Close
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Gender and policy-making in Congress.
(USC Thesis Other)
Gender and policy-making in Congress.
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment
can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and
there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright
material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning
the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to
right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in
one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic
prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
GENDER AND POLICY-MAKING IN CONGRESS
By
Li-Chun Chiang
A Dissertation Presented to
The Faculty of the Graduate School
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree Doctor of Philosophy
(Political Science)
May 1999
Copyright 1999 Li-Chun Chiang
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 9933787
Copyright 19 99 by
Chiang, Li-Chun
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9933787
Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-4015
This dissertation, w ritten by
t- i-C k in • • • • • • • • • • ? • • % • • I •*o ff * * » i» r f m / • • ! • • • tT a■O » J • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • « • • • • • • • • • •
under the direction of h&.C..... Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its members,
has been presented to and accepted by The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of re
quirem ents for the degree of
D O CTO R OF PHILOSOPHY
Dean of Graduate Studies
Date ....M arch.,1 j.. .1999
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
< U X U f V \.
Chairperson
&
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgements
This dissertation was completed at the end of 1998. I would never have been able
to finish it without the steadfast care and support of parents, professors and friends.
For making this dissertation more readable, I would like to thank Paul Chen and
Walt Popkin who helped me with my English writing. I also thank Stephanie Hszieh and
Ann Gordon who offered statistical knowledge to help my quantitative research. I
appreciate Professor Yan Tang, Professor Judith Grant and Professor Stanley Rosen who
provided critical perspective to my manuscript; Professor Mark Kann who provided
philosophic insight and went through every step of the dissertation writing process with
me; and Professor David Andrus who kept me going through many frustrating moments.
In addition, my friendships with Chin-Chiu Chuang, Shih-Cho Huang, Hui-An Ho
and Chia-Yu Dai helped me to go through the difficult moments in my study. I owe
special thanks to Professor Ann Crigler who provided unusual support for every step in
the writing of my dissertation. Her faith in the worth of this research and in my ability to
finish it was essential to its completion.
I am heavily indebted to my parents who completely supported my study and
gave me unflagging encouragement. This dissertation is for them in thanks for their love
and caring throughout my life.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables/Figures iv
Abstract xii
Chapter One Introduction I
The Aims of the Research I
The Origin of Sex Differences 4
The Foundations of the Research 9
Areas of Research 15
Methodology of the Research 19
The Plan of the Dissertation 28
Chapter Two Sex Differences and Feminist Standpoint Theory 30
The Nature of Feminist Standpoint Theory 30
The Sexual Division of Labor 33
Application to the Political Sphere 42
Sex Differences and Policy Preferences 51
Chapter Three Lawmakers and Policy Preferences in the House
Of Representatives 59
Gender, Party and Ideology in the 103rd and 104th
Congresses 61
Influential Elements in Lawmakers’ Policy Preferences 73
Lawmakers and Policy preferences 78
Chapter Four Lawmakers and Floor Speeches 128
Data and Method 129
The Correlation between Lawmakers and Floor Speeches 132
Floor Speeches and Lawmakers’ Political Commitments 135
Chapter Five Conclusion 166
Bibliography 176
Appendix 183
iii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Tables/Figures
Table 1.1
Table 1.2
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Table 2.1
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 3.7
Table 3.8
Table 3.9
Table 3.10
Table 3.11
Table 3.12
Percentage of Women in National Legislatures 3
The Number of Representatives in the House of
Representatives in 1992 ad 1994 23
Women’s Employment: Inter-Relationship Between the
Labor Market and the Domestic Sphere 35
Transition from Domestic Experiences to Political Preferences 49
Policies and Sex Differences in Experiences 54
The Number of Representatives in the House of Representatives 62
in 1992 and 1994
The Sample Lawmakers in the 103rd and 104th Congress 63
Gender and Political Parties in the 103rd and 104th Houses 63
The Averages of ADA and ACU by Gender in the 103rd
and 104th House of Representatives 65
The Averages of ADA and ACU by Party in the 103rd
and 104th House of Representatives 66
Ideology by Gender and Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses 67
Ideology and Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses 69
Gender, Party, and Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses 70
Gender, and Marriage in the 103rd and 104th Houses 71
Year First Elected to Congress by Gender in the 103rd
and 104th House 72
Men’s Issues and Women’s Issues by Regression in the
103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorships) 74
Men’s Issues and Women’s Issues by Regression in the
103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorships) 74
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.13 Economic Issues by Regression in the 103rd and 104th Houses 77
Table 3.14 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by Gender
in the 103rd and 104th Houses 79
Table 3.15 Significance between Healthcare/Welfare Policies in
the 103rd and 104th Houses 79
Table 3.16 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by Party in the
103rd and 104“ Houses
th
80
Table 3.17 Significance between Healthcare/Welfare Policies and Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses 80
Table 3.18 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by Gender with
Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 81
Table 3.19 S ignificance between Healthcare/Welfare Policies, Gender
and Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 81
Table 3.20 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by Gender with
Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 81
Table 3.21 Significance between Healthcare/W elfare Policies, Gender
and Party in the 103 rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 81
Table 3.22 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by Ideology in
the 103rd and 104th Houses 82
Table 3.23 Significance between Healthcare/Welfare Policies and
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses 82
Table 3.24 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by Gender with
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 84
Table 3.25 Significance between Healthcare/Welfare Policies, Gender
and Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 84
Table 3.26 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by Gender with
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 84
Table 3.27 Significance between Healthcare/Welfare Policies, Gender
and Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 85
Table 3.28 Differences in Family/Child Policies by Gender in the 103rd
and 104th Houses 86
V
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.29
Table 3.30
Table 3.31
Table 3.32
Table 3.33
Table 3.34
Table 3.35
Table 3.36
Table 3.37
Table 3.38
Table 3.39
Table 3.40
Table 3.41
Table 3.42
Table 3.43
Significance between Family/Child Policies and Gender in
the 103rd and 104th Houses 86
Differences in Family/Child Policies by Party in the 103rd
and 104th Houses 87
Significance between Family/Child Policies and Party in
the 103rd and 104th Houses 87
Differences in Family/Child Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 88
Significance between Family/Child Policies, Gender with
Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 88
Differences in Family/Child Policies by Gender with Party in
the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 88
Significance between Family/Children Policies, Gender
with Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 89
Differences in Family/Children Policies by Ideology in the
103rd and 104th Houses 90
Significance between Family/Children Policies and Ideology
in the 103rd and 104th Houses 90
Differences in Family/Children Policies by Gender with
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 91
Significance between Family/Children Policies, Gender
with ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 91
Differences in Family/Children Policies by Gender with
Ideology in the 103 rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 92
Significance between Family/Children Policies, Gender
and Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 92
Differences in Education Policies by Gender in the 103rd and
104th Houses 94
Significance between Education Policies and Gender in
the 103rd and 104th Houses 94
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.44
Table 3.45
Table 3.46
Table 3.47
Table 3.48
Table 3.49
Table 3.50
Table 3.51
Table 3.52
Table 3.53
Table 3.54
Table 3.55
Table 3.56
Table 3.57
Table 3.58
Differences in Education Policies by Party in the 103rd and
104th Houses 94
Significance between Education Policies and Party in the
103rd and 104th Houses 94
Differences in Education Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 95
Significance between Education Policies, Gender and Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 95
Differences in Education Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 95
Significance between Education Policies, Gender and Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 96
Differences in Education Policies by Ideology in the 103rd and
104th Houses 97
Significance between Education Policies and ideology in the
103rd and 104th Houses 97
Differences in Education Policies by Gender with Ideology
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 98
Significance between Education Policies, Gender and Ideology
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 98
Differences in Education Policies by Gender with Ideology
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 98
Significance between Education Policies, Gender and Ideology
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 99
Differences in Housing Policies by Gender in the 103rd and
104th Houses 100
Significance between House Policies and Gender in the 103rd
and 104th Houses 100
Differences in Housing Policies by Party in the 103rd and
104th Houses 101
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.59 Significance between Housing Policies and Party in the
103rd and 104th Houses
Table 3.60 Differences in Housing Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship)
Table 3.61 Significance between Housing Policies, Gender and Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship)
Table 3.62 Differences in Housing Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
101
102
102
102
Table 3.63 Significance between Education Policies, Gender and Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 102
Table 3.64 Differences in Housing Policies by Ideology in the 103rd and
104th Houses 103
Table 3.65 Significance between Housing Policies and Ideology in the
103rd and 104th Houses 103
Table 3.66 Differences in Housing Policies by Gender with Ideology
Table 3.67
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship)
Significance between Housing Policies, Gender and Ideology
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship)
104
104
Table 3.68 Differences in Housing Policies by Gender with Ideology
Table 3.69
in the 103 rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
Significance between Housing Policies, Gender and Ideology
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
104
105
Table 3.70 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Gender in
the 103rd and 104“ Houses
th
106
Table 3.71 Significance between Crime Prevention Policies and Gender
in the 103rd and 104th Houses 106
Table 3.72 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Party in the 103rd
and 104th Houses 108
Table 3.73 Significance between Crime Prevention Policies and Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses 108
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.74 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 109
Table 3.75 Significance between Crime Prevention Policies, Gender
and Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 109
Table 3.76 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 109
Table 3.77 Significance between Crime Prevention Policies, Gender
and Party in the 103 rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 109
Table 3.78 Differences in Housing Policies by Ideology in the 103rd and
104th Houses 110
Tabie 3.79 Significance between Crime Prevention Policies and
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses 110
Table 3.80 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Gender with
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 111
Table 3.81 Significance between Crime Prevention Policies, Gender
and Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 111
Table 3.82 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Gender with
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 112
Table 3.83 Significance between Crime Prevention Policies, Gender
and Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 112
Table 3.84 Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by Gender in
the 103rd and 104th Houses 113
Table 3.85 Significance between Foreign/Military Policies and Gender
in the 103rd and 104th Houses 113
Table 3.86 Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by Party in the 103rd
and 104th Houses 114
Table 3.87 Significance between Foreign/Military Policies and Party
in the 103rd and 104m Houses
th
114
Table 3.88 Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103rd and 104 Houses (Sponsorship) 115
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.89
Table 3.90
Table 3.91
Table 3.92
Table 3.93
Table 3.94
Table 3.95
Table 3.96
Table 3.97
Table 3.98
Table 3.99
Table 3.100
Table 3.101
Table 3.102
Table 3.103
Significance between Foreign/Military Policies, Gender
and Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 115
Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103rd and 104 Houses (Cosponsorship) 115
Significance between Foreign/Military Policies, Gender
and Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship) 115
Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by Ideology in
the 103rd and 104th Houses 116
Significance between Foreign/Military Policies and
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses
Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by Gender with
Ideology in the 103 and 104th Houses (Sponsorship)
Significance between Foreign/Military Policies, Gender
and Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship)
Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by Gender with
Ideology in the 103 and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
Significance between Foreign/Military Policies, Gender
and Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
Differences in Economic Policies by Gender in the 103 rd
and 104th Houses
Significance between Economic Policies and Gender in
the 103rd and 104th Houses
Differences in Economic Policies by Party in the 103rd
and 104th Houses
Significance between Economic Policies and Party in
the 103rd and 104th Houses 120
Differences in Economic Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 121
Significance between Economic Policies, Gender and Party
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship) 121
x
119
120
116
117
117
118
118
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.104
Table 3.105
Table 3.106
Table 3.107
Table 3.108
Table 3.109
Table 3.110
Table 3.111
Table 3.112
Table 3.113
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Differences in Economic Policies by Gender with Party
in the 103 rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
Significance between Economic Policies, Gender and
Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
Differences in Economic Policies by Ideology in the 103 rd
and 104th Houses
Significance between Economic Policies and Ideology
in the 103rd and 104th Houses
Differences in Economic Policies by Gender with
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship)
Significance between Economic Policies, Gender and
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Sponsorship)
Differences in Economic Policies by Gender with Ideology
in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
Significance between Economic Policies, Gender and
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
The Relationship Among Gender, Party and ideology on
Policies in the 103rd and 104th Congresses (Sponsorship)
The Relationship Among Gender, Party and ideology on
Policies in the 103rd and 104th Congresses (Cosponsorship)
Speeches and Gender Differences in Experiences
Frequency of Speeches in Six Categories of Policies in
the 103rd and 104th Houses
Correlation between Lawmakers and Speeches in Policies
in the 103rd and 104th Houses
The Percentage of Speeches Lawmakers make in the 103rd
and 104th Houses based on Gender, Party and Ideology
(Support)
The Percentage of Speeches made by Lawmakers with Gender
by Party in the 103 and 104th Houses
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.6
Table 4.7
Table 4.8
Table 4.9
Table 4.10
Table 4.11
Table 4.12
Table 4.13
Table 4.14
Table 4.15
Table 4.16
Table 4.17
Ideology and Speeches in the 103rd and 104th House
Reasons for Healthcare/Welfare Policies in the 103rd House of
Representatives
Reasons for Healthcare/Welfare Policies in the 104th House of
Representatives
Education Policies and Speeches in the 103rd House
Education Policies and Speeches in the 104th House
Lawmakers and Housing Policies in the 104th House
Reasons of Speaking Crime Prevention Policies in the 103rd
House of Representatives
Reasons of Speaking Crime Prevention Policies in the 104th
House
Reasons for Supporting or Opposing Foreign/Military Policies
in the 103rd House
Reasons for Supporting or Opposing Foreign/Military Policies
in the 104th House
Reasons of Speaking Economic Policies in the 103rd House
of Representatives
Reasons of Speaking Economic Policies in the 104th House
of Representatives
138
139
140
144
145
148
150
153
155
156
160
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xii
Abstract
The purposes of this research are to demonstrate the effect of gender, partisanship,
and ideology on legislative agendas and to apply “feminist standpoint theory” as a
concept central to the analysis of legislation. Based on feminist standpoint theory, do
congresswomen have different policy agendas or policy positions from congressmen
because of gender differences? Because women have similar life experiences, they will
support women’s concerns more strongly than men in the legislative process.
