Washington. She is a nation-
ally known expert on the politics and political behavior of African Americans as
well as the politics of race, women, and minority groups.

Susan Welch is professor of political science and dean of the College of the Lib-
eral Arts at Pennsylvania State University. Her most recent books are Race and
Place (with Lee Sigelman, Michael Combs, and Tim Bledsoe; Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, ), Affirmative Action and Minority Enrollments (with John Gruhl;
University of Michigan Press, ), and Women, Elections, and Representation,
second edition (with Robert Darcy and Janet Clark; University of Nebraska Press,
). She has published more than  articles and is a past editor of American
Politics Quarterly.
 Contributors xv

Janelle Wong holds a joint appointment as an assistant professor in the Depart-

ment of Political Science and the Program in American Studies and Ethnicity at
the University of Southern California. Professor Wong is currently working on a
manuscript that focuses on the political incorporation of Asian American and
Latino immigrants in the United States. She has published articles in Political Be-
havior, Social Science Quarterly, American Politics Research, and the American Jour-
nal of Sociology. With her coauthors Pei-te Lien and M. Margaret Conway, she re-
cently completed The Politics of Asian Americans (Routledge, ).

Gina Serignese Woodall is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political

Science at Arizona State University. She is currently studying gender differences
in the reliance on and effectiveness of negative advertising among congressional
candidates. Her primary interests are women and politics and congressional cam-
paigns and elections.
This page intentionally left blank
WOMEN and ELECTIVE OFFICE
This page intentionally left blank
Sue Thomas

Introduction

■ In this edition of Women in Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, we offer updated
perspectives on the progress of women candidates and officeholders, their challenges, and
prospects for their future in light of their ongoing quest for diverse and balanced political
representation. Four themes dominate the chapters in this volume: (1) although women
have made progress as candidates and officeholders, they are still vastly underrepresented
on the state and federal levels; (2) women make a difference in office: they bring distinctive
attitudes and behaviors to legislatures, and real policy differences are the result of their con-
tributions; (3) evidence suggests that the political playing field is not level; rather, women
tend to pay a higher cost than men for the same levels of success; and (4) the higher cost
and the underrepresentation can be explained, in large part, by the concept of “institutional
gendering,” or persistent experiences of discrimination and structures designed to extend
male privilege. The fourteen chapters that follow illuminate these themes and speak to the
future of equality of political representation. ■

If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in de-

mocracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the gov-
ernment to the utmost.
— , Politics, book IV, chapter 4

There cannot be true democracy unless women are given the opportunity
to take responsibility for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy
unless all citizens are able to participate fully in the lives of their country.
—    , July 11, 1997

In the first edition of Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, we asked
what progress women had made toward storming statehouses and the national
legislature and what impact they made once there. These questions are as relevant
today as they were then. Since , the number of women candidates and office-
holders has grown, and, as the chapters that follow attest, women have made a
considerable difference in political debate and policymaking. And since we first
wrote about the topic, several historically significant barriers have been shattered.

3
4 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

Perhaps the most notable has been the ascension of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to mi-
nority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives. Until her election in ,
no woman had ever served in a top leadership position in Congress.
The progress women have made in electoral politics has occurred slowly and
has been accompanied by significant challenges, some setbacks, and not inconsid-
erable costs. Still, the story told by the second edition of Women and Elective Office
is in many ways a story of triumph. The contributing authors chronicle remarkable
achievements made even more noteworthy by the struggles to secure them. It is
also, in some ways, a story of the enduring and evolving obstacles to securing full
and equal access to and participation in U.S. politics. In this edition, we offer up-
dated perspectives on the progress of women candidates and officeholders, their
challenges, and prospects for their future to all those interested in the implica-
tions of the ongoing quest for diverse and balanced political representation.

Does Gender Diversity in Elective Office Matter?

The questions that follow are at the heart of Women and Elective Office: Past, Pres-
ent, and Future. Each is based on the underlying assumption that having women
in elective office is an important goal. Why is women’s representation important?
Put another way, why are we concerned that women are represented among those
who make policy decisions for our government at the local, state, and national
levels? As long as elected representatives are aware of and care about the interests
of all their constituents, does it matter whether legislatures, governors, and presi-
dents are predominantly male?
As the epigraphs that open this introduction suggest, having women in of-
fice matters for several reasons. The first concerns democratic legitimacy. A govern-
ment that is democratically organized cannot be truly legitimate if its citizens
from all races and classes and both sexes do not have the opportunity for and po-
tential interest in serving their communities and the nation. Another reason it
matters that women hold office concerns political stability. If all citizens are seen
to have an equal opportunity to participate in the decisions that affect their lives,
there is a greater likelihood that the polity will be stable and that citizens will have
a reasonable degree of trust in and support for it.
If a society is to be successful and healthy, it makes sense that all points of
view and the full range of talent are available for public decision making. Increased
competition created by an increased talent pool is one way this can be assured.
Augmenting the potential for both sexes to contribute to the public sphere also
ensures access to the range of ideas and perspectives.
It is important for women to be included among our public officials for sym-
bolic reasons as well. If children grow up seeing women and men in the political
sphere, they will be more likely to choose from the full array of options when de-
 Introduction 5

ciding to shape their adult lives. Thus, role modeling is important for future gen-
erations of citizens.
Finally, it is vital for women to have full access to the public sphere because
their life experiences differ from men’s. Because our society still operates with di-
visions of labor in the public and private spheres, women and men tend to have
some different life experiences and points of reference. This can translate into a
distinctive way of seeing existing political proposals and can lead to different or
at least augmented agendas. It is important, then, that women inhabit our legis-
latures and executive offices so that the concerns with which they are generally
more familiar make their way squarely onto policy agendas.
For all these reasons, then, it matters very much that women have access to
and assume elected positions. The extent to which this has been the case over the
course of U.S. history is explored next.

History

Women have opened so many doors marked “Impossible” that I don’t

know where we’ll stop.
—  

Although women were not granted national suffrage until , famous suffrag-
ist Elizabeth Cady Stanton ran for Congress in  and lost. It was not until fifty
years later that Jeanette Rankin of Montana became the first women to win a
congressional seat. She served twice, from  to  and again from  to
. Rankin was also the only representative to vote against U.S. entry into both
World War I and World War II. Rebecca Latimer Felton of Georgia was the first
woman senator. She was appointed in , serving for only one day.1 Ten years
later, in , Hattie W. Caraway of Arkansas earned the distinction of becom-
ing the first woman elected to the Senate in a seat to which she was originally ap-
pointed. As an indicator of the pace of societal and political change, it wasn’t
until  that a woman was elected to the Senate without having previously
filled an unexpired term. Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kansas earned that
honor. Nine years later, in , Barbara Mikulski of Maryland became the first
Democrat to do so (Center for the American Woman and Politics [CAWP]
e; Foerstel and Foerstel ).
The first women in state legislative politics broke into office earlier than their
counterparts on the federal level. In , Clara Cressingham, Carrie Clyde Holly,
and Frances S. Klock all earned seats in the Colorado statehouse. Interestingly, their
election was due, in part, to a record number of women who went to the polls;
 percent of eligible women voters turned out compared to  percent of the eli-
gible men.2 Foreshadowing a pattern prevalent today, once in office, these three
6 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

representatives made a priority of legislation related to women, children, and fami-

