Search

Examining the donation patterns of male and female contributors to congressional campaigns, we find that the donor networks of male and female candidates are both partisan and gendered. Female candidates receive greater support from female donors than their male counterparts with Democratic women raising the most money from female donors. Similarly, male donors give more money to male candidates, and in the general election, they are also significantly more supportive of Republican candidates. Distinct partisan and gendered donor networks are most apparent among incumbents, where women and men in both parties receive more from female and male donors, respectively, than their co-partisans. Furthermore, while both men and women exhibit gender affinity effects, female donors seem to prioritize surrogate representation over other traditional motivations such as competitiveness and access to powerful incumbents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research demonstrates that the impact of gender on legislators' decisions is greatest on policies that directly impact women as a group. Yet, legislators' efforts to achieve their preferences are guided by the institutional and political context. The politics of Supreme Court nominations present a case in which gender issues are highly salient from abortion to diversity on the bench. Confirmation politics are also tightly constrained by the assumption that nominees will be confirmed and by pressure for party loyalty, particularly for members of the President's party. In this atmosphere, I find that gender has little impact on senators' votes on the Roberts and Alito nominations. Instead expression of gender based policy concerns are channeled into the explanations senators offer to justify their votes and build trust with constituents ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on women candidates suggests that voters perceive women to be less capable than men of handling defense and foreign policy issues. By contrast, candidates with military experience are considered to have special expertise on defense policy issues. In this study I examine Senators participation in the development of and debates on the annual defense authorization bill and the Iraq War resolution. I find no evidence to support the idea that women are less active participants in the development of defense policy in comparison to similarly situated male Senators. Additionally, the analysis of the Iraq war resolution demonstrates that female Senators are no less inclined to authorize the use of force than ideologically similar male senators. However, women are more likely to advance proposals aimed at providing for the troops and their families, a position that reinforces previous research indicating that women are more likely to support expansion of social welfare policies. Additionally, the analysis provides support for the contention that Senators with military experience are more active on defense policy issues and are given more deference on these issues by Senate colleagues. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 9/11 national security has emerged as a central issue on the political agenda. At the same time, studies of voter attitudes indicate that voters trust men more than women to handlie defense policy and voters prefer women on social welfare issues. This paper examines gender differences in Senators participation on defense policy and examines whether there are gender differences in involvement in hard (strategic issues), soft (issues related to benefits for military personnel and veterans), and issues of homeland security. Despite a lack of substantial gender differences in bill sponsorship rates in these three areas, interview with Senate campaign and office staff reveal that women face an extra barrier in their efforts to achieve credibility on defense issues with constituents, colleagues, the media, and defense establishment. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study engages the debate over descriptive representation by attempting to isolate the conditions in which the presence of a descriptive representative will influence the policy process and the factors that contribute to variation in that influence. By examining the agenda-setting activities of bill sponsorship and cosponsorship to determine if female representatives are more likely to act as legislative entrepreneurs on women?s issues than are their male colleagues, I find that congresswomen devote a larger proportion of their overall legislative agenda to sponsorship and cosponsorship of women?s issue initiatives, particularly feminist proposals. The differences in legislative behavior were greater in the area of bill sponsorship than cosponsorship demonstrating that the impact of descriptive representation is most significant in those areas that require the greatest expenditures of resources and incur larger opportunity costs for participation in other areas. Finally, I illustrate how changes in the institutional and political contexts impact members? decisions concerning whether to pursue women?s issue initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]