Two methodological approaches are employed. First is a quantitative approach,
based on statistical analysis, to examine the relationships between lawmakers and policy
agendas. This approach explores whether legislators, based on their gender differences,
sponsor or cosponsor more bills, such as healthcare, welfare and military issues in the
103rd and 104th Houses. Second is a qualitative approach that focuses on the language
used in legislators’ floor speeches. The qualitative approach reveals the differences
between male and female legislators’ reasons for supporting policy positions.
The findings show that lawmakers demonstrate different policy preferences in
legislation based on life experiences. Female lawmakers are more likely than male
lawmakers to sponsor and cosponsor women’s issues, such as healthcare and welfare
policies. In contrast, male lawmakers prefer supporting men’s issues, such as housing
and foreign or military policies. Nowadays, both men and women share financial
responsibility in families, therefore, male and female lawmakers show similar levels of
support for economic policies. In floor debates, female lawmakers’ political positions
incorporate their life experiences, but male lawmakers do not draw on their life
experiences in their speeches. Congresswomen express concern for women, children and
xiii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the family more often than do congressmen. Conversely, male lawmakers focus more on
financial considerations, national security and systemic reform more often than their
female counterparts. The final results indicate that gender has an influential effect on
lawmakers’ policy-making.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xiv
Chapter One
Introduction
The Aims of the Research
For decades, feminists have provided theoretical groundwork for the discussion of
the differences between men and women. Their studies help us to understand the impact
of the male-centered world in which women challenge male supremacy in order to pursue
the same opportunities as men and reach their work goals as managers or leaders at the
top levels of economic, political and social institutions.
In the male-oriented world, women’s knowledge, roles and status are discussed
from men’s perspectives. Women are evaluated in terms of men’s standards. Nancy
Hartsock, Sandra Harding and other feminists offer criticisms about the domination of the
male-centered world. Sandra Harding (1993), in Feminist Epistemologies, claims women
as marginalized people whose experiences and knowledge are ignored in academic fields
and politics. “Women’s experiences and lives have been devalued or ignored as a source
of objectivity-maximizing questions.”1 Nancy Hartsock (1983), in Money, Sex, and
Power, criticized the responsibilities of childbearing and childcaring: that “women and
not men bear children is not a social choice, but that women and not men rear children in
a society structured by compulsory heterosexuality and male dominance is clearly a
societal choice.”2 With the effect of childbearing, men and women are split into different
work arenas—men in the public sphere; women in the private sphere.
1 Sandra Harding (1993), Chapter 3: Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: “What Is Strong Objectivity”? In
Linda Alcoff & Elizabeth Potter (1993), Feminist Epistemologies (New York: Routledge), p.54.
2 Nancy Hartsock (1983), Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism (New
York: Longman), p.233.
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Actually, in modem society, most women have jobs in the workplace. Gertrude
Steuemagel and other researchers (1996) reported that “in 1880 women constituted 14
percent of this nation’s work force...By 1992 it reached 45.5 percent...As of 1992, over
half of all children under the age of six had a mother in the labor force.”3 Most women
have to face double pressure from both their families and their jobs. Conversely, men
face most of the pressure only from their work.
How can women deal with the impact of these sex differences? As Deborah
Rhode (1990) said, “we need a richer understanding of how the difference that unites
women as women—their difference from men—can become a force for united political
action.”4 Feminism appears to be the answer for women to raise their consciousness and
to recognize their subordinated positions. The crucial contribution of feminists has been
to differentiate women’s experiences from men’s in varied social and historical
circumstances. Women share their similar experiences and commonalties so that they are
better able to change their inferior positions in dualistic fields. Women can be the agents
of changing their living world—in the public and private fields.
In the public sphere, the legislature is a good example of the male-centered world.
Robin Wright (1997) in “World’s Leaders: Men, 187; Women, 4' reported that in the
20th century women are still the minority in leading political positions5 around the world.
(Table 1.1)
3 Gertrude Steuemagel, Thomas Yantek & Irene Barnett, “More than Pick and Blue: Gender, Occupational
Stratification, and Political Attitudes, pp. 55-56. Lois Lovelace Duke (1996), Women in Politics:
Outsiders or Insiders? (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), 2n d .
4 Deborah L. Rhode, edited (1990)., Theoretical Perspectives on Sexual Difference (New Haven: Yale
University press), p.2.
5 Robin Wright, “World’s Leaders: Men, 187; Women, 4”, LA Times, September 30, 1997, A12.
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 1.1 Percentages of Women
in National Legislators
Areas Percentages
Nordic Countries 36
Asia 13
American 13
Pacific 12
Europe* 11
Africa 10
Arab States 3
Source: Inter-parliamentary Union.
Notes: I. * excluding Nordic countries.
2. Snapshot: Of 191 governments worldwide,
there are 4 female heads of Government.
5 female heads of state. 10 female foreign ministers.
Data: From Robin Wright, “World’s Leaders: Men, 187,
Women, 4,” LA Times, September 30, 1997, A 12.
None of the legislatures in the world is dominated by female lawmakers. Approximately
90% of legislators are males in the United States (USA) and other countries, with the
exception of Nordic countries (e.g. Norway).
Rather than study whether the number of congresswomen has to be increased,
which may influence female representation in Congress, this research focuses on
congresswomen’s policy preferences within this male-centered institution. The question
is “whether congresswomen and congressmen have different policy agendas and
preferences in the legislative process.” Thus, if legislation is used effectively, it provides
a process by which legislators may direct what public policies are introduced and enacted.
When a group of women who have a common concern act on the basis of that concern,
they can make their experiences and actions have a significant effect on the legislation.
Thus, it is important to understand gender representation and the legislative behavior of
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
congressmen and congresswomen in the legislative process. The purposes of this
research are essentially fourfold:
(1) To demonstrate the effect of gender, partisanship, and ideology on
legislative agendas
(2) To apply “feminist standpoint theory” as a concept central to the
analysis of legislation.
(3) To show how lawmakers are responsive and responsible to their
gender standpoints in the legislative process.
(4) To link sex differences in the experiences of legislators to the consequences
of legislative activities in order to examine policy outcomes including
economic, diplomatic, military, and women’s concerns.6
To explore whether female lawmakers engage in different legislative activities from their
male counterparts, this research focuses on the 103rd and 104th sessions of the United
States House of Representatives.
The remainder of this chapter explains the theoretical bases, hypotheses, and
methodology that will be employed to compare the legislative activities of male and
female legislators in the US.
The Origin of Sex Differences
Ancient Western political philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle, assumed that
the differences between men and women were established by human nature. Simply
speaking, men and women have opposite personal traits.
Plato indicated in The Republic that
We won’t allow those whom we claim we care for and who must themselves
become good men to imitate women...The natures are scattered alike among both
6 The sources of four points came from Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly, edits. Gender, Power,
Leadership and Governance (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan press), p.3.
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
animals; and woman participates according to nature in all practices, and man in
all, but in all of them woman is weaker than man.7
Based on Plato’s viewpoint, women are weaker than men by nature, therefore, men
should not imitate women in any perspectives in order to avoid becoming the weaker.
Aristotle in Politics applied a metaphorical method to claim women’s nature as
inferior to men’s. Aristotle described women as the body; and men as the soul. The soul
controls the body; therefore, women should be controlled by men because nature dictates
this.
While the body is from the female, it is the soul that is from the male, for the soul
is the reality of a particular body...Nature makes a similar differentiation in the
mental characteristics of the two sexes. The female is softer in character, is the
sooner tamed, admits more readily of caressing is more apt in the way of
learning...The male, on the other hand, is more spirited than the female, more
savage, more simple and less cunning...The male is by nature superior, and the
female inferior. And the one rules; and the other is ruled; this principle, of
necessity, extends to all mankind.8
Based on Aristotle’s arguments, because of women’s inferior characteristics, women were
not able to be the rulers and citizens, so they must be excluded from the public sphere.
They were only capable of caring for their families and handling their housework.
Therefore, women were relegated to the private sphere to do housework and child-care.
According to the differences in human nature, the political significance of these
differences was interpreted as meaning that women were not as capable as men of
participating in the public arena.
Based on Aristotle’s assertion, the different treatment given men and women was
natural and necessary. Women were excluded from the public sphere by reason of
7 Plato, The Republic, 395d and 455d, translated by Allan Bloom (1991), The Republic o f Plato (USA:
BasicBooks), 2n d , p.74 and p. 134.
8 Aristotle, Politics, trans. Benjamin Jowett (1885) (Oxford: Clarendon Press), Book I. In Rosemary
Agonito (1977), History o f Ideas on Women: A Source Book (New York: A Perigee Book), pp.47-51.
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
inferior nature and deficiency of rationality, and their existence was for the purpose of
maintaining family welfare and rearing offspring. Therefore, men were capable of
dominating women in the private and public spheres. Diana Coole was critical of
Aristotle: “Aristotle confined women to a subordinate role that excludes them from
public life.”9 According to Aristotle’s views of human nature, women were inferior to
men, so women could not have the same rights as men, such as freedom and political
participation. Moreover, for Aristotle, excluding women from citizenship was
reasonable.