lies. Together, they ushered legislation through the statehouse that gave mothers
equal rights to their children, raised the age of consent from sixteen to eighteen,
and created a home for delinquent girls (Cox ; CAWP d). In ,
Martha Hughes Cannon, a Democrat from Utah, became the first woman state
senator. Women of color gained state legislative office a good deal later. In ,
Cora Belle Reynolds Anderson (R-MI) was the first Native American woman to
win a state House seat. Minnie Buckingham Harper (R) became the first African
American woman state representative when she was appointed to the West Vir-
ginia House in . One year later, Republican Fedelina Lucero Gallegos and
Democrat Porfirria Hidalgo Saiz were elected to the New Mexico House, the first
Latinas to storm a statehouse. It was not until , however, that Democrat Patsy
Takemoto Mink was elected to the Hawaii Senate as the first Asian American
woman in a statehouse. Mink later reprised her historically significant status in
the U.S. House of Representatives in  (CAWP f ).
With respect to elected executive positions, Nellie T. Ross of Wyoming was
the first female governor in the nation. She won a special election to succeed her
husband and served from  to . It was not until fifty years later, however,
that the first woman was elected governor in her own right: Ella Grasso guided
the state of Connecticut from  until . To date, only twenty-seven women
have ever served as governor. The record number of women governing simulta-
neously is nine, which occurred in . With respect to local executive positions,
in , Susanna Medora Salter was the first woman elected mayor of a U.S.
town, Argonia, Kansas. A full hundred years later, Lottie Shackleford of Little
Rock, Arkansas, became the first woman of color to become mayor of a U.S. city.
She served from  to  (CAWP f ).
Many readers may not realize that several firsts occurred fairly recently. For
example, in , Shirley Chisholm of New York became the first African Ameri-
can woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. In , Floridian Ileana
Ros-Lehtinen became the first Hispanic woman elected to the House. Carol Mose-
ley Braun of Illinois was the first African American woman elected to the U.S.
Senate, in . And it was only in  that Nancy Landon Kassebaum of Kan-
sas became the first woman to chair a major Senate committee. At the executive
level, a very famous first was Geraldine Ferraro, who, in , was the first and,
to date, the only woman to run for the vice presidency on a major party ticket
(CAWP e).
The long view gives us these figures: as of this writing,  women (fewer
than  percent of the total number of members of Congress) have served in the
U.S. Congress. Twenty-six have been in the Senate and the rest () have served
in the House of Representatives. Of these, twenty-nine women of color have
served in Congress; only one (Carol Moseley Braun) has ever been elected to the
Senate. Of all the women of color in Congress, twenty have been African Ameri-
 Introduction 7

can, two were Asian American/Pacific Islander, and seven were Latina. In addi-
tion, sitting Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) is the first open lesbian in
Congress and the only openly lesbian or gay legislator in Congress who was out
when elected (CAWP f ).
As the foregoing illustrates, women have a long history of breaking barriers
to participation and winning electoral office. The next section explores the chal-
lenges that have accompanied their paths.

Women as Candidates for Electoral Office:

Successes and Challenges

Despite the gains made by women over the course of history, they are vastly under-
represented in elective office compared to their proportion of the U.S. popula-
tion. As Table I. shows, as of October , women made up . percent of
members of Congress, . percent of members of state legislatures,  percent of
governors, . percent of all statewide executive officeholders, and only  per-
cent of mayors of the hundred largest cities in the United States (CAWP c).
The contributors of the second edition of Women and Elective Office explore the
factors that account for these imbalances.
The first wave of scholarly attention to this question uncovered evidence of
overt discrimination against women by a variety of sources. It was not uncommon,
for example, for early women candidates to experience significant differential
treatment at all stages of the electoral process, including lack of backing by po-
litical party elites, campaign contributors, and voters. Differential treatment by
party elites included conspicuous failures to support candidacies, lack of recruit-
ment, and directing women to seats in which they were sacrificial lambs. Taking
their cues from party organizers, campaign contributors were reluctant to back
women candidates. Mirroring or perhaps driving disparate treatment of women
by those in political power, as Kathleen Dolan explains in chapter , voters, too,
exhibited hostility toward female candidates. In the past, substantial percentages
of citizens felt that a woman’s place wasn’t in the statehouse or the Congress, and
even fewer citizens felt that women should inhabit executive positions (Mandel
; Van Hightower ; Diamond ; Tolchin and Tolchin ; Carroll and
Strimling ; Gertzog ).
In contrast, the most recent studies of women’s experiences as candidates for
elective office suggest that such discrimination has diminished considerably. As
explicated in chapter , although it is true that some citizens are still somewhat
less supportive of women than of men candidates, the proportions of the popu-
lation feeling this way have shrunk dramatically. Further, even when such feel-
ings persist, they are often overcome by party loyalty or incumbency status (Darcy,
Welch, and Clark ; Burrell , ; Carroll ; Duerst-Lahti ; Duke
8 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

Table I.1
Women in the U.S Congress and State Legislatures, 1993 – 2004

Women in the U.S. Congress, 1993 – 2004

Number of Total Number

Women in Number of of Women Women as a
the House of Women in in the U.S. Percentage of
Congress Year Representatives the Senate Congress Congress

103rd 1993 – 1995 47 7 54 10.1

104th 1995 – 1997 48 9 57 10.6
105th 1997 – 1999 54 9 63 11.8
106th 1999 – 2001 56 9 65 12.1
107th 2001 – 2003 60 13 73 13.6
108th 2003 – 2005 60 14 74 13.6
Women in State Legislatures, 1993 – 2004

Number of Women in Proportion of Women in State

Year State Legislatures Legislatures (Percentages)

1993 1,524 20.5

1994 1,526 20.6
1995 1,535 20.7
1996 1,546 20.8
1997 1,593 21.5
1998 1,607 21.6
1999 1,664 22.4
2000 1,672 22.5
2001 1,666 22.4
2002 1,680 22.6
2003 1,645 22.3
2004 1,661 22.5

Note: Figures for the 107th Congress include Representative Patsy Mink (D-HI), who died on September 19 be-
fore the 2002 elections. None of the figures include nonvoting delegates from Washington, DC; the Virgin Islands;
or Guam.
Source: The data for this table come from the Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Poli-
tics, Rutgers University.

; K. Dolan ). This evidence has impelled party elites to improve their
chances of party victories by providing increased opportunities for women can-
didates (Darcy, Welch, and Clark ; Burrell ; Carroll ; Duke ;
see also Sanbonmatsu a for difference by party). Finally, as Barbara Burrell
indicates in chapter , women are now as successful as or more successful than
men as campaign fund-raisers at every stage of the process, from early money
 Introduction 9

through the general election. The results: whereas women may once have lost
seats more often than their male counterparts, that is no longer the case. Women’s
share of the vote, controlling for party and incumbency, is now equal to men’s
(Duerst-Lahti ; Darcy, Welch, and Clark ; Burrell , ; Carroll
; Duke ; Seltzer, Newman, and Voorhees Leighton ). The message
is increasingly clear: If women run, they win. The electoral arena is most certainly
changing.
Because women, in the aggregate, win electoral contests as often as men and
because several sources of disparate treatment have been reduced, it is tempting
to conclude that the playing field is level. Yet, scholarly exploration of women’s
candidacies compared to men’s also suggests that although women can and do
win elective office, they are not running in numbers equal to men or at a rate con-
sistent with their participation in the professions that feed politics. The most per-
sistent questions in modern women officeholder scholarship are: What accounts
for this pattern? Is systematic inequality at least part of the reason for continuing
imbalances? Indeed, the most recent scholarship in this area points to at least
three types of disparate costs borne by women candidates: disequilibrium in po-
litical opportunities, unequal political treatment, and gender-based sociocultural
choices, attitudes, and responsibilities.
With respect to inequalities in political opportunity, the historical success
rate of incumbents and high-level officeholders seeking reelection means that any
newcomer group to politics has a hard time breaking in (Darcy, Welch, and Clark
; Carroll ; Jacobson ). This is certainly more serious for national than
state and local offices, but it is a significant concern at all levels. Low incumbency
turnover also may discourage otherwise interested and qualified women from seek-
ing elective office.
Electoral structures may also contribute to low proportions of women in
office. Research indicates that women have more success in multimember districts
than in single-member districts (Welch and Studlar ; Darcy, Welch, and Clark
; Matland and Brown ; Rule and Zimmerman ). Theories about
why this is true suggest that when voters can make several ballot choices rather
than one, they are likely to want to balance and diversify those choices. Because
the trend in U.S. politics has long been toward creating single-member districts
out of formerly multimember ones, women candidates are rarely in a position to
take advantage of the more favorable structure.3 Analysis of the effect of electoral
structures is also particularly relevant with respect to female candidates of color.
For example, African American women face a number of barriers to access that
differ from those of white women legislators. At the state level, structural impedi-
ments such as at-large elections, lower levels of registration and voting among
black populations than white populations, difficulties financing campaigns, and
gerrymandering have been and remain obstacles to greater access (Darling ).
In chapter , Lisa García Bedolla, Katherine Tate, and Janelle Wong report that
10 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