In the biological perspective, sex differences were based on biological (or
physical) differences. Human nature, related to personal traits, shows opposite
characteristics—men are rational, courageous, aggressive, independent and active;
conversely, women are irrational, emotional, timid, dependent and passive. The
biological researchers explain the sources of biological differences in terms of genetics,
hormones, and other factors. Karen Paige (1973) discussed the influence of the menstrual
cycle for women. As she noted, one male American doctor felt horrible to have a woman
as bank manager. The reason was that the woman would easily get mad because of the
influence of her hormones during her period.1 0 Therefore, she was unpredictable because
of her biological condition. Dr. E. H. Clarke, a Harvard professor, also argued that
women’s brains were influenced by their menstruation. Spending too many hours on
their studies would hurt women’s physical conditions. Therefore, women should accept
sex-segregated education. Clarke said that “if she puts as much force into her brain
9 Diana Coole (1993), Women in Political Theory: From Ancient Misogyny to Contemporary Feminism
(Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers), p.34.
1 0 Karen Paige, “Women Learn to Sing the Menstrual blues”. Psychology Today, September 1973,
pp.41-46.
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
education as a boy, the brain or the special apparatus will suffer.”1 1 Based on Clarke’s
assertion, women could not study in the same fields as men, such as science, because of
their different biological make-up.
On the other hand, physical differences cause men to assume roles as protectors
and rulers, women as the protected and the ruled. Men are strong and tall; by contrast,
women are weak, moody and short. In ancient times, men were assigned as the hunters to
kill animals to feed their families. Women were the caretakers who did the chores and
the child-caring. By this dualism, men and women have been assigned different social
and political roles and statuses. Men have worked in the public sphere, whereas women
have dealt with the chores and children at home.
According to the above statements, both human nature and biology produce the
differences between men and women. Generally speaking, men are physically superior to
women. For instance, men are taller and stronger than women. In reality, it is not
difficult to find women who have the same strength, height and weight as men or who are
in better physical condition than men. Nowadays, high technology can efficiently help
people overcome their physical shortcomings. Therefore, physical conditions, such as
weight and strength, are not the main differences between men and women.
The crucial biological difference between men and women is “procreation.”
Women, but not men, are able to get pregnant and deliver babies. Shulamith Firestone
(1970) in The Dialectic o f Sex pointed out that “biology itself—procreation— is at the
origin of the dualism.”1 2 Because of this procreative function, women as the caretakers
1 1 E. H. Clarke (1873), Sex in Education (Boston: J. R. Osgood), p.156-157. In Lynda Birke (1986),
Women, Feminism and Biology: the Feminist Challenge (New York: Methuen), p.27.
1 2 Shulamith Firestone (1970), The Dialectic o f Sex: The Case For Feminist Revolution (NY: William
Morrow), p. 16.
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
have the responsibilities of motherhood and child-caring so that they have to stay at home
and do housework for their families. Conversely, men can work any place without the
constraint of pregnancy. At home, they are not expected to do the housework and child
caring. Therefore, men are assigned to work in the public arena; while women are left
with the private arena. This distinct assignment is called “the sexual division of labor”:
men, as breadwinners, work in the public field to earn money and raise their fam ily; by
contrast, women, as housekeepers, work without pay in the private field to promote
family welfare. In modem society, women have many opportunities to work in the public
arena. Ironically, women’s jobs are categorized by sex stereotyping as primary school
teachers, nurses, secretaries, and primary administrators in order to fit their female roles
as caretakers; while men’s jobs such as policemen, firemen, managers, and technicians,
fit their masculine and dominant roles.
Feminist thinkers, including Nancy Hartsock, Patricia Hill Collins, Sandra
Harding and Donna Harway, have provided arguments based on feminist epistemology1 3
to criticize the effect of sexual divisions of labor. As Nancy Hartsock (1983) in Money,
Sex, and Power argued, women’s experiences differ structurally from men’s in respect to
the sexual divisions of labor.
On the basis of the structures that define women’s activity as contributors to
subsistence and as mothers, the sexual division of labor, one could begin, though
not complete, the construction of a feminist standpoint on which to ground a
specifically feminist historical materialism.1 4
1 3 Chafetz explains feminist epistemology as “epistemological discussions of what constitute appropriate
forms, subject matters, and techniques of theorizing from a feminist perspective.” In Janet Saltzman
Chafetz (1997), “Feminist Theory and Sociology: Underutilized Contributions for Mainstream Theory,”
Annual Review o f Sociology, Vol. 23, 1997, p.97.
1 4 Nancy C. M. Hartsock (1983), Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism
(New York: Longman), p.281.
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
With different living experiences, women acknowledge their lives and environments
differently from men. Therefore, the different experiences are generated from men’s and
women’s environments and social locations within society.
Simply speaking, women and men have different standpoints because of their
distinct life experiences. What is the meaning of “standpoint”? Mary Swigonski (1994)
briefly explains:
A standpoint is a position in society, involving a level of awareness about an
individual’s social location from which certain features of reality come into
prominence and from which others are obscured. Feminist standpoint theory
begins with the idea that the less powerful members of society experience a
different reality as consequences of their oppression.1 5
Feminist standpoint theory is “an important epistemological tool for understanding and
opposing all forms of domination.”1 6 Through feminist standpoint theory, we can
understand the reasons why women stand for women and support women’s demands and
interests. That is, why women have experienced different lives from men within society.
Through women’s common living experiences, they can understand and talk to each
other.
The Foundations of the Research
Much existing research on the differences of policy preferences between
congressmen and congresswomen focuses on the number of women in Congress, and
whether or not their presence may influence legislative outcomes. Susan Carroll (1994),
in Women as Candidates in American Politics, examined the reasons why women
1 5 Mary E. Swigonski, “The Logic of Feminist Standpoint Theory for Social-Work Research,” Social Work,
Vol. 39, Issue 4, July 1994, p.390.
1 6 Nancy Hartsock (1983), “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing The Ground For A Specifically Feminist
Historical Materialism,” p.283. In Sandra Harding and Merrill B. Hintikka, edits., Discovering Reality
(Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company).
9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
candidates ran for public office, and how they viewed policy issues of particular
relevance to women. Carroll offered two categories of major impediments to women’s
political participation: (1) “limitations resulting from women’s socialization and sex-role
conceptions, and (2) limitations in the structure of political opportunity.”1 7 These two
limitations are used to explain the small number of female lawmakers in Congress.
Carroll also indicated when female lawmakers were elected into Congress, most female
legislators supported women’s concerns and tried to employ more female than male
employees. For example, 45% of women state legislators, compared with only 20% of
their male counterparts, identified themselves as feminists. Seventy-nine percent of the
women, compared with 61% of the men, took feminist positions on issues such as
favoring passage and ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment.1 8 Finally, 59% of the
women legislators, but only 36% of male legislators seemed to “translate attitudinal
feminism into behavioral feminism by working on legislation dealing with women’s
rights.”1 9 Therefore, when policies are related to women’s demands, female lawmakers
have different political positions from their male colleagues. Carroll concluded that if
more women can be officeholders, then, they would be more likely to be concerned with
o n
women’s rights and interests." Moreover, the greater the number o f female lawmakers
who entered Congress, the more legislation related to women’s interests would pass.
Women would be likely to focus on different issues from men. With what kind
of issues would men and women be concerned? Kay Lehman Schlozman, Nancy Bums,
1 7 Susan J. Carroll (1994), Women as Candidates in American Politics (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press), 2n d , p.4.
1 8 Susan J. Carroll (1994), p.xiv and p. 174.
1 9 Susan J. Carroll (1994), p. 174.
2 0 Susan J. Carroll (1994), p. 155.
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sidney Verba and Jesse Donahue (1995), in Gender and Citizen Participation, studied
the relationship between gender differences and citizen participation. According to issue
agendas of participation, they found that “women and men did speak with different
voices, with educational issues and abortion weighing especially heavily in the policy
* ^ I
agendas of female activists.”- Men and women focused on different policy agendas. For
instance, men mentioned taxes and foreign policy or international issues more than
women did. In contrast, women focused on healthcare, education and abortion more than
their male counterparts.
Mary Roth Walsh (1997), in Women, Men and Gender: Ongoing Debates,
indicated that people use gender to understand and acknowledge their social world.2 2
Men and women have their experiences in both the private and public fields through the
lens of gender. Because of gender differences, women focus on different policies from
men in society. Sue Thomas (1997), in Why Gender Matters, analyzed the influence of
gender perceptions. Women officeholders have different legislative preferences from men
in terms of women’s perceptions. She interviewed 50 women state legislators from six
states (California, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Washington) between
August 1988 and April 1989. According to Thomas’s findings, approximately 60% of the
interviewed women legislators viewed themselves as a group of women and were willing
to support women. As those women legislators announced themselves as feminist, they
gave priority to issues of relevance to women, such as education, family life, and
2 1 Kay Lehman Schlozman, Nancy Bums, Sidney Verba, and Jesse Donahue, “Gender and Citizen
Participation: Is There a Different Voice?”, American Journal o f Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 2, May
1995, p.267.
2 2 Mary Roth Walsh (1997), Women, Men and Gender: Ongoing Debates (New Haven: Yale University
Press), p. 8.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• y n
childcare. Legislators cannot avoid being influenced by their gender and personal
experiences when they make policy decisions. Thomas concluded that lawmakers’ policy
preferences were related to gender.
Karin Tamerius (1995) applies feminist standpoint theory to examine gender
representation regarding women’s concerns in the legislative process in the 101st session
of the House of Representatives. She categorizes two factors—sex differences in
experience and sex differences in attitudes and resources—which produce different
legislative behaviors. “Content, perspective, mutuality, and association” are four
gender aspects of legislators’ experiences in forming legislative involvement with
women’s concerns. Experiences influence political concerns in two ways: first, by
altering legislators’ attitudes—support and commitment—toward women’s issues, and,
second, by providing legislators with recourses—awareness and expertise—that
facilitate feminist activism. Tamerius applies five factors—support, commitment,
awareness, expertise, and predicted sex differences—to examine legislative activities in
roll call voting, sponsorship, cosponsorship, and speeches. As a result of that, 92% of
female legislators sponsor legislation related to women; but only 8% of male lawmakers
stood for feminist legislation.2 4 In Tamerius’s conclusion, gender is a more important
factor than party in affecting legislative activism, especially in sponsorship of bills.
The goal of this research is to apply ‘feminist standpoint theory’ to examine the
relationships among legislative activities, gender, political ideology and party identity.
2 3 Sue Thomas , “Why Gender Matters: The Perceptions of Women Officeholders”, Women and Politics,
Vol. 17 (I) 1997, p.27. Thomas interviewed over 50 women state legislators from across six states in her
research.
2 4 Tamerius, Karin L. (1995), “Sex, gender, and Leadership in the Representation of Women.” In Georgia
Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly, edits, Gender, Power, Leadership and Governance (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press), p.p.96-108.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The research theory depends heavily on Sandra Harding’s arguments and Tamerius’s two
categories of experiences—sex differences in experience and sex differences in attitudes
and resources—to explore the relationship between gender and legislative activities. In
Tamerius’s research, “predicted sex differences, support, com m itm ent, awareness and
expertise” are five independent variables that can be tied to sponsorship, co-sponsorship,
and policy speeches in order to explore the different legislative priorities of congressmen
and congresswomen. (I will explain the connection of these two categories using feminist
standpoint theory in Chapter 2.) Sponsorship and Cosponsorship can be helpful to
examine the relationship between sex differences and policy agendas. Speeches can be
used to express lawmakers’ personal attitudes and beliefs which can be influenced by
their living experiences. In addition, speeches can be helpful to explore whether
congresswomen and congressmen speak for their gendered groups.
In Tamerius’s research, she does not clearly mention the findings regarding
political party, but the partisanship factor may also be very important. Political parties
delegate their members to introduce bills in order to fulfill campaign promises to the
constituency. Therefore, the “partisan identity” of legislators is another important factor
in the legislative process. Legislators convey partisan policy agendas and positions in
legislation. In addition, they rely on their political parties, which provide them with
opportunities to be reelected. Especially for women, political parties become an
important path to Congress. For instance, there were 106 women running for the House
of Representatives in 1992—70 Democrats and 36 Republicans. Anita Dunn wrote that,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
“’liberal’ is a code word for ‘woman’.”2 5 The Democratic Party is the more liberal and
open-minded party. Therefore, women may fund it more comfortable to run for Congress
in the Democratic Party than in other political parties.
Irwin N. Gertzog (1995), in Congressional Women: Their Recruitment,
Integration, and Behavior, pointed out that “because the House is essentially a male
institution, women sometimes had to remind themselves about “who they are.” They had
'j / r
to call attention to their identities.”- Their personal identities are related not only to
gender, but also to party identification. Even though women legislators may support
women’s concerns, they have more difficulty in obtaining support from their parties than
do their male counterparts. Robin Brown (1993) indicated that “women have a harder
time than men establishing their political credibility as candidates, because our traditional
images of political leadership are male.”- Under the pressure of establishing credibility,
women have to care more about their partisan policies than do their male counterparts.
Therefore, I link party identity with the sponsors of bills to examine whether female
members show stronger support for their partisan ideals and policies than their male
counterparts. In addition, I examine whether females speak for their individual party
more than their male counterparts during the speeches on the floor.
In addition to partisan identity, ideology is another crucial factor considered to
influence lawmakers’ preferences of policymaking in the legislative process. Elinor
Scarbrough (1984), in Political Ideology and Voting, defines the notion of ideology as “a
2 5 Robin Brown(1993), Women’s Issues, The Reference Shelf, Vol. 65, No. 5., (New York: The H. W.
Wilson Company), p. 116.
2 6 Irwin N. Gertzog (1995), Congressional Women: their Recruitment, Integration, and Behavior, p. 64.
2 7 Robin Brown (1993), Women’s Issues, The Reference Shelf, Vol. 65, No. 5., (New York: The H. W.
Wilson Company), p.l 13.
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
system of beliefs characteristic of a group.” She also illustrates that “ideologies serve as
cognitive systems, enabling people to understand their world and to organize their
attitudes on a range of events, states or issues of the day.”2 9 A person’s personal system
of beliefs includes his/her values and attitudes. A person’s conduct follows his/her
beliefs which reflect different ideological perspectives. Therefore, people act differently
because of their different ideologies.3 0 For example, a liberal lawmaker may support
abortion policy because he/she believes in the right of a woman to choose whether or not
she wants a baby. Moreover, ideology is an important element used to examine
lawmakers’ policy preferences and speeches on the floor.
Therefore, gender, party identity, and ideology are used to examine the differences
in policy agendas between male and female lawmakers based on feminist standpoint
theory.
Areas of Research
The legislative process includes the introduction of bills, their assignment to
committees, committee hearings, debates on the floor, votes, and passage of laws. The
legislature not only makes laws, but also negotiates and compromises political, economic,
and social advantages.3 1 Political parties, special interest groups, and constituencies
lobby representatives in order to influence the outcomes and consequences of legislation
and to maintain their own advantages. Moreover, the sponsorship and co-sponsorship of
2 8 Elinor Scarbrough (1984), Political Ideology and Voting: An Exploratory Study (Oxford: Clarendon
Press), p.24.
2 9 Elinor Scarbrough (1984), p.26.
3 0 Elinor Scarbrough (1984), p.p.28-31.
3 1 William Keefe and Morris Ogul (1997), The American Legislative Process: Congress and The States
(New Jersey: Prentice Hall), 9th , p.3.
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
bills and speeches are important because they reflect the preferences of the
representatives who introduce them.
After the Introduction of a bill, the speeches on the floor become vital to the
legislative process. They not only represent public opinion, but also help the legislators
build their political credits. By the introduction of bills, representatives can make their
constituencies feel that they really do something in Congress, and strongly represent their
interests in the legislative process. With speeches, lawmakers can show their gender and
partisan positions to the public which may help them build their reputations and
likelihood of re-election. This research focuses on the sponsorship and co-sponsorship of
bills and speeches on the floor to explore whether legislation proposed by male and
female representatives is significantly different based on gender and party identification.
In the study of differences in legislation between congresswomen and
congressmen, the research has focused on roll call voting as the most important stage in
influencing policy making in the legislative process, especially policies related to
women’s issues, such as abortion and education. Susan Carrol argues that few bills
related to women could be passed because there were so few female representatives
relative to male representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives. These sources
claim that the number of female lawmakers in the legislative body has to increase in order
to improve the passage of bills related to women’s interests.
In fact, roll call voting is only one element in influencing the passage of bills and
investigating the differences of legislative activities between male and female lawmakers.
Karin Tamerius pointed out that “sponsorship and speech” are ignored when researchers
explore legislative activities in the support of women’s interests. Significant differences
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in the legislative activities of sponsorship, co-sponsorship and political argumentation
between congressmen and congresswomen cannot be measured by roll call analysis.3 2 As
Tamerius concluded,
Women serving in public office today are significantly altering the content of
legislative decision-making. While only slightly more inclined than their male
counterparts to favor feminist legislation, congresswomen are considerably more
likely to introduce it into congressional deliberation, affirm it with their signed
endorsements, and promote it with their speeches. Accordingly, the most
important distinction to be made about female and male members of Congress lies
less in their desire to enact feminist policies than in their willingness and ability to
initiate and guide those policies through the legislative process. Simply put,
congresswomen tend to be leaders in feminist policy and congressmen do not.
Roll call voting analysis can explain the small differences in legislative behavior between
male and female lawmakers in the enactment of bills, but, it cannot explain the
substantial reasons which make congressmen and congresswomen act differently in the
legislative process.3 4
Sponsorship, co-sponsorship and speech must be considered as three of the most
important elements enabling us to understand legislative differences between male and
female lawmakers. As Wendy Schiller (1995) mentioned the importance of bill
sponsorship,
Bill sponsorship is under the control of the individual legislator. As such, a study
of bill sponsorship provides a rich source of information about how legislators
interact with their institutions when there appear to be few rules to limit their
behavior. Furthermore, a choice of bills is a strong indicator of which issues he or
she wants to be associated with and the reputation he or she wants to acquire
among colleagues...Since legislators are free to introduce any number and types
3 2 Tamerius, Karin L. (1995), “Sex, gender, and Leadership in the Representation of Women.” In Georgia
Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly, edits.. Gender, Power, Leadership and Governance (Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press), p.94.
3 3 Karin L. Tamerius (1995), p. 108.
3 4 Karin L. Tamerius (1995), p.109.
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of bills they choose, their use of bill sponsorship should reflect their best
assessment of the effectiveness of bills to accomplish their goals.3 5
Sponsorship can be used to explain legislators’ agenda preferences. It also is a signal to
mark lawmakers’ political positions with their constituency and party.
The lawmakers’ preferences and personalities may be reflected in the introduction
of bills and the language used in speeches. For instance, a female legislator who has
experienced educational discrimination has personal confirmation that the problem of sex
discrimination exists, while a male legislator who has had no such experience may not
notice the importance of sex discrimination. The analysis of sponsorship and co
sponsorship illuminates the primary elements which influence legislators in the formation
of policy. The analysis of floor speeches may illuminate the nuance reasons which
influence legislative behavior. Roll call analysis misses these influences because it
focuses only on the outcomes of the legislative process.
Language imposes a viewpoint which makes use of the mind and experiences with
respect to personal life and circumstances. Language is also one of the tools for
communicating ideas with each other. It inevitably structures one’s own experience of
reality as well as the experience of those with whom one communicates. In any
interaction “no communication” is impossible, so at some levels we are always
influencing one another and ourselves through language.3 6 By speeches on the floor,
representatives present their political attitudes and positions on certain issues. These
speeches serve as indicators of the communication and cohesiveness of legislative
3 5 Wendy J. Schiller, “Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative
Agendas” American Journal o f Political Science, Vol.39, No.l, February 1995, p.p. 186-187.
3 6 Rachel T. Hare-Mustin and Jeanne Marecek , Chapter 2: “Gender and the Meaning of Difference:
Postmodernism and Psychology”, p.25. In Rachel T. Hare-Mustin and Jeanne Marecek (1990), Making
a Difference: Psychology and Construction o f Gender (London: Yale University Press).
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
activities for congressmen and congresswomen. In their study of Congress, William
Keefe and Morris Ogul mention the important purposes of speeches:
Floor statements are often the quickest and most effective methods of passing the
word around among other members of Congress, strengthening the cohesiveness
of a group or fanning the enthusiasm of supporters...Speeches may serve a strategy
of delaying the vote, permitting leaders to bargain for additional support. Finally,
floor talk can be useful in establishing a record for future campaigns, and it may
even be consulted by the courts later as evidence of congressional intent.”3 7
Speeches on the floor are important in influencing representatives’ voting and also
making political reputations. The study of representatives’ speeches can be helpful in
finding lawmakers’ positions on issues. Importantly, it also can explain the differences in
personal characteristics and partisan identity between congressmen and congresswomen.
Therefore, by considering the bill sponsorship and the language used in the
context of speeches, my research can be helpful in understanding the gender differences
in the legislative process.
Methodology of the Research
This section focuses on the research method, the significance of the sampling
year, and the criteria for selecting my samples—representatives in the House of
Representatives.
1. The Research Method
Charles Ragin (1989), in The Comparative Method, offered some features of the
comparative method. First, “applications of the comparative method produce
explanations that account for every instance of a certain phenomenon.. .This feature of the
comparative method also makes it especially well suited for the task of building new
3 7 William Keefe and Morris Ogul, pp.249-250.
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
theories and synthesizing existing theories.”3 8 Comparative analysis can historically and
empirically examine the evidence to test a theory. Feminist standpoint thinkers argue that
women’s experiences differ from men’s in society. This research compares female
lawmakers with male lawmakers in legislation regarding women’s concerns based on
feminist standpoint theory. If the different legislative preferences of men and women
persist in legislation, then feminist standpoint theory will gain support as a logical and
explanatory theory to explain the differences between men and women.
Second, the comparative method can assess causal complexity, especially multiple
conjunctural causation.3 9 If legislators talk differently in speechmaking, then what factor
most strongly affects the content of speeches—gender, party, or ideology? Which of
these three determinants cause legislators to speak differently on the floor? Feminist
standpoint theory will be used as the underlying explanation and the provide for the
causal complexity among gender, party, and ideology, and legislators’ policy preferences
and beliefs.
2. Questions and Hypotheses
Several research hypotheses will be tested to examine the contributions of gender,
party and ideology to explain legislative priorities. Based on feminist standpoint theory,
the questions are as follows:
(1) Do congresswomen have different policy agendas from congressmen
because of sex differences?