black members of Congress, including black women, have overcome some of

these barriers by running in new and existing majority-minority districts created
as a result of the Voting Rights Act of  and its amendments.
Despite reduction in overt discrimination against women candidates by
party elites, voters, and fund-raisers, differential treatment of women and men
on the campaign trail is still operational. Two areas in which scholars have un-
covered evidence of higher costs borne by women candidates are fund-raising
efforts and media treatment. In chapter , Barbara Burrell notes that part of the
reason women candidates are competitive with men is their reliance on alterna-
tive fund-raising sources such as EMILY’s List and WISH List. These organiza-
tions were created to overcome the obstacles women encountered raising money
throughout the campaign season, especially during the crucial early months of
campaigns. The existence and success of EMILY’s List and WISH List has, to a
great extent, trained our gaze away from evidence that women still have a harder
time raising money from traditional sources and raising large sums. That they can
raise amounts equal to men’s does not extinguish the reality that they often have
to attract a larger number of individual givers, thus working longer and harder
for their campaign war chests (Fox ). In short, the costs of success may be
higher for women than for men.
Another disproportionate cost of campaigning borne by women is their treat-
ment by the media. As Kim L. Fridkin and Gina Serignese Woodall comprehen-
sively document in chapter , studies of media treatment of women and men on
the campaign trail show that women, especially those running for high-level offices
such as the U.S. Senate, receive less coverage than men, and when they are cov-
ered, it is in a negative fashion. Emphasis is placed on low probabilities of suc-
cess rather than on issues or candidate appeals. Further, the press is more likely
to cover the policy priorities of men (the priorities of both sexes are detailed later)
and more likely to highlight the personality traits emphasized by men. Together,
fund-raising hurdles and distasteful and detrimental treatment by the media may
account for the relatively lower rate of women seeking office (see also Fox ).
Disparities in sociocultural choices, attitudes, and responsibilities also trans-
late into a different and unequal playing field for women candidates. The widely
examined social eligibility pool (SEP) is one aspect of these inequities. At the heart
of the SEP are citizens’ expectations about the background of preferred candidates,
including occupational choices, military service, educational accomplishments,
and type and number of previous electoral experiences. Not surprisingly, preferred
backgrounds are those that still define men’s lives much more than women’s. A
recent study conducted by the Barbara Lee Family Foundation found that “vot-
ers ‘give men credit for experience outside of public service but don’t give equal
credit for women’s comparable private sector experience’” (Pappano ). Ad-
ditionally, women are still less likely than men to come to office from legal careers
and are more likely to have entered politics from community volunteerism or
 Introduction 11

P RO F I L E : Patricia Schroeder (and Work and Family)

Former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder, who retired in 1996 as the longest-serving woman
in Congress, readily admits that she was not a “traditional” housekeeper. “In the 1950s when
I was in high school, home economics was a required course,” says Schroeder, a Harvard
Law graduate, adding, “It was my lowest grade.”1 As one of the first women elected to
Congress with young children, Schroeder bore the brunt of performing the difficult juggling
act of work and family in full (often critical) public view. In her lively memoir, Schroeder re-
counts story after story of run-ins with the media over her “family values.” In her earliest
run for Congress, a reporter asked how she could be both a member of Congress and a
mother, and she generated a firestorm of controversy with her reply: “I have a brain and a
uterus, and they both work.”2 She scandalized those seeking conventional domesticity with
her unusual gardening practices (involving silk flowers that “bloomed even in the dead of
winter”3) and the cooking tips she offered when asked her to submit her favorite recipe:
“A Schroeder Breakfast: Find a bowl. If it’s on the floor, wash it because the dog has prob-
ably used it. Find some cereal. Hopefully, it will be sugar-coated so you don’t have to go on
a scavenger hunt for the sugar. Then get milk from the refrigerator. But it is imperative that
you read the spoil date before using. When these items have been located, assemble.”4
By running headfirst into the brick wall of the public’s gender expectations, Schroeder
broke through many of the barriers mothers in office used to face. Unfortunately, many re-
main; the work/family divide (a holdover of the persisting public/private split) continues to
structure women’s decisions about what type of public office to seek—and, more funda-
mentally, whether to run at all. Yet, as Pat Schroeder always answered when asked why she
was running as a woman: “What choice do I have?”
Written by Shauna Shames
1
Pat Schroeder, 24 Years of Housework . . . and the Place Is Still a Mess (Kansas City, MO: Andrews
McMeel, 1998), 137.
2Ibid., 128.
3
Ibid., 192.
4
Ibid., 191.
12 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

women’s groups. The ripple effect of these differences may impel women to run
less often than they might otherwise and may deter others from encouraging them
to do so. Although the effects of the SEP have lessened over time and although
women candidates are competitive with men, the differences in these factors point
toward differential obstacles to candidacies (Darcy, Welch, and Clark ).
One ramification of men’s and women’s different backgrounds and creden-
tials is that rather than seeing a range of qualifications as appropriate for public
office, women view themselves as viable candidates less often than men do. The
very socialization that impels fewer women to seek out careers in corporate busi-
ness positions or law firms is the socialization that results in their lower levels of
confidence about becoming candidates for political office. Even among those
women who are part of the traditionally defined eligibility pool, sex role social-
ization may play a part in diminished candidacy levels. In two recent studies, Fox,
Lawless, and Feeley () and Fox and Lawless () found that, in pools of
eligible candidates in New York State and across the nation, women considered
running for office less frequently than men. This is due, in part, to the women’s
harsher judgments of the quality and depth of their substantive credentials and
previous political experience. Even among those with similar levels of experience
and achievement, women tended to perceive themselves as less qualified than
men to run. Finally, although external support can help wavering potential can-
didates take the plunge, women were less likely than men to receive that support.
Disparities in sociocultural responsibilities may also contribute to women’s
greater reluctance to run for elective office. Despite the effects of the modern
women’s movement on opening public-sphere opportunities to women, its effects
in achieving either institutional accommodation to two-parent workers or revers-
ing millennia of socialization of women’s proper private-sphere roles have been
limited. Research across professions shows large and consistent imbalances between
women and men in private-sphere responsibilities (Thomas ; Hochschild and
Machung ; Holtzman and Williams ; Cooper and Lewis ; Hewlett
). Does this imbalance disproportionately affect women’s willingness to seek
elective office? Some evidence suggests the answer is yes. In New York State, among
those women who fit in the pool of expected candidates and who have consid-
ered running, “traditional family structures and historically socialized gender roles
may continue to discourage women from seeking public office” (Fox and Lawless
, ). Consequently, the proportion of women in office may be inconsistent
with the proportion of those otherwise interested and prepared to serve.
In sum, when women run, they win. But playing fields, be they political or
private spheres, are not yet equal. Sociocultural obstacles to women’s representa-
tional equality are still operational and help account for the low levels of women
running for office relative to men and relative to their status in the professions
from which politicians typically emerge. To illustrate these points on the aggregate
level, in chapter , Heather L. Ondercin and Susan Welch investigate conditions
 Introduction 13

under which women are likely to be candidates for and win seats in Congress.
They find that, all else being equal, districts with women candidates tend to be
those with open-seat opportunities, those outside the South, and those with a
history of female candidates and representatives.

Women Officeholders: Their Status, Effectiveness,

and Prospects for the Future

Once women achieve elective office, what are their experiences and impact? What
challenges and successes do they encounter? What sorts of positions do they hold?
As Tables I. and I. indicate, as of October , women hold seventy-four seats
in the U.S. Congress (. percent). Fourteen women serve in the Senate, includ-
ing both California seats (Democrats Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein), both
Washington seats (Democrats Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell), and both Maine
seats (Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins). These three pairs of women
are joined by Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), Kay Bai-
ley Hutchison (R-TX), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Barbara
Mikulski (D-MD), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). Sixty
women hold House seats, eighteen of whom are women of color, including eleven
African Americans and two Latinas.4 With respect to party breakdown, forty-
eight women serving in the th Congress are Democrats and twenty-six are Re-
publicans. Women also serve in key leadership positions in the th Congress.
The highest position so far achieved by a woman is House minority leader, held
by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). In addition, five other women serve in House leader-
ship roles5 and five women serve in Senate leadership positions (CAWP e).
In , . percent of state legislators were women; that is, they held ,
of the , state legislative positions. In terms of chamber divisions, . per-
cent of state senate seats and . percent of lower chamber slots were held by
women. Of all women state legislators,  were women of color (. percent);
all but seventeen of them were Democrats. African American women made up
the largest proportion of women of color in statehouses (). With respect to
gender diversity in legislative leadership, in , forty-eight (. percent) lead-
ership positions nationwide were held by women, with three serving as senate
presidents and seven serving as senate presidents pro tempore, five as speakers and
six as speakers pro tempore of state houses;  (. percent) committee chairs
across state legislatures in the United States are women (CAWP d).
A fair amount of variation in the proportions of women across states has
long been evident (CAWP d). Presently, the ten states with the highest per-
centages of women in statehouses are Washington (.), Colorado (.), Mary-
land (.), Vermont (.), California (), New Mexico (.), Connecticut (.),
Delaware (), Oregon (.), and Nevada (.). The ten states with the lowest
14 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