(2) Do congresswomen have different policy positions from congressmen
because of sex difference?
3 8 Charles C. Ragin (1989), The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative
Strategies (California: University of California Press), p. 16.
3 9 Charles C. Ragin (1989), p. 20.
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In terms of sex differences, the hypotheses are:
(1) According to sex differences, if women share their experiences and
commonalties with each other, then, they will sponsor or co-sponsor bills
related to women’s interests and demands more than men.
(2) Congresswomen use language related to their gender experiences, which
reflect and improve women’s demands and interests, more than congressmen.
(3) Congresswomen, in speechmaking on the floor, speak for women’s interests
more strongly than do congressmen.
In terms of partisan identity, the hypotheses are:
(1) Congresswomen speak for supporting their partisan positions and agendas
more strongly than do congressmen.
(2) Congresswomen, who come from a liberal party, in speechmaking on the
floor, speak for women’s interests more strongly than do their male
counterparts. Conversely, congresswomen, who come from a conservative
party, may not speak for women’s interests as strongly as congresswomen,
who come from a liberal party.
(3) If women in the same party share their partisan experiences and commonalties
with each other, then, they will sponsor or co-sponsor bills related to their
partisan demands more often than male members do.
In terms of ideology categorized as liberal and conservative, the hypotheses are:
(1) Congresswomen are more liberal than congressmen, and therefore, in
speechmaking on the floor, they speak for women’s interests more strongly
than do their male counterparts.
(2) Congresswomen are more liberal than congressmen, and therefore, they
sponsor or co-sponsor more bills related to women’s interests and demands
than do congressmen.
Therefore, in this research, the dependent variables are “sponsorship and co-sponsorship
of bills” and “speeches on the floor”. The main independent variables are “predicted sex
differences, political party, and ideology”.
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This research follows two strategies in the comparative method: quantitative
comparison and qualitative comparison. The above hypotheses will be tested from these
two perspectives:
(1) The Quantitative comparative study: The purpose of this empirical study is
to examine the relationships between lawmakers and policy agendas. I
explore whether legislators sponsor or cosponsor more bills such as
healthcare, childcare, and military policies, based on their gender differences,
partisanship and ideology. Moreover, the quantitative analysis is based on
statistical analysis.
(2) The qualitative comparative study: I focus on the language practices of
representatives’ speeches on the floor to examine the policy positions between
congressmen and congresswomen. Speakers display their gender experiences,
partisan identity, and ideology through congressional speeches. As J. Bruner
(1986) said, “language imposes a point of view not only about the world to
which it refers but toward the use of the mind to this world.”40 I analyze the
content of speeches to determine whether representatives use different
language about the same topics in terms of their gender, partisan standpoints,
and ideology. The speeches are drawn from historical documents selected
from the Congressional Record from 1993 to 1996.
Simply speaking, the first strategy is more concerned with variables and their
relationships. “Its primary goal is to test abstract hypotheses derived from general
theories concerning relationships between independent variables and dependent variables.
The second strategy is oriented toward explaining specific cases or analyzing historical
documents.”4 1
3. The Sampling Years
1992 and 1994 are selected as sample years in the United States. 1992 was called
“The Year of The Woman” which reflected an important fact—women’s unprecedented
gains in Congress. There were 106 women running for the House; 70 were Democrats;
4 0 J. Bruner (1986), Actual Minds, Possible World (Cambridge: Harword University Press), p. 121.
4 1 Charles C. Ragin (1989), The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative
Strategies, p.32.
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36 were Republicans. In the final analysis, 12 female Republicans and 36 female
Democrats were elected to the House. Twenty-four new women were elected to the
House, raising the number of women from 29 to 47. Rhodes Cook pointed out that
“women’s increased political activity is a reflection not only of the record number who
are running for Congress this year (1992) but a recognition of the gradual transformation
of the place of women in the electorate.”42 The fact showed that voters willingly accepted
more female candidates. The year 1992 was a remarkable year for women because the
electorate could accept female political ability as well as male’s. Voters were willing to
elect female lawmakers to represent them in the House of Representatives.
Table 1.2 The Number of Representative in the House of
Representatives in 1992 and 1994
Gender
1992 1994
Democrat % Republican % Democrat % Republican %
Male 222 (86.05) 164(93.18) 172 (84.73) 214 (92.64)
Female 36 (13.95) 12 (6.82) 31 (15.27) 17 (7.36)
Total 258 (100) 176 (100) 203 (100) 231 (100)
Note: Independent 1 in 1992 and 1994.
Based on apparent winner as of Nov. 6, 1992; and Nov. 11, 1994.
Source: From Congressional Quarterly, January 16, 1993, p. 12; and
November 12, 1994, p.3299.
In 1992, the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and the White
House. There were 258 Democratic lawmakers compared to 176 Republicans.
Conversely, since 1994, the Republicans have held the majority in the House of
Representatives while the Democratic President has remained in the White House. There
were 55 more Republican lawmakers elected in 1994 than in 1992. The Democratic Party
42 David Sanbonmatsu, Sharon Akimoto and Bryan Gibson (1994), “Stereotypes-Based Blocking in
Social Explanation,” PSPB, Vol. 20, No. 1, p.71.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
fell to a minority of 203 seats in 1994, compared to the Republican Party’s 231 seats in
the House of Representatives in 1994. (See Table 1.2)
From a partisan perspective, 17 Republican congresswomen were elected in 1994
compared to 12 Republican congresswomen in 1992. There was an increase of 5
Republican congresswomen in the 104th Congress. In contrast, the number of Democratic
congresswomen dropped from 36 in 1992 to 31 in 1994. (See Table 1.2) The different
parties have their own partisan goals and policies. Therefore, it is interesting to explore
what different policies the different majorities sponsored and co-sponsored in the 103rd
session and the 104th session of the House of Representatives.
4. Selecting the Legislators4 3
In the elections of 1992 and 1994, the number of female candidates elected to the
House jumped from 29 to 48 (including 24 female freshmen in the House). In selecting
the sample of female lawmakers in 1992, one female representative is excluded because
she was elected from the District of Columbia which is not one of the states in the United
States. All 47 state female representatives were selected in 1992 from 27 states
(Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
4 3 Michael Barone and Grant Ujifusa (1993) & (1995), The Almanac of American Politics 1994: The
Senators, the Representatives and the Governors—Their Records & Election Results, their States and
District, and The Almanac of American Politics 1996: The Senators, the Representatives and the
Governors—Their Records & Election Results, their States and District. And Phil Duncan, editors
(1994) & (1996), Congressional Quarterly’s Politics in America 1994:The 103rd Congress, and
Congressional Quarterly’s Politics in America 1994:The 104th Congress. The biographies of the
representatives in the 103rd session and the 104th session of the House are selected from these four books.
The personal information, such as gender, education, and party, is alphabetically arranged based on the
50 states from Alabama to Wyoming.
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Washington); and 47 female representatives in 1994 from 23 states (Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland,
Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon,
Texas, Washington, and Wyoming).
In the United States, the random sample is selected based on the number of female
lawmakers in order to compare policy preferences between congresswomen and
congressmen. The purpose of limiting the random sample is to avoid the bias of
outnumbered congresswomen and congressmen in the same party. A high number of one
party’s members may skew the statistical results and further obfuscate the differences in
policy preferences of congresswomen and congressmen in the different parties.
Therefore, the number of male representatives in the random sample is selected based on
the number of congresswomen in 1992 and 1994 regardless of district, party, race,
incumbency, age, and marriage.
5. Variables
I will count all bills which were sponsored or cosponsored by female lawmakers
and their male counterparts in the 103rd session (1993 and 1994), and the 104th session
(1995 and 1996). These sample bills are categorized as healthcare, family/children,
education, housing, crime, foreign/military, and economics issues in order to explore
policy differences between female and male lawmakers by ANOVA analysis. According
to Leonie Huddy and Nayda Terkildsen’s research based on gender stereotypes, female
lawmakers were expected by the voters to support issues of compassion, such as poverty;
and conversely, male lawmakers on military and defense issues, called men’s issues based
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
on gender stereotypes.44 Therefore, the issues are grouped into three categories—women,
economics and men— in order to examine the most influential factor to influence
lawmakers’ policy agendas by regression analysis.
Bills are categorized as “women’s” policies if the topics are designed to improve
women’s positions and interests in healthcare/welfare, in society and in families;
eliminate sex discrimination; or protect women’s rights, such as employment and
childcare 4 5 In January 1994, the Gallup poll reported that the most important problems
facing this country today, in the perspective of economic problems, are unemployment
(17%); economy in general (17%); federal budget deficit (8%); taxes (2%) 4 6 Therefore,
bills are categorized as “economic” issues if they are related to unemployment, the
government budget or deficit, taxes, or trade relations. Foreign/military legislation
includes national security or defense, international relations and foreign aid. Budgetary
policies are not included on this research. John Kingdon in Agendas, Alternatives and
Public Policies explained that “the budget is a central part of governmental activity.
Programs, agencies, and professional careers wax and wane according to their budget
share.”4 7 Budgetary policy is related to bureaucracy which is not included in this research
field.
“Legislators’ ideological positions” are categorized as liberal and conservative
based on rankings from the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the American
4 4 Leonie Huddy and Nayda Terkildsen (1993), “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and
Female Candidates, "American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 37, No. 1, February 1993, p.l 19.
4 5 Tamerius, Karin L. (1995), p.106.
4 6 George Gallup, Jr. (1994), The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1994 (Delaware: SR Scholarly Resources
Inc.), p.28. The question is “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?
4 7 John Kingdon (1984), Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (USA: Harper Collins Publishers),
p.lll.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Conservative Union (ACU) in 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996. ‘The ADA was founded in
1947 by a group of liberal democrats that included Sen. Hubert, H. Humphrey and
Eleanor Roosevelt. The ACU was founded in 1964 to mobilize resources of responsible
conservative thought across the country and further the general cause of conservatism.
The organization intends to provide education in political activity; prejudice in the press;
foreign and military policy; domestic economic policy; the arts; professions and
sciences.”4 8 Therefore, lawmakers who are conservative would be more likely to support
foreign/military issues than those lawmakers who are liberal.
Political parties play an important role in the legislative process. The functions of
a political party are not only to recruit candidates for participation in the election process,
but also to form a political organization which aggregates public interests, demands and
opinions. After a party wins the election, it has a responsibility to enforce the promises
made during the election. Through its partisan representatives working on legislation, its
messages can become laws in accordance with public concerns. Thus, representatives’
issue preferences will be different, based on which party they represent in the legislative
body. In the United States House of Representatives, the two major parties to be included
in this analysis are the Democratic Party and Republican Party.
The speeches used to defend (or refute) bills sponsored by congresswomen and
congressmen are analyzed to explore sex differences in the use of language. Women’s
language in speeches reflects sympathy, compassion, caution, gentleness, family-
orientation, support for more education spending and welfare spending. On the other
4 8 The information of these two organizations came from Phil Duncan, edits. (1993), Congressional
Quarterly’s Politics in America: 1994, the 103rd Congress (Congressional Quarterly Inc.),
p.p.xvii-xviii.
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
hand, men’s language reflects rationality, toughness, assertiveness, and support for
military spending and diplomatic spending. The categories of male and female
representatives in the model are employed to explore whether male and female lawmakers
stand for different legislative positions on the same topics.