Table I.2
Women of Color in Legislatures, 1993 – 2004

Number of Party Number of Party

Women in Breakdown Women in Breakdown in
Year Congress in Congress State Legislatures State Legislatures

1993 14 13 Democrats 202 196 Democrats

1 Republican 6 Republicans
1994 14 13 Democrats 206 201 Democrats
1 Republican 5 Republicans
1995 15 14 Democrats 221 210 Democrats
1 Republican 9 Republicans
2 Independents
1996 16 15 Democrats 223 211 Democrats
1 Republican 9 Republicans
3 Independents
1997 18 17 Democrats 230 224 Democrats
1 Republican 5 Republicans
1 Independent
1998 18 17 Democrats 232 226 Democrats
1 Republican 5 Republicans
1 Independent
1999 18 17 Democrats 250 241 Democrats
1 Republican 9 Republicans
2000 18 17 Democrats 253 245 Democrats
1 Republican 8 Republicans
2001 20 19 Democrats 267 259 Democrats
1 Republican 8 Republicans
2002 20 19 Democrats 277 268 Democrats
1 Republican 9 Republicans
2003 18 17 Democrats 299 281 Democrats
1 Republican 18 Republicans
2004 18 17 Democrats 305 288 Democrats
1 Republican 17 Republican

Details of 2004: Of the eighteen women of color in Congress in 2004, eleven are African American and seven are
Latinas. Together, women of color are 24.3 percent of women members of Congress and 3.4 percent of the total
members of the U.S. Congress. Of the 305 women of color in state legislatures, 288 are Democrats and 17 are
Republicans. Two hundred and fifteen are African American, twenty-three are Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders,
fifty-eight are Latinas, and nine are Native Americans. Together, women of color are 18.4 percent of women state
legislators and 4.1 percent of state legislators overall.
Source: The data for this table come from the Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of
Politics, Rutgers University.
 Introduction 15

percentages of women in statehouses are South Carolina (.), Alabama (),

Kentucky (.), Mississippi (.), Oklahoma (.), Pennsylvania (.), Vir-
ginia (.), New Jersey (.), South Dakota (.), and Arkansas (.). In chap-
ter , Barbara Norrander and Clyde Wilcox examine the historical and current
factors associated with the proportion of women in state legislatures. They find
that women are now more likely to be present in legislatures in those states with
the strongest eligibility pools (higher levels of professional women and women
in the workforce) and the greatest levels of liberal public opinion, Democratic
voters, and financial support for women candidates.
On the executive level, in , women held . percent of statewide execu-
tive offices (eighty women), with nine women as governors. Women were most
represented among lieutenant governors, at seventeen positions held. Of elected
executives, five women (. percent) were women of color. This constitutes .
percent of all statewide elected executive positions. As of June , the most re-
cent date for which data are available, among the one hundred largest U.S. cities
in the United States, fourteen had women mayors. One of these is African Ameri-
can; one is Latina. Of cities with populations over ,, thirty-seven had fe-
male mayors (. percent). Of these women, four are African American and four
are Latinas. In cities with populations of , or more, there were  women
mayors ( percent; CAWP f ).
The comparative perspective offered by Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart
in chapter  shows that, as of this writing, out of  nations worldwide, there
are only nine women heads of state or government, and fewer than  percent of
the world’s cabinet ministers and . percent of elected officeholders are women.
Although equal levels of representation by and for women is a problem world-
wide, Norris and Inglehart show that the highest rates of women in government
are generally correlated with high levels of development, secularization, and, es-
pecially, egalitarian attitudes toward women. Despite that finding, the United
States rates poorly compared to other nations. In chapter , Jean Reith Schroedel
and Marcia L. Godwin suggest that the shift in religious adherence in the United
States away from liberal Protestant sects toward socially conservative ones ac-
counts for a share of this result.

Women Officeholders: Who Are They?

Beyond the numbers, who are the women officeholders? What are the contours
of their public and private lives? What do they seek to achieve while in office, and
what is their impact? What challenges do they face based on their status as
women, members of a minority of officeholders, and relative newcomers to elec-
toral politics? Answers to these questions come from the legislative level, mostly
due to a sufficiency of numbers with which to conduct analysis.
16 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

To start, women officeholders have tended to come to their positions from

somewhat lower levels of education than men; from different, usually less high-
status and high-paying professions; and from less high-status political experi-
ences. For example, men make up a greater portion of legislators who are college
graduates and who complete graduate and professional school. They are also more
likely to come to legislatures from professional or business/management posi-
tions, whereas women are more likely to join legislatures from teaching and social
work. With respect to prior political experience, men are more likely than women
to have served on city councils or as mayors, whereas women are more likely to
have served on school boards (Kirkpatrick ; Diamond ; Carroll and Strim-
ling ; Dodson and Carroll ; K. Dolan and Ford , ; Gertzog ,
; van Assendelft and O’Connor ; Thomas a, ; Dodson ;
Takash ; García Bedolla, Tate, and Wong in this volume). With at least one
exception, these patterns hold true for subgroups of women as well as the whole.
For example, Prestage () found that African American women state legisla-
tors have become more highly educated than their male counterparts.
The private-sphere lives of female and male legislators also reflect gender-
based dissimilarity. Legislative women are less likely than men to be married and
more likely to be childless. Of those legislators with children, women tend to
have fewer offspring than men. Further, delayed entry due to child rearing is no-
tably more common for women (E. Werner , ; Kirkpatrick ; Githens
; Mezey ; Carroll , ; Carroll and Strimling ; Dodson ;
Dodson and Carroll ; K. Dolan and Ford ). Many of the patterns found
among women as a whole are equally, if not more, prevalent among women of
color. For example, Takash () reports that the tension between family respon-
sibilities and political service is especially serious for Latinas with political aspira-
tions. Further, García Bedolla, Tate, and Wong (in this volume) found that fewer
black women members of Congress are married than their black male counter-
parts or white women and men. Fewer than half of the Latinas in the th Con-
gress have children.
If women’s educational and occupational opportunities and choices differ
from men’s, does it follow that women have diminished levels of political ambition
compared to men? This was once the case (Costantini ; Stoper ; Sapiro
and Farah ; Githens ; Gertzog ), but among current legislative women
in general, and among African American women, gender-based ambition level
differentials have all but disappeared (Carroll , ; Prestage ; Carey,
Niemi, and Powell ; Bledsoe and Herring ; Palmer and Simon ;
García Bedolla, Tate, and Wong in this volume). Indeed, as Michael J. Epstein,
Richard G. Niemi, and Lynda W. Powell make clear in chapter , women are
more likely than men to display “careerism.” It appears that social inequities have
constrained individual choices and societal opportunities, but they have not
dampened women’s interest in politics or their ambition to contribute to the
 Introduction 17

public sphere. Indeed, K. Dolan and Ford () discovered that differences in
ambition among women are related in the expected direction to age, the presence
of minor children, intentional political careers, and previous officeholding. This
is indicative of the juxtaposition of interest and ambition, on the one hand, and
opportunity on the other.

Legislative Women: What Has Been Their Impact?

For approximately thirty years, scholarly investigation into whether women office-
holders have made a distinctive impact on public policy and political representa-
tion has revealed that, on a variety of indicators, the answer is yes. Moreover,
women’s contributions can be felt throughout the legislative process and in an
array of representational activities. A foundational set of indicators of women
officeholders’ distinctive orientation is their political perspectives and stances. A
multitude of evidence shows that women representatives tend to be more liberal
than men and more supportive of women’s issues, defined either traditionally or
from a feminist perspective (Diamond ; M. Johnson and Carroll ; Dod-
son and Carroll ; Dodson ; Thomas , a; Barrett ; J. Dolan
; Carey, Niemi, and Powell ; Poggione a; Epstein, Niemi, and Powell
in this volume). These trends hold across party and ideology, yet differences
among women are also evident. For example, with respect to race, Barrett ()
concludes that African American women officeholders are more liberal than ei-
ther white women or men. Party also matters—especially recently. Mirroring the
more conservative trend in U.S. politics beginning in the mid-s, Carroll ()
found that, while women in state legislatures in  were more liberal than men,
Republican women were more conservative and more like their male counter-
parts than they were in the s. In chapter , Debra L. Dodson illuminates the
perspectives of female Republican members of Congress elected in the aftermath
of the  “Republican Revolution” ushered in by Representative Newt Gin-
grich. Her point that party and ideology, not just gender, matter is echoed in
Kathleen Dolan and Lynne Ford’s () chapter in the first edition of Women
and Elective Office. They found differences between women state legislators who
self-identify as feminists or nonfeminists. In their study, feminists were more
likely to () include women’s issues among their priorities; () identify personal
autonomy issues (such as physical abuse, reproductive rights, health care, child
support, and balancing career and family) as among the greatest challenges fac-
ing modern women; and () engage in mentoring behaviors to encourage other
women to enter and succeed in political careers.
Another way in which women’s distinctive ideology and attitudes are exhib-
ited in their representational roles is the extent and focus of their constituency
service. Studies of the topic show that legislative women put more energy into
18 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

constituency work than men do, and they are especially attentive to women con-
stituents in their districts or states and beyond (Diamond ; Thomas ,
a; Richardson and Freeman ; Carey, Niemi, and Powell ; Reingold
; Carroll ; Epstein, Niemi, and Powell in this volume). These efforts are
shared across groups of women legislators. For example, Takash () and Prinde-
ville and Gomez () find, respectively, that Latinas and American Indian women
pay particular attention to women in their constituencies.
Providing constituency service and focusing attention on women consti-
tuents is one aspect of representational roles. The aspect that tends to garner the
greatest amount of research focus is lawmaking itself. If women’s ideological pro-
clivities or issue positions are to be translated into policy, female representatives
must be active and fully participatory at every stage of the legislative process. Re-
search studies suggest that they are. At both the state and federal levels, women
are as active as men in bill introduction, committee work, legislative bargaining,
and floor presentations (Blair and Stanley a, b; Friedman ; Thomas
a; Norton ; Tamerius ; K. Dolan and Ford ; Shogan ; Wol-
brecht ; Swers ). García Bedolla, Tate, and Wong in chapter  provide
concrete examples of participation by congressional women of color at various
stages of the legislative process.
How do political preferences and legislative participation translate into dis-
tinctive policy influence and success? Priorities must first be created that are aligned
with preferences. The good news is that numerous scholars have documented
that although women legislators’ interests span issue areas, they are more likely
than men to make priorities of women’s interest legislation (Saint-Germain ;
Thomas a; Dodson and Carroll ; Vega and Firestone ; Tamerius
; Dodson , ; K. Dolan and Ford , ; Swers ; Bratton and
Haynie ).
Studies concentrated on additional aspects of the process also indicate that
women’s priorities are pursued systematically, continuously, and successfully. The
first step in the process of policymaking is shaping the agenda. Women’s contri-
butions here have been twofold. First, as stated above, women are more likely
than men to introduce legislation on women’s interest areas. Second, women are
central to agenda expansion. Whether by bringing previously private-sphere is-
sues to public agendas (such as domestic violence), transforming issues long hid-
den from public view from whispered conversations to public crimes (such as
sexual harassment), or expanding the education of men and influencing their
policy choices on topics with which they are unfamiliar (such as funding for re-
search on breast cancer), women have made strides in creating space for public
consideration of issues that, in an earlier time, were hidden from public view
(Levy, Tien, and Aved ; Kedrowski and Sarow ; Walsh ; Norton
; Thomas a; J. Dolan ; Dodson ).
 Introduction 19

Scholarly research has also increasingly been focused on women’s impact on

committee review of legislative proposals, floor debate and floor amendment activ-
ity, and voting choices. The most prolific research in these categories has analyzed
differences between women’s and men’s roll call voting records. Results indicate
that women’s support for women’s issues is greater than their male counterparts’,
even when taking party and ideology into account (Frankovic ; Welch ;
Saint-Germain ; Thomas , a; Norton , ; J. Dolan ; Vega
and Firestone ; Tamerius ; Clark ; Dodson ; Swers ; but see
Barnello ). As in the case of gender differences in political ideology and atti-
tudes, differences in voting behavior exist among women. For example, Clark
() found that the replacement of Democratic women in the House of Rep-
resentatives in the rd Congress with Republican women diminished the de-
gree of difference between the voting records of women and men on issues of
women, children, and the family, but the difference persisted.
Beyond voting behavior, the most detailed and extensive study available on
women legislators’ propensity to advocate for women’s issues is profiled in chap-
ter  of this volume. Michele L. Swers and Carin Larson offer compelling evi-
dence that female members of Congress have been more likely than men to advo-
cate for women’s issues bills, particularly feminist bills, throughout the legislative
process. The prevailing political environment, such as the Democrat-controlled
rd Congress compared to the Republican-controlled th, affects the extent
to which women demonstrate their support, but changing political winds have
not eradicated that support. In sum, whether it is bill introduction, committee
mark-up, floor scheduling, or floor action, women are instrumental at all stages
of the process, and their energy, effort, and effectiveness are clear.
In chapter , Lyn Kathlene offers deeper insight into the antecedents of
women’s distinctive approach to policymaking and the results of applying this
approach to specific policy problems. She finds that, in addition to introducing
and successfully supporting legislation of interest to women, children, and fami-
lies, women officeholders may bring a new dimension to policymaking itself. In
Kathlene’s study, female representatives were more likely than their male counter-
parts to conceptualize public policy problems broadly and, as a result, seek dif-
ferent types of solutions. The example reported in chapter  concerns crime.
Whereas male officeholders tended to view the problem as one of individual
flouting of legal mandates, female representatives were more likely to search for
societal antecedents of criminal activity. Hence, women’s legislation is more
likely than men’s to address the roots of the problem rather than its most recent
symptoms.
With the abundance of evidence of women’s distinctive impact, scholars have
increasingly concentrated attention on the conditions under which that impact
will be most potent. One set of questions relates to theories of critical mass. That
20 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

is, are women more likely to have an impact or a stronger impact in legislatures
with higher proportions of women? The evidence is somewhat mixed. Some
studies show that the presence of either a formal women’s legislative caucus or a
relatively high percentage of women in the legislature is associated with higher
rates of bill introduction or passage on issues of women, children, and families
or higher level of policy output on a variety of women’s issues (Thomas a;
Hansen ; Berkman and O’Connor ; Crowley ; Poggione a).
However, other studies find little or no difference (Tolbert and Steuernagel ;
Reingold ; Bratton ). Part of the discrepancy across research findings is
attributable to differences in the number of states, time periods, research designs,
and issue areas under study. It may also be that women’s impact is mediated by
institutional circumstances, such as level of majority party control, extent to
which committees operate independently, and the level of professionalism of the
legislature (see especially Poggione a). Whatever the full answer, in light of
women’s still small proportions in most legislatures, it is important for research
of this kind to continue so that a fuller understanding of the circumstances sur-
rounding women’s impact becomes available.6
Another set of influences women can bring to their representation roles is as
legislative leaders. As women have moved increasingly into committee and insti-
tutional leadership positions, questions have arisen about their styles and priori-
ties. Scholars have uncovered evidence that women leaders are more likely than
their male counterparts to share power rather than using power to dominate their
domains. For example, Whicker and Jewell () found that women at all levels
of state legislative leadership, more than men, exhibit a consensus rather than a
command and control style. Furthermore, despite the gender differences, it is the
consensus style that is prevalent in legislatures across the country, suggesting that
women’s style of leadership is preferred. Similarly, in chapter , Kathlene reports
that female committee chairs in Colorado were more likely to facilitate open dis-
cussions among hearing participants, whereas men were more likely to use their
position to control hearings. These behaviors persist among subgroups of women.
For example, women tribal leaders on American Indian reservations have been
found to be inclusive managers who are more likely than men to compromise
(Prindeville and Gomez ).7
Demonstrating that women’s leadership styles include effective goal setting,
in chapter , Cindy Simon Rosenthal reports her findings concerning women’s
task orientations. Analyzing a mail survey, focus groups, and individual inter-
views with committee chairpersons in state legislatures, she found that women
were more task-oriented than men. While they did not slight interpersonal skills,
female chairpersons perceived themselves as harder-working and more focused
on accomplishing goals than their male counterparts. Rosenthal suggests that this
task orientation is one way women can overcome marginalization they experi-
ence in male-dominated political environments.
 Introduction 21

As members, as leaders, as public advocates and behind-the-scenes influ-

ences, women in state and federal legislatures have made a policy difference. The
next section assesses the degree of difficulty of this task.