The Plan of the Dissertation
The theoretical exploration of feminist standpoint theory begins in Chapter Two.
This Chapter includes a description of how lawmakers form their standpoints and transfer
their experiences in the private field into the public field based on the assertions of
Hardstock, Tamerius and other standpoint theorists. By learning different experiences,
men and women act differently. Female representatives are likely to support women’s
interests because of their particular female experiences. They are more likely to sponsor
and cosponsor bills related to women’s demands than male lawmakers. To this extent,
they willingly have a responsibility to stand up for women’s needs more than their male
counterparts in the legislative process. In policy agendas, female lawmakers are likely to
support the bills related to women’s demands, such as health care and childcare. In
contrast, male lawmakers would be likely to sponsor bills related to military and
diplomatic issues.
Chapter Three and Chapter Four focus on the empirical research in the study of
sponsorship, cosponsorship and speeches on the floor in the 103rd and 104th Houses. The
examination emphasizes what policy issues are strongly affected by sex differences and
whether sex differences in experience are expressed in speechmaking.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter Five presents the conclusion and a discussion of the significance of my
findings. There are gender differences in policy agendas. Female legislators give policy
priority to women’s issues, such as healthcare and welfare, and education. Conversely,
male legislators pay more attention to military and foreign policies than female
legislators.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Chapter Two
Sex Differences and Feminist Standpoint Theory
In this chapter, the main ideas focus not only on the foundations of feminist
standpoint theory needed to explore sex differences in experiences and attitudes, but also
on the transitions from women’s everyday life to their public lives through raising gender
consciousness. Politically speaking, gender consciousness links women’s private life
experiences with their public lives, and also influences the political priorities of
congresswomen in legislation. To discuss the reasons that female lawmakers may have
distinct policy priorities and preferences different from their male counterparts, we must
start from the point of the sexual division of labor. Further, through raising gender
consciousness, women see themselves as a group which unites together, and engages in
activities to improve their social, economic, and political status in society.
The Nature of Feminist Standpoint Theory
“Feminist standpoint theory” gives researchers a view of the social structures
which shape individuals’ lives. As Sandra Harding (1997) indicated, feminist standpoint
theory was a starting point of research from feminist understandings of women’s lives
instead of from the male dominant positions. Feminist standpoint theory expresses the
social and political interests and values based on women’s voices and interests.1
As Nancy Hartsock (1983), in Money, Sex, and Power, mentioned, individuals’
knowledge, values and beliefs were structured by society. She provided five levels of
1 Sandra Harding, ‘Women’s Standpoints on Nature What Makes Them Possible?” OSIRIS 1997, Vol. 12,
p. 1.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
feminist standpoint theory to explain how individuals are placed in social relations and
structures.
1). Material life (class position in Marxist theory) not only structures but sets
limits on the understanding of social relations.
2). If material life is structured in fundamentally opposing ways for two
different groups, one can expect the vision of each to represent an
inversion of the other, and in systems of domination the vision available
to the rulers will be both partial and perverse.
3). The vision of the ruling class (or gender) structures the material
relations in which all parties are forced to participate and therefore
cannot be dismissed as simply false.
4). As a consequence, the vision available to the oppressed group must be
struggled for and represents an achievement that requires both science,
to see beneath the surface of the social relations in which all are forced
to participate and the education that can only grow from struggle to
change those relations.
5). As an engaged vision, the understanding of the oppressed, the
adoption of a standpoint exposes the real relations among human
beings as inhuman, points beyond the present, and carries a historically
liberatory role.2
Since women and men together organized society, they were structurally assigned in
society as two opposite groups to develop their daily living styles, that is, their beliefs,
experiences, and lives based on material relationships. According to Hartsock’s
assertions, women’s work is systematically different from men’s in every society. The
sexual division of labor is the central element that caused these different developments in
the material lives between men’s and women’s activities and the epistemological
consequences that followed. Different development does not only focus on the
knowledge of individual women or men, but also on systematized social practices and
2 Nancy Hartsock (1983), Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism (New
York: Longman), p. 232.
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experiences. Women’s experiences in everyday life in society differ systematically from
men’s according to their labor and gender.3
Based on Hartsock’s assertions, Mary Swigonski (1994) provided five tenets4 of
feminist standpoint theory to support the concept of material life which explains the
differences of beliefs and experiences between men and women in society:
(1) Life experience structures one’s understanding of life.
(2) Members of the most and least powerful groups will potentially have opposed
understandings of the world.
(3) The less-powerful group’s standpoint has to be developed through education.
(4) The perspective of those outside the dominant group develops from their daily
activities.
(5) The appropriate perspective for research activities is everyday life.
Individual concrete experiences in daily lives are essential in understanding the different
development of beliefs, insights and knowledge between men and women. Women have
visible experiences such as childbirth and housework, which seem invisible to men.
Through daily life, men and women have different insights about society and the
world. More important, women’s daily experiences have encouraged them to develop a
special sensitivity to their knowledge, values and preferences, and to interpret them
critically. Mary Swigonski emphasizes that daily life experiences become a tool of
education for women to recognize their inferior positions to those of men. For instance, a
working woman would likely support equal opportunity of employment if she
experienced job discrimination in the workplace. As addressed by feminists, “the
3 Nancy Hartsock (1983), Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism, p. 233.
4 Mary Swigonski, “The Logic of Feminist Standpoint Theory for Social-Work Research”, Social Work,
Vol. 39 No. 4, July 1994, pp. 390-391.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
personal is political.” Moreover, people sense problems through personal daily
experiences. Further, because people share their experiences with others, they can then
connect the relationships with each other in the everyday world. Men or women as a
group develop their own standpoints through their sharing of experiences and
commonalities.
Feminist standpoint theory helps researchers bridge the gap between theory and
practice. Through distinct insights emerging from each group, researchers can understand
different groups’ standpoints which regard to social and political positions and structures.
As Mary Swigonski mentioned, “each group learns to see the world differently in an
active and creative way through the theoretical and political lenses.” 5 That is,
individuals’ experiences lead to their insights and beliefs. The next section discusses
how the experiences emerge from the sexual division of labor, which help to explain the
different beliefs and preferences held by congressmen and congresswomen in political
agendas.
The Sexual Division of Labor
According to feminist standpoint theory, women’s experiences emerge from their
daily living. The styles of daily lives are divided differently between men and women
based on the sexual division of labor. Maternal thinking and socialization are two
essential factors which structure the differences between men and women in the sexual
division of labor. Individual’s experiences cannot exist outside of daily life. Dorothy
5 Mary Swigonski, p.392.
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Smith (1987), in The Everyday World as Problematic, indicated the influence of
individuals’ everyday lives.
Experiences, concerns, needs, aims, interests, arising among people in the
everyday and working contexts of their living, are given expression in forms that
articulate them to the existing practices and social relations constituting its rule.6
Individuals directly experience everyday life and work, which form their beliefs and
interpersonal relationships. Women’s daily work includes unpaid housework, cooking
and child-care, which limits their commitment to employment. Therefore, Dorothy Smith
criticized “the everyday world as our problematic.”7 For women, the daily problematic is
housework and caring work for family members which limit women in pursuing their life
goals in the public field, such as higher positions in the workplace or in the political
arena. That is, women are constrained in developing their individual careers because of
household work and childrearing.
1. Maternal Thinking
Because of biological functions, women and not men experience menstruation,
pregnancy, and childbirth. Both men and women in the social structure tend to perceive
that by nature the responsibility for childcare and other domestic work belongs to women.
Therefore, men are assigned to the public sphere; conversely, women to the private
sphere.
Maternal practice begins in a response to the reality of a biological child in a
particular social world. To be a ‘mother’ is to take upon oneself the responsibility
of childcare, making its work a regular and substantial part of one’s working life.8
6 Dorothy Smith (1987), The Everyday World As Problematic: A Feminist Sociology (Boston:
Northeastern University press), p. 56.
7 Dorothy Smith (1987), p. 110.
8 Sara Ruddick (1989), Maternal Thinking: Toward A Politics o f Peace (Boston: Beacon Press), p. 17.
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As Sara Ruddick (1989) pointed out, maternal thinking and the demands of maternal
work—for preservation, growth, and social acceptability—become a woman’s
responsibility and commitment in daily life and to her family, which then require her to
stay at home and therefore limit her choices in participation in the public sphere.9
Figure 2.1 Women’s Employment: inter-relationship between
The labor market and the domestic sphere
Labor Market Domestic Sphere
Patriarchy at work,
i.e., exclusionary
practices pushing
women into low
paid occupations
and obstructing
promotion
Women’s low pay
Relative to men’s
Socialization in
childhood and
continuing effect of
gender ideology on
adults
Husband is main breadwinner. Wife does most
domestic work.
I
Wife’s employment constrained by domestic
work, especially childcare; employment is often
part-time, interrupted, and limited to area near home.
Source: From Sara Arber and Jay Ginn, “The Mirage of Gender Equality: Occupational
Success In the Labor Market and Within Marriage,” British Journal o f Sociology, Vol.
46, Issue. 1, March 1995, p. 23.
Sara Arber and Jay Ginn (1995) responded to the effect that motherhood and housework
had on women in participating in the workplace. (See Figure 2.1) Both women’s
husbands and society generally put the responsibilities for childcare and other domestic
work upon women. Therefore, women in employment and political participation confront
more constraints than men. Reasonably, childrearing and regular housework occupy most
of women’s lifetimes, so women do not have extra time to work in the outside world.
Dorothy Smith (1987), p.88.
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Even though they have chances to work in the workplace, they are stereotyped to work
the jobs related to their female characteristics such as being nurses, teachers in the
primary schools, and secretaries. Meanwhile, female contributions to housework without
salary seem less valuable than contributions by their male counterparts. As a result of
devaluing female working values, women become relatively powerless in families and the
workplace. The relatively powerless relationship makes women’s family and social status
inferior to that of men.1 0
Because of maternal thinking, women from childhood are socialized and
stereotyped to fit in the private arena, whereas men are trained as the breadwinners to
work in the public arena since they do not assume responsibility for childcare by nature or
by social expectations. For men, the main concerns are to sustain financial support for
the family and to protect the family from invasion from the outside world. They play
roles as protectors and supporters for their families.
2. Socialization
Socialization ensures that the responsibilities of childrearing and caring belong to
women. In maternal work, women’s activities in their daily lives are defined as “the
contributors to subsistence and child-care.” Nancy Hartsock (1983) pointed out
motherhood is an institution. “Women as a sex are institutionally responsible for
producing both goods and human beings and all women are forced to become the kinds of
people who can do both.”1 1 Generally, maternal thinking is not only the essential
1 0 Sara Arber and Jay Ginn (1995), “The Mirage of Gender Equality: Occupational Success in the Labor
Market and Within Marriage,” British Journal o f Sociology, Vol. 46, Issue.l, March 1995, p.p. 22-23.
1 1 Nancy Hartsock. (1983), “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing The Ground for A Specifically Feminist
Historical Materialism,” p. 291. In Sandra Harding and Merrill Hintikka (eds.). Discovering Reality
(Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company).
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
socialization to a female life rather than to a male life, but is also expected to be the
central experience of life for a female rather than for a male.
In the social structure, women’s experiences are systematically different from
those of men. By nature, women are able to get pregnant and deliver a baby, so they are
perceived as the primary child caretakers. Further, in order to be capable mothers or
caretakers, women are nurtured and educated in different ways from men. Therefore,
Nancy Hartsock indicated that the effects of “nature and nurture” which make men and
women act in different ways could not be separated. For example, girls have dolls and
kitchen toys for playing games as mother’s roles; conversely, boys have toy guns to play
“cops and robbers”. Moreover, as Nancy Hartsock addressed,
The fact that women and not men bear children is not (yet) a social choice, but
that women and not men rear children in a society structured by compulsory
heterosexuality and male dominance is clearly a societal choice.1 2
Apparently, women can hardly ignore the assignments of social structure as child
caretakers; in contrast, men have flexible choices of responsibility for child-care which is
not the normal social assignment for men.
Nancy Chodorow (1978) observed that “women naturally take care of children of
all ages and the belief that women’s ‘maternal’ qualities can and should be extended to
the non-mothering work that they do.”1 3 Socialization ensures that the responsibilities of
childrearing and social caring belong to women. Women’s roles are extended to take care
of housework, aged people, and other work related to caring. Therefore, in the working
1 2 Nancy Hartsock (1983), Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist Historical Materialism (New
York: Longman), p. 233.
1 3 Nancy Chodorow (1978), The Reproduction o f Mothering (California: University of California Press),
p. 208.
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
world, women’s primary jobs are categorized to fit their women’s roles, such as nursing,
primary and middle school teachers, secretaries and so on.
In contrast, men are socialized as breadwinners arid protectors of their families.
Their main jobs are classified in the political, economic, medical, legal and engineering
fields, which have symbols of dominance, assertiveness and power. From these fields,
they have opportunities to develop independence, assertiveness, rationality and autonomy.
Conversely, little girls grow up and identify their roles with mothers who are expected to
be child caretakers. Thus, their experiences are emphasized in the perspectives of
dependence, connectedness, attachment, compassion and caring. The different
socialization and training received by men and women affect their experiences,
personalities, beliefs and vocational choices.
Nancy Chodorow described the sexual division of labor as a result of socialization
and training.
Where mothers are the primary caretakers of very young children, female infants
are treated in ways that contribute to the experience of connectedness and
identification with the mother, while male infants are treated in ways conductive
to the experience of separation. It is this early experience that is postulated to
provide each gender with this supposed characteristic orientation to the work and
to other persons—connectedness for women, and autonomy for men.1 4
Men and women have fundamentally different experiences as a result of different
socialization that began in infancy. Further, early learning and experiences within
families and daily lives affect adult beliefs and the categorization of jobs.
Nancy Hartsock agrees with Nancy Chodorow’s assertions of the effect of the
1 4 Bernice Lott, Chapter 3, “Dual Natures or Learned Behavior: The Challenge to Feminist Psychology,”
p. 68. In Rachel Hare-Mustin & Jeanne Marecek, Milking a Difference: Psychology and the
Construction o f Gender (New Haven: Yale University Press).
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
process of socialization on women. Hartsock points out that girls’ experiences are
concrete whereas boys’ are abstract. Girls learn roles as caretakers from watching their
mothers; boys learn roles as breadwinners from abstract male rules because fathers
usually work outside of the home. Boys do not have chances to watch their fathers’
working situations. Therefore, girls can leam role identification from a concrete daily life
with their mothers. Conversely, boys can abstractly identify their roles from observing
the living forms of their fathers. Thus, from their socialization and training, girls leam
connective, interpersonal and relational skills in their concrete relations with their
mothers. In contrast, boys experience an abstract behavior without the concrete
attachment of motherhood.1 5 Therefore, boys become more independent, assertive and
autonomous. Because of different experiences, they have difficulties in understanding
women’s roles.
As a result of different socialization and learning, women and men have distinct
growing-up experiences during the development of their personalities, values and beliefs.
For both men and women, these early learning and training activities also become the
essential foundations of experiences which influence their judgement, preferences and
beliefs in their vocations and daily lives. Women have a strong sense of self-connection
to others from the experiences of caring and attachment with their mothers. This
sensibility gives them a creative ability to sense the problems they confront in daily lives.
According to the sensibility and creativity from daily experiences, female lawmakers are
likely to bring the problems related to their lives, such as child health care, family
1 5 Nancy Hartsock. (1983), “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing The Ground for A Specifically Feminist
Historical Materialism,” p. 291. In Sandra Harding and Merrill Hintikka, edits. Discovering Reality.
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
welfare, and educational reforms, to their policy preferences. They express their caring
and compassion in these policies regarding family, women and children. Conversely,
men attain a sense of independence and autonomy with the outer world.1 6 They are likely
to be concerned about the security and stability of the national and international
environment in the economic and political perspectives. Thus, they have a higher
sensitivity to military, diplomatic, and criminal problems. In legislation, male lawmakers
express their concerns of security and stability in policies related to housing, foreign
relationships, military defense and crime prevention.
3. Sex Differences in Experiences
Women leam the experiences of connection, attachment, interpersonal
relationships, and caring in a concrete way from their mothers. Conversely, men only can
idealize these experiences without direct learning paths from mothers’ interpersonal
experiences. The different learning paths based on gender and socialization
systematically lead men and women to have different experiences in their lives.
Karin Tamerius (1995) focused on four aspects1 7 of different experiences—
content, perspective, mutuality, and association—to explore the effect of life experiences
that influence lawmakers to represent their interests and concerns in legislation.
(1) Content: This is also called gendered content. Male and female lawmakers
have fundamental differences emerging from socialization and domestic roles
based on their biological differences.
(2) Perspective: It is gendered perspective. Either sex can only imagine what it is
like to be the other. For instance, the feeling from female experiences cannot
be transferred directly to men. Only in their imaginations can men experience
1 6 Nancy Hartsock. (1983), “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing The Ground for A Specifically Feminist
Historical Materialism,” p. 295.
1 7 The following four points are summarized from Karin Tamerius (1995), Chapter 4 “Sex, Gender, and
Leadership in the Representation of women,” p.p. 97-102. In Georgia Duerst-Lahti & Rita Mae Kelly,
Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press).
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
womanhood; in contrast, women can only experience manhood with their
imaginations.
(3) Mutuality: People share their experiences with those who have similar
experiences. Therefore, women have a tendency to share their experiences
with other women, conversely, men would like to share theirs with other men.
(4) Association: Male and female lawmakers join and have social relationships
with the exclusive gendered associations. For example, females are more
likely to work with political organizations for women such as the National
Organization for Women (NOW)1 8 . These political organizations for women
provide information, encouragement, experiences and funding to female
legislators from the beginning to the end of elections, and also, work closely
with congresswomen during their incumbencies.
These four points suggest the consequence of sex differences, which influence
lawmakers’ beliefs, perspectives, and associations. Through the characteristics of
maternal caring, attachment and connectedness, women develop a sense of sisterhood,
which helps women understand and leam from experiences among married, unmarried,
divorced and minority women. Generally speaking, women can share their similar
experiences with each other better than they can with men.
Women’s lives have some commonalties—maternal thinking, caring, attachment,
and connectedness. Even women who do not have children can leam these commonalties
from their mothers or from other women. If these commonalties are brought to politics,
then women may prefer to focus on issues involving children and families, human
welfare, the environment, the good of society, and international peace.1 9 (This
1 8 Betty Friedan and a few other women activists formed the National Organization for Women (NOW) in
October 1966. Its purpose was to “take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of
American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal
partnership.” In Rosemary Curran Barciauskas and Debra Beery Hull (1989), Loving and Working:
Reweaving Women’s Public and Private Lives (Houston: Never Stone Books), p. 30.
1 9 Kay Lehman Schlozman, Nancy Bums, Sidney Verba, and Jesse Donahue, “Gender and Citizen
Participation: Is There a Different Voice?” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 2, May
1995, p. 268.
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assumption will be tested for the United States House of Representatives in this empirical
research.)
Application to the Political Sphere
In the learning and socializing process, women’s contributions are limited to the
fields of maternal caring and childbearing, and are not emphasized in the economic and
political fields. Jo Little (1994) in Gender, Planning and the Policy Process claimed
that the importance of women’s domestic roles caused the following belief—that only
one family wage, earned by men, was enough for a whole family. Women’s contributions
are ignored not only in the giving of financial support to the family, but also in childcare
and housework2 0 which are seen by men as routine and easy work. Most men do not have
real experiences with childcare and housework. Therefore, they hardly understand the
burden and difficulties of childcare and housework for women. As a result of men’s
devaluing of women’s contributions—childbearing, caring, and financial support—
women begin to recognize the oppression in the family and at the workplace.
Gender-consciousness-raising groups play an important role in helping women
confront the conflicts between the private and public fields. They provide a helpful
approach—raising gender consciousness—to support women in the changing of their
beliefs and lifestyles. With the assistance of gender-consciousness groups, women started
l
recognizing the sense of frustration generated from their daily lives based on gender."
Women’s everyday life experiences have become resources to alter their consciousness
2 0 Jo Little (1994), Gender, Planning and the Policy Process (New York: Elsevier Science Inc.), p. 72.
2 1 Rosemary Curran Barciauskas and Debra Beery Hull (1989), Loving and Working: Reweaving
Women’s Public and Private Lives (Houston: Never Stone Books), p.p. 28-29.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and lifestyles. Women’s consciousness is determined by their lives. More important,
gender consciousness becomes a crucial factor in transferring women’s experiences into
the public field, especially in the political arena.
1. Gender-Consciousness Raising
Women’s socialization does not only happen in families, but also in the
workplace. According to the changes of life experiences from the family to the
workplace, women have to adjust their attitudes and beliefs. For instance, women have to
find an efficient way to cope with the double burden—housework and jobs outside the
home. Therefore, women may become more liberal and open-minded to accept the
assistance of new information and technology to arrange their time for both private and
public lives. As Margaret Conway, Gertrude Steuemagel and David Ahem (1997)
mentioned, “socialization involves adapting to the environment and this adaptation
involves changes in attitudes.”" Therefore, because of these changes in attitudes and
beliefs, women gradually sense the change in their experiences and find themselves as
competent as the men in the working world. Conversely, men, as a dominant group in the
public arena, cannot change their consciousness or beliefs as women do. Men have
always worked outside the home. They do not have to struggle to change their lifestyle
from the private to the public. However, men do not have similar experiences as women.
Men still possess the supremacy in the public field, therefore, their gender consciousness
will not be changed without changing their daily experiences.
2 2 Margaret Conway, Gertrude Steuemagel and David Ahem (1997), Women and Political Participation:
Cultural Change in the Political Arena (Washington D. C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc.), p. 25.
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Consciousness is related to women’ s gender and experiences. Sue Tolleson
Rinehart (1992), in Gender Consciousness and Politics, defined gender consciousness.
Gender consciousness is the recognition that one’s relation to the political world
is shaped in important ways by the physical fact of one’s sex... gender
consciousness supports a perception of the relationship of gender roles to political
roles that allows individual women to legitimate themselves. When gender
consciousness politicizes women, stimulating them to articulate political attitudes
harmonious with their own understanding of gender roles and political roles, it
carries potential policy consequences. It prompts the assertion that women’s
issues such as education, health, and welfare, for example, are completely
legitimate political questions.2 3
Through gender-consciousness, women recognized not only their inferior status in the
public arena, but also their exclusion from political participation because of their gender
roles as caregivers, mothers and wives. Generally speaking, families were equated with
women’s private lives, and women’s private lives with their personal lives.2 4
As Dorothy Smith (1987) indicated, “consciousness is located materially and in
activities that enter the world of working.”2 5 With gender-consciousness raising, women
are re-socialized by their daily experiences which cause them to recognize that their roles
and social status are different from their male counterparts. In fact, women’s gendered
roles become their hindrances to enter the public arena. In order to break the gender
restriction in their lives, women need to change their daily lives, and find more time for
working in the public arena.