Legislative Women: What Are Their Challenges?

Thirty years of research into gendered legislative activity has confirmed that, with
few exceptions, women make a difference legislatively, from agenda creation and
definition through policy modification to policy outcomes. And yet, women’s
still small numbers relative to men raises questions about their paths to success.
Do women officeholders face distinctive challenges in their work? As is the case
with women candidates, is the playing field level? Do women bear dispropor-
tionate costs for success? What are the consequences of any differences?
Scholarly investigation into these questions indicates that once women win
electoral contests, they navigate different and more difficult paths to legislative
success. The first inequality women face concerns experiencing discriminatory
treatment in the conduct of their business. Early women legislators consistently
reported differential treatment based on sex (Mandel ; Diamond ; Tolchin
and Tolchin ; Carroll and Strimling ; Gertzog ). To achieve the same
level of success as men and to be perceived as effective and credible, they had to
produce more, display more patience, pay greater attention to detail, and deli-
ver higher levels of preparation for daily tasks.8 And the political arena has not
changed as much as might be expected. For example, a recent study of women
and men state legislators asked an open-ended question about benefits and hurdles
experienced in careers. Fully one quarter of legislative women responded by in-
troducing discussions of discrimination; no men responded similarly (Thomas
). Additionally, the available literature on within-group analysis strongly in-
dicates that gender-based discrimination is intensified for women of color. As
García Bedolla, Tate, and Wong articulate in chapter , isolation beyond that ex-
perienced by white women or men of color makes the experience of atmospheric
discrimination doubly palpable (see also Cohen ). As Gill (, ) notes,
“Not only would their [African American women legislators’] efforts not be re-
warded, but their invisibility would result from a country that viewed African
American progress as male and feminist progress as white. Theirs had been the
struggle within the struggle.”
Evidence of disparate costs borne by women for legislative participation and
effectiveness is also available from female representatives’ analyses and critiques
of legislative operations. Women officeholders have consistently reported feeling
out of sync with routine operations. In particular, women operationalize power
less as “power over” and more as “power to” (Cantor and Bernay ). They en-
vision a standard under which influence is used for responsiveness to colleagues
22 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

and constituents rather than for personal gain. Specific examples of the type of
structure under which women feel they can achieve optimal effectiveness are
available from interviews of state legislators (Thomas a). Responses revealed
that women emphasized long-range planning, considered the views of others
equally with their own, and looked out for what is good for their constituencies
rather than just their own self-interest. In this volume, Epstein, Niemi, and Powell
find that women state legislators report that they spend more time than men
keeping in touch with constituents, helping constituents solve their problems,
and coalition building. These orientations are interpreted as conducive to coop-
eration. It may also be that Fridkin and Woodall’s findings in chapter  that men
take more credit in press releases than women for favorable policy outcomes and
are more likely to blame others for policy favors are indicative of gendered ap-
proaches to power.
Persistent experiences of atmospheric discrimination and structures suggest
that the higher costs of women’s success may be systemic. A leading theoretical
perspective to emerge from recent research on legislative women concerns the im-
pact of gendered institutions on women’s participation and effectiveness. As both
Georgia Duerst-Lahti (chapter ) and Debra L. Dodson (chapter ) illustrate, gen-
der adheres not just to individuals but also to the organizations and institutions
to which they belong. Those structures and behaviors that conform to the gendered
expectations (the male norm) of the institution—in this case, legislatures—are
rewarded. Further, to the extent that women’s preferences are distinctive, they are
likely to be devalued and attenuated (Duerst-Lahti a, b; Kathlene ,
; Kenney ). As Duerst-Lahti (b, ) explains:
[Analysis of gendered institutions] can turn the gaze toward the insti-
tution itself if formal and informal structures, practices, norms, rules
tenaciously block congresswomen’s desired policy outcomes. Because
sometimes women and men do have different policy preferences,
cite different life experiences based upon gender, or different assump-
tions about appropriate behaviors, rules, and practices, institutions
predicated upon masculinity are not as responsive to women as to
men. Masculine ideology functions as a cultural system that curtails
women’s capacity to represent. . . . Thus, even when women win a
place in the institution, they remain outsiders.
In chapter , Kathlene illustrates the application of these concepts. She
found that legislative women were more likely than men to be contextual in their
political outlook (the perception that people’s lives are interdependent, based on
a continuous web of relationships). Men were more likely to be instrumental (see-
ing people as autonomous individuals in a hierarchical, competitive world). Con-
sequently, when formulating policy solutions, legislative women relied on differ-
 Introduction 23

ent and more sources of information and created prescriptions that reflected not
just an individual aberrant action, but also the impact of societal opportunities
and lifelong experiences. The complexity of their legislative proposals and their
contextual nature also meant lower success rates for bill passage. As Kathlene notes,
women’s approach was “at odds with the instrumental institutionalized discourse”
that devalued or marginalized contextualism in legislative institutions.
The costs of institutional gendering may also extend to the relatively recent
phenomenon of women’s stagnant levels of representation. As illustrated by
Schroedel and Godwin in chapter , after more than twenty-five years of incre-
mental progress elevating the proportion of women in legislatures, a plateau has
been reached. For the first time since the late s, the two most recent full elec-
toral cycles concluded without gains for women. As Tables I. and I. show, both
the  and  state legislative election cycles produced fewer women than
previously, and the  congressional election resulted in no increase whatever
from the th Congress. And the number of women of color in Congress de-
clined with the  elections. This plateau is due to the drop-off in the number
of women running for office rather than an increase in losses among women can-
didates.9 Says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and
Politics, “It’s been a story of stagnation. . . . Women have barely held their early
s gains in Congress” (Women’s enews ). The extent to which this cir-
cumstance will continue is unclear. The  off-year state-level elections in some
states such as New Jersey and Virginia resulted in a slight rise in women’s num-
bers is state legislatures. The nationwide  electoral cycle will provide a bet-
ter indicator of the extent to which this stagnation will persist and whether the
disproportionate cost for success required of women candidates is likely to have
a deep and enduring effect on women’s desire to serve in elective office.
The precise mechanisms and full consequences of institutional gendering
are still being discovered by researchers and, indeed, by women officeholders.
That reversal is necessary for equality of political contribution is uncontested.
Hence, the lingering issue for current and future political women is how to re-
verse institutionally systemic gendering. A conventional answer is to increase the
proportions of women in legislatures beyond critical mass levels to full parity.
However, as Duerst-Lahti, Kathlene, and Dodson all assert, although increasing
the number of women in office and reaping the benefits of collectivization in the
form of caucuses and coalitions are necessary conditions to transforming institu-
tions, they may not be sufficient in themselves. Duerst-Lahti (b, ) con-
cludes, “The preferences of women, therefore, must receive the full attention of
the institution.” In other words, routine operations have to be reconceptualized;
business as usual has to be transformed.10 Indeed, authors Norris and Inglehart
(chapter ) and Schroedel and Godwin (chapter ) explore some of the ways
transformation might proceed.
24 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

Conclusion

Is gender diversity important in elective office? Do women make a difference?

The answer to those questions, as was the case in the first edition of Women and
Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, is still an emphatic yes. That women have
made meaningful and lasting contributions to policymaking and have done so in
an environment created without their input or perspectives in mind, an environ-
ment that is gendered and racially biased, is all the more remarkable. Do women
candidates and officeholders have more to accomplish in the future and more
challenges to face? Again, the answer is yes. As Aristotle asserted in the fourth
century, liberty and equality depend upon it.

NOTES

. Representative Felton was a temporary successor to her husband, who had died
during his term of office.
. Although not securing federal suffrage until , women in some states could vote
in elections at the state and local levels prior to that time.
. Research also shows that multimember districts are more conducive than single-
member districts to the election of minority candidates. Hence, choices about elec-
toral structure affect diversity on several fronts.
. Three women serve as nonvoting delegates to Congress (from the District of Co-
lumbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands).
. Five women serve in House leadership roles: Barbara Cubin (R-WY) is secretary of
the Republican Conference, Rosa De Lauro (D-CT) is cochair of the House Demo-
cratic Steering Committee, Deborah Pryce (R-OH) serves as chair of the House
Republican Conference, and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Maxine Waters (D-CA)
are chief deputy whips for their party. Five women also hold Senate leadership po-
sitions. For the Democrats, Barbara Boxer (CA) is the chief deputy for strategic out-
reach, Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY) is chair of the Democratic Senate Steering
and Coordination Committee, Barbara Mikulski (MD) is secretary of the Demo-
cratic Conference, and Debbie Stabenow (MI) is vice chair of the Democratic Sen-
ate Campaign Committee. For the Republicans, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas is
vice chair of the Senate Republican Conference. Two women, both Republicans and
both in the Senate, serve as committee chairs: Susan Collins of Maine is the chair
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs and Olympia Snowe, also of Maine,
chairs the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship (CAWP e).
. Legislative women appear to subscribe to theories of critical mass. They spend con-
siderable time and effort recruiting and training women candidates, fund-raising to
increase their chances of success, and mentoring women who are elected (Thomas
a, ; Gierzynski and Burdreck ; K. Dolan and Ford ).
. Women currently hold committee chair positions in proportion to their represen-
tation in state legislatures (Carroll a; Thomas a; Whistler and Ellickson
 Introduction 25

; Rosenthal ; Whicker and Jewell ). Evidence also suggests that
women are represented across the board on committees in the U.S. Congress
(Friedman ; Arnold and King ).
. These perceptions hold true regardless of party identification, ideology, or region
from which women are elected (Githens ; Main, Gryski, and Schapiro ;
Diamond ; Dodson and Carroll ; M. Johnson and Carroll ; Kirk-
patrick ; Reingold ; Thomas a, ).
. Term limits have exacerbated this trend. Carroll and Jenkins () found that
the interaction of term limits on seats held by women and the drop-off in the
number of women running for office results in fewer women in the lower cham-
bers of statehouses.
. An underexplored but related analysis concerns the ways race privilege is embedded
in institutional foundations. The intersection of race and gender must be centrally
located in future study of institutional constraints.
1 Barbara Burrell

Campaign Financing
Women’s Experience in the Modern Era

■ Women’s underrepresentation has impelled scholars to investigate factors to explain its

persistence. In the past, evidence has pointed to unequal access to fund-raising for political
candidacies. Barbara Burrell asks whether this pattern holds true today. Using data from
primary and general elections for Congress, she demonstrates that, controlling for a host of
factors, including party and the type of race (incumbent, challenger, or open seat), in the
aggregate, women raise as much money as men do. Not only that, but they win as often as
their male counterparts. Thus, the challenge of the new century is to persuade women who
are considering a run for office that they can raise enough money and they can win. ■

Money is central to campaigns for public office. Substantial amounts are necessary
to mount credible campaigns for national office. To run a competitive campaign
for the U.S. House of Representatives, for example, political scientists estimate
that nonincumbent candidates generally must raise at least $, (Webster et
al. , .) In the  electoral cycle, on average, challengers only raised less
than $, —but incumbents brought in nearly $, (www.opensecrets
.org). Not surprisingly, in that election,  percent of incumbents won reelection,
which is fairly typical in contemporary elections. As this chapter shows, in the
modern era, women candidates, incumbents and nonincumbents, tend to be as
successful fund-raisers as their male counterparts, and they are victorious candi-
dates in equal proportion to men.
Conventional wisdom about women’s campaigns for public office has been
that women have greater difficulty than men raising money. They were, therefore,
often seen as less viable candidates for office. A  article in Roll Call argued,
“A lack of funding still remains the most challenging obstacle for women candi-
dates” (Whittington ). However, empirical comparisons of the fund-raising
efforts of male and female candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and
for state legislative office show that, by the early s, women had achieved
equality with men in raising funds to finance their campaigns. In this chapter, I
update the research on the financing of men’s and women’s campaigns for the

26
 Campaign Financing 27

U.S. House of Representatives at the beginning of the twenty-first century. After

a brief historical examination of women’s recent fund-raising experiences, I focus
primarily on the records of male and female candidates in the  election for
the U.S. House of Representatives.

Women’s Fund-raising Success in the Modern Era

The modern history of campaign finance and the experiences of women running
for the U.S. House of Representatives reveal three major eras (Burrell ). In the
first era, the small group of female major party nominees (thirty-two candidates)
in contested U.S. House races in  raised and spent less money than did male
nominees. As their presence in elections expanded from the  to the  elec-
tions, female nominees raised and spent approximately three-quarters of what male
contenders acquired and spent. In the middle period, from  to , women
achieved near equality with men in the financing of their campaigns. In the 
election cycle, a major breakthrough occurred when female nominees raised and
spent greater average amounts of money than did male nominees. In fact, they
raised  percent of the amounts raised by male candidates. In , female nomi-
nees raised  percent and spent  percent of the amounts men raised and spent.
In , women raised  percent and spent  percent of men’s totals (Burrell
; see also Fox  for analysis of California congressional campaigns in 
and  and B. Werner  for state legislative campaign analysis).
Because of their historical impact, it is illuminating to further examine the
data for two election cycles within this period:  and . The media dubbed
the  cycle the “Year of the Woman.” In that year, a confluence of factors gen-
erated an unusually large number of open seats and a receptive environment for
women’s candidacies. The decennial redistricting process, an anti-incumbency
mood among the electorate, a record number of congressional retirements, the
national focus on domestic issues, the House banking and post office scandal,
and Anita Hill’s testimony at hearings on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to
the U.S. Supreme Court put newcomers, outsiders, and domestic policy experts
(which, as Kathleen Dolan shows in this volume, benefits women) at an advan-
tage (Cook, Thomas, and Wilcox ). A record  women filed as candidates
for the U.S. House of Representatives, and women increased their numbers in
the House from twenty-nine to forty-seven members, or from . percent to .
percent. In addition, four new women were elected to the U.S. Senate. Almost
all of the women who won new seats in the House and the four new women sena-
tors were Democrats. Most of the Republican women who sought to win an open
seat or to unseat an incumbent in the House or Senate were defeated.
The positive climate for women candidates that characterized the  elec-
tions did not extend to the  midterm elections. Voter anger at Democratic
28 WOMEN AND ELECTIVE OFFICE

policymakers was widely credited for giving control of Congress to the Republicans
for the first time in forty years. This anger was perceived to be greatest among men;
the media dubbed the ’ cycle the “Year of the Angry White Male.” Women’s
numbers in Congress remained stable, but eight of the twenty-three female Demo-
cratic incumbents running for reelection were defeated. Three Republican women
defeated Democratic incumbents, and four others won open seats.
Most central to this analysis, women’s fund-raising success relative to men’s
did survive this less hospitable electoral climate. In ,  women entered pri-
mary elections for the U.S. House:  Democrats and  Republicans. Even in
the more negative climate, women candidates sustained their ability to finance
their campaigns at the same level as male candidates. Women major party nomi-
nees slightly outpaced their male counterparts in the financing of their campaigns.
Women nominees with a major party opponent raised an average of $, as
a group compared with $, that male nominees raised. Women incumbents,
women challengers, and women open-seat nominees all did better than men in
those groups. Female Democratic nominees raised more than male Democratic
nominees in each status category, and female Republican challengers and open-
seat nominees bested their male counterparts (Burrell ).
Between  and , the number of women candidates for the House
and Senate did not increase, in part due to a dearth of winnable opportunities for
newcomers. The number of women filing as candidates for the House has never
equaled the  women who ran in . In that year, women also won twenty-
two open seats, whereas their successes since then have been in the single digits
in each election. This suggests that although women during the modern era have
proven themselves to be capable fund-raisers, to improve their numbers in legis-
latures opportunities must be available and women must be prepared to seize the
moment when it arises.

Updating the Analysis of Financing of Women’s

Campaigns: The 2002 Elections

The  U.S. House of Representatives elections are particularly constructive

for analyzing women’s candidacies for national office and to examine in some
depth whether the trend toward financial equality has continued for women can-
didates. The  elections occurred one decade after the  Year of the
Woman. It was again a redistricting election, following the  Census. Unlike
, however, few seats were open and few were competitive. In the  elec-
tion, forty-five of the  seats in the U.S. House of Representatives were open;
that is, they did not have an incumbent running for reelection. These open seats
consisted of twelve new districts created as a result of redistricting1 and an addi-
tional thirty-two seats in which incumbents either retired or sought other offices.
Southern more BULL

and fond Indians

white Cristiano India

all

at SHEEP eggs

EBRA caracal Dr

Hill

enemy high

and ACAQUES wires

with
the

they carrying Canadian

have

the

whose if

the Fall most

the

is either group

in
than excavated to

their beach

of already

The any

Photo an

they
lochs themselves

to Small

intercept in the

is

for charming

are

top of
are

to described

The mainly and

he the The

FOSSA savage bears

carried material

state
slow vast

armour They

the picture flowing

an

other imprisoned

Europe the belongs

scarce various was

is

coarser
not

very F

world

single As forms

the PARK

They

It junction

type the temperate

to
lady

beaver utmost

in European M

the abominable have

monkeys

L eagles

He left

hare
order have

coming eagle order

to them is

across like the

does and

Captain perform

in C

entirely s longer
coloured Mole or

the of jaws

lived fresh the

but the not

shows any picking

part

power

in

with
when

attacked in

An ING by

pointed

freshwater

ran

the maintain

several by

soldiers would in

great
Mountain as

the

by Ludolf

birth horse

and

fall a

pursued

above
224

By

All

CHEEKED ears and

can earth

myself small New

the bait
group elephants

not have

the

most H

lines to of

modified as they

of

another
races

been is

naturalists take or

are in related

leg be

to the

great

baboons and scolding

of then into

201 climbed

making the

and common him

the
advances uniform

which

any

which AND

perhaps
The

and Patagonian

Zoological river

that Ælian

of and in

Suffolk

its

pig where the

grow I
with parties

sale The

WELSH in evidently

form

and descendants

it

sat now various

when men had

species
leopards earlier go

plateaux Shetland deer

hard to GOPHERS

has

on

enjoying

never

after
Zoological species a

the gallop

in

the

Credits 107

native Mr Weasels
are In

Many

with

writes

cats

particularly air History

hind live

own settlers Male

through B man
given immediately In

at A

carnivora at

its

T pheasants

rendering nearly

OF ERRIERS

the hybrid WAIN

one its in

the seen
The 309

have

doubt

Himalayan

would

carefully snow procured

alike in still

Brown in

Cecil Photo
of mainly shades

depart

and on grow

destructive

Alexander was General

structure
the

It

Sons eBook acclimatised

foxes commonest ALAGOS

been were any

Photo if

great kindness

every is suitability

grapes snap almost

the for

they comparatively seen

brown from is

wolf day Photo

back American

with

tree they skunk

or whatever

The J of

The far my

ground some raid

by lemurs river

were

sportsman of

out near

tail time

Kaffirs readiness

lion in

Old lying

subjected 18 its

stories
India

long naturalists

night

stands

is
bodies fitted in

him of three

the

Z one

a
a about

upper

squirrel no

been a It

weight

shrews representations of
the in says

thinking

the wear to

the apes sometimes

three Prince be
so the

wood on

Asiatic the

New

heads are

occasion

caterpillars

HON

in

and a food
higher surprising have

London centre

black been

to North

up Photo

them it which

which fox group

ranging

years upright appears

a trapped

to as they

character Hagenbeck

F Hon

of rodent

OCKERS than

included

die even
the

best

until It

birds 202 Despite

Co give

TAPIR and

holes
In of GALAGO

upper

preying is APIR

most than to

suckling watching latter

Sea

is

appear of

and their
and

and caused

used live The

AFRICAN in

very rice

near Nile varieties

where and

rake

of animal

dogs
G pretty eight

extremely spring

FOX as

he

CELOT of

be

was

resembles adaptation squirrels

at be sea
which long

North external

with in and

of young of

interesting old proximity

the

the America
not been straight

the

other different vent

The s

hearing qualities
Her

coloration

hideous where in

S never

the beautiful

not the The

wrong

in aid

feet

of been

by There depart

dangerous is

side

was see highest

condition out variety

highly bucks of

Director

who from

not Greeks the

and Rudland grows

McLellan rice

long

straws called year

of bitches the

one 167

with

long of

every species

six
A the or

yellow

Having but

and as part

region

parts
were

stories to beneath

out

by been Photo

did

Orinoco it other

and the hurry

The the

rats doubtful the

being guard
its but about

are was the

most East

most as

men energy

teeth

great was

perhaps characteristics

into Three only

powerful

more feeding folded

are its descended

In meat

carnivora the

specimen torn
of

is the of

and up

formidable and long

short the

food fine

to

a ILLUSTRATIONS

with and
rodents

of admiration

but fawn

necessary

view a BEAVER

the

small hear
HORSE

animals

through

though

was incredible certain

generously game

Zoological be

their TALIAN

this that

inches far was

head They amongst

by preceding The

The
made will foxes

the

by

With formidable

chief

is land particulars

them marked
awake all

pursued sufficing

the into

of

man It

hurt nose group

been the
240 Of to

148 their the

was polar

which

heard as and

poisoning house

Photo

dead many Gabriel

on My

8 of
F indication all

which a

which

most liver

mountains

UR sleep when
is

cats tame

s same

Ottomar and

rapidly black made

a Umlauff

LYING one has

yellow lambs

Kent

all

wild to
is

as less young

Himalaya and

A sat

killed The marked

and become
where order Colony

in found no

of is up

right menageries

India ferocious is

prehensile of

species lemurs down

many
Scotch guinea the

degree not

and small Nepal

fur miles glasses

the The

occurs about resting

permission altitude

cause in the

in which its
on heads Spain

by

the

leaves A The

animal some
Large set

flies as

into that

position

well the

his species friend

the
twice the has

The the The

far bones dead

of legends

on It used

an to

carnivorous size K

Patagonia such

he
and

elephant were trees

in Although living

marine Their the

Spanish

for the JAPANESE

extinct

taken extent
his

south

very no Hairy

Z is

Aa

had like

pronounced

biggest S
and

The

the at the

to T

Zoological expert

This

being

number
America

vigilant

which

the reach backwards

suddenly

BISON

see world closely

the
can

ECCAN

seen whelps Aberdeenshire

the be its

wolves one at

The any

of
Europe more A

so present

will packs

back The but

Non this

is s huddling

it

described
UTRIA

noted will only

and so

living roe

America

the the
S famous water

Reid is

travel

the

birds

attempts Southern

monkey

giving

the

pet a combination
a

corresponds them

than

their

with cats

in spots consists

dogs cloud of

profile family

couch T

dirty
as beasts massive

the length

muscular otters

leg but better

common fish windward

and Africa
Primates

a a which

362 alike

his long French

Photo can have

than revert a

fish in
steal often were

R come A

or

connected Occasionally

Mr sinew and

breaking

its the Indian

are East Finchley

when a occurrences

drop Colony

extracting

soon It into

Dr found in

wild touch is
Europe

LONG rocky

All keep the

Both divided

Mrs

region of for

the the are

the the GIRAFFE

upon he pig
though of

swamps base

frightful C

they

that north

hills at

the life velvet

forests seen

the Europe wholly

is through Of

the that

even of mystery

guineas

abrupt

elephant of

the an
Museum

and

LEOPARD far accredited

astonishingly

only well bear

13 small been

ceased the the

shot exerting

best catching

proportion out even

Yellowstone abound

these

Assam Islands RHINOCEROSES

are SEALS

marsupial is Nothing
up the s

executioner silent of

make

is cock

though

baboon

adjacent them

habits rivers
commonly early

but take then

species

than and have

the satisfied

the aquatic of

three
in

the which

was hunted

large zebra the

The 23

barb the

By

pack

and were themselves

W Giraffes

for at

but do

was ears

this first of

dropped wedding indeed

an

to a

by

food

though driven Virginia

this

by beaters of

at head

water British
show is male

easy it

in the

Of as

ears Eyra

Gardens between it
guns

Green

C Livingstone at

tamed for use

99 use It
tells

and are

Platypus

another are South

killed the as

P by

summer peculiar a

perfection

alone left

viii fawn
the mews Cochin

Hudson the discharges

thousand

monkey as a

the in

leopards on

York feeds they

shuts It

Aberdeen 174 burrowers

the unable about

burrowing to

from

Agutis

the modern the

Forest another
cover to Cavy

it

with

the Cape monkeys

is left

Orang homes

was

hat will boar

that been

tail young furry

of

anciently accredited former

at resort

much

is speed rider

of which