Gender consciousness is dynamic, can awaken women to recognize their inferior
status in society and family, and can change their own consciousness and lifestyle. But if
an individual woman’s behavior and consciousness cannot influence others, then her own
2 3 Sue Tolleson Rinehart (1992), p.p. 14-15.
2 4 Sue Tolleson Rinehart (1992), p. 15.
2 5 Dorothy Smith (1987), The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology, p. 70.
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
changes are only functional to her, but not to other women. Nevertheless, “gender
differences in life experiences and identification with women may lead women members
to take common positions and to act in ways that are different in the aggregate from the
positions and actions of their male colleagues.”2 6
Therefore, women understand that they have to unite as a group and participate in
group activity in order to have an opportunity to shift their lives from the private to the
public. As Sue Tolleson Rinehart said, “women share an extremely developed
consciousness of the importance of gender to women as individuals and to society as a
whole.”" Women as a group change their inferior situations by themselves, but not by
men. Meanwhile, women’s experiences can help women associate with each other.
2. Effect of Sex Differences on Experiences in Politics
With the help of gender consciousness, women recognize that their individual
effort cannot change all their personal difficulties, such as caring for children and
working at the same time. If political remedies can be helpful in solving their difficulties,
then, they can adjust the balance between the private and public arena. Therefore,
women, relying on their own experiences, decide to run for Congress to enhance
women’s concerns and social status.
It is no surprise that female lawmakers in Congress are more likely to be
concerned about women’s interests. Women who understand that their political roles,
beliefs and actions can strongly influence the change of public policies will be more
likely to be active in the political system. For instance, Congresswoman Marily Lloyd,
2 6 Debra Dodson, Susan Carroll, edits (1995), Voices, Views, Votes: The Impact o f Women in the 103rd
Congress (Rutgers: Center for the American Woman and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics), p. 3.
2 7 Sue Tolleson Rinehart, p. 6.
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Tennessee-D, said that “I am a breast cancer survivor, so certainly I worked hard for the
funding for all the women’s health programs.”2 8 In the 103rd House, Lloyd sponsored 6
of 12 policies- related to Health Care policies.
1.) HR 243 Medicaid Prostate Screening Act of 1993. (The 1st session of
The 103rd House, January 5, 1993)3 0
2.) HR 244 Medicare Prostate Screening Act of 1993. (The 1st session of the
103rd House, January 5, 1993)
3.) HR 615 National Breast Cancer Strategy Act of 1993. (The 1st session of the
103rd House, January 26, 1993)
4.) HR 1492 Postreproductive Health Care Act. (The 1st session of the 103rd
House, March 25, 1993)
5.) HR 2842 Women’s Midlife Health Research Act.
6.) HR 3119 Public Health Service Health Promotion and Disease Prevention
Act. (The 1st session of the 103rd House, September 22, 1993)3 1
Using her personal experience with cancer, Manly Lloyd strongly sponsored
health care policies. Her efforts could help those who have cancer to have better health
treatment under the protection of public policies. Undoubtedly, when women have an
opportunity to legitimize their alternate values and beliefs, they will politicize their
experiences in political agendas.
The Center for the American Woman and Politics conducted a national survey of
State Legislators in 1991 which asked officeholders about their top legislative priority:
ten percent of female officeholders supported Women’s Rights; whereas only 4% of male
2 8 Debra Dodson, Susan Carroll, edits (1995), Voices, Views, Votes: The Impact o f Women in the 103rd
Congress, p. 4.
2 9 Another six policies sponsored by Rep. Marily Lloyd are not related to healthcare/welfare policies.
3 0 HR 243 and HR244 have the same title, but the contexts are different.
3 1 CIS Congress Campus, Track Proposal legislation by Sponsors, {http://web.lexis-nexis.com/congcomp?-
session=l36l7cd4-bl7e-afe4-8a0c5867a}, February 20, 1998.
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
officeholders supported it. Fourteen percent of women supported health care policies;
whereas only 6% of men supported it. Eleven percent of women supported
children/families policies; whereas only 3% of men did.3 2 According to this survey,
female officeholders were more likely to support and sponsor priority policies related to
their daily experiences such as children, family and health care.
Gender consciousness provided a bridge to link women’s daily experiences with
political beliefs and roles. The most significant aspect of gender-consciousness is not
only “to individual women’s politicization but, when one awakened consciousness joined
others, would have its cumulative effect on the public agenda.’ Therefore, when
women were elected into Congress, they, as political transformers, became active in
enforcing women’s political and social positions. They bring their living experiences into
the political arena; thus, they are more sensitive than their male counterparts to the
passage of policies related to women’s concerns.
Tamerius provided four consequences of sex differences in experiences3 4 to
female lawmakers.
(1) Support: Because of individual experiences in domesticity and socialization, female
lawmakers willingly support policies for women, such as family leave,
abortion, and a child-care policy, in order to help women change inconvenient
situations. Male legislators would be more likely to support financial or
economic policies since they were trained to be breadwinners in families.
(2) Commitment: Female legislators may align their responsibility and commitment to
policies for women with their own experiences. For example, if a female-
married lawmaker confronted the problem of childcare, she might commit to
the policy of childcare for helping women who have similar problems. Males
3 2 Center for the American Woman and Politics (1991), The Impact o f Women in Public Office: An
Overview (Rutgers: Eagleton Institute of Politics, The State University of New Jersey), p. 8.
3 3 Sue Tolleson Rinehart, p. 37.
3 4 The following four points are summarized from Karin Tamerius (1995), Chapter 4 “Sex, Gender, and
Leadership in the Representation of women,” p.p. 97-102. In Georgia Duerst-Lahti & Rita Mae Kelly,
Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance.
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
are trained and socialized as the protectors and breadwinners to support family
financial needs, therefore, they are more likely to protect national and social
security, and economic development.
(3) Awareness: Female legislators may be more aware of the issues related to women
than their male counterparts are, because congresswomen may face similar
problems in their lives.
(4) Expertise: Congresswomen may understand the policies related to women’s concerns
better than their male counterparts do. Their personal experiences afford good
incentives and resources for them and help them resolve the problems.
In terms of Tamerius’s analyses, these four points not only provide the link between
women’s policy preferences and their sex differences, but also suggest that
congresswomen have different policy interests and preferences from those of their male
counterparts.
Indeed, the support and commitment from female legislators are the two most
important elements in measuring the effect of different experiences in legislation. If
legislators do not support or are not committed to a given problem, then the problem will
never become a policy introduced in the legislative process. If Marily Lloyd, Tennessee-
D, was not a breast cancer patient, she might not be a strong sponsor in the passage of
legislation for health care policies, especially for women’s cancer. Sponsorship, co
sponsorship and speeches made in the legislation can be used to explore lawmakers’
support and commitment.
Only through understanding lawmakers’ attitudes and beliefs in the support and
commitment of the passage of policies can we explore the reasons that policies appear in
legislation and why sponsorship and co-sponsorship are more important than roll call
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
voting.3 5 Likewise, feminist standpoint theory can help to explain the importance of
sponsorship, cosponsorship and floor speeches to understanding lawmakers’ attitudes and
beliefs.
Figure 2.2 Transition from Domestic Experiences
To Political Preferences
Sexual
Division of
Labor
Women’s
Differences
Political
Preferences
Women’s
Domesticity
Gender-Consciousness
Raising
For women, their daily lives are centered on marriage and childcare. Unmarried
adult women are expected to marry and take care of their families. To be a good woman
is defined as being a good wife and mother. Conversely, being a good man means to be
an independent person and supporter of the family. The training and socialization for
men and women fit into their expected gender stereotypes. What individuals have
experienced in their socialization and expected roles become norms, beliefs, and
behaviors.
Women and men are separately structured in the private field or the public field
because of the sexual division of labor through their socialization and training of gender
roles. With the assistance of gender consciousness raising, women are influenced by their
daily living experiences, and further recognize their inferior positions in the family and in
3 5 Tamerius, Karin L. (1995), “Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Representation of Women.” In Georgia
Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly, edits. Gender, Power, Leadership and Governance, p. 110.
3 6 Ethel Klein (1984), p. 5.
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
society. This recognition awakens women’s consciousness and shifts their beliefs and
ideologies. As noted by Margaret Conway, Gertrude Steuemagel and David Ahem
(1997),
Without gender consciousness women will not perceive themselves as a group
with shared political interests. What is clear is that women’s political
participation increases as women’s consciousness of themselves as a group
increases.3 7
Therefore, with the help of gender consciousness, women share their daily experiences
with each other and understand women’s difficulties in daily lives, such as job
segregation because of gendered stereotypes. Thus, women recognize themselves as a
group and are willing to support women’s interests and demands. Moreover, when
women became lawmakers, they will be more likely to consider women's demands and
interests in the public agenda, such as healthcare, children and social issues. These
women’s demands become women’s agendas for policy making and are based on their
experiences and commitments. (See figure 2.2) For instance, the Women’s Health Equity
Act (WHEA) was first introduced by Rep. Patricia Schroeder (Colorado-D) and (female
Senator) Olympia Snowe (Maine-R), who were concerned about women’s health issues.
Congresswoman Carrie Meek (Florida-D) also strongly supported women’s health
concerns in sponsorships.
HR 5105, MEDICARE PARTICIPATION NONDISCRIMINATION
REQUIREMENT ACT, September 26, 1994. (The second session of the 103rd of
the House of Representatives)
HR5104, NONDISCRIMINATORY MEDICAL ASSISTANCE ACT, September
26, 1994. (The second session of the 103rd of the House of Representatives)
3 7 Margaret Conway, Gertrude Steuemagel and David Ahem (1997), Women and Political Participation:
Cultural Change in the Political Arena (Washington D. C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc.), p. 25.
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
HR 2420, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT, June 15, 1993.
(The second session of the 103rd of the House of Representatives)
HR 2270, FIREARM VICTIMS PREVENTION ACT, May 26, 1994. (The
second session of the 103rd of the House of Representatives)3 8
While many policies are related to similar issues, such as health and childcare,
congresswomen undoubtedly feel a responsibility to bring these issues to the political
agenda.3 9
Sex Differences and Policy Preferences
Women are socialized as caretakers who are connected, interpersonally with their
mothers since childhood. In modem society, most women have to be responsible wives
and mothers at home, as well as hard workers in the workplace.
Female lawmakers are an appropriate group to examine to test whether women
focus on women’s concerns more strongly than men do. In the 103rd House of
Representatives, 91.5% of female lawmakers are married. In the 104th House, 65.96% of
congresswomen are married; 21.28% are divorced; and 6.38% widows. (See Table 3.9)
Therefore, lawmakers’ marital status will help to explore whether marriage experiences
will influence their policy decision making. Theoretically, married women will be
concerned about children’s issues more often than married men.
3 8 Rep. Meek sponsored Fifteen policies in the 103rd House. Four policies are related to women’ healthcare.
CIS Congressional Compass, Congresswoman Carrie Meek (D-FL), (http://web.lexis-nexis.com/
congcomp/oclist?_ansset=GeHauKO-MsSDUWRARUUCRAAC-WEWC-A-AWCRACR
YEECUWUAVRURARU&_session=424156fe-12be-1 Id2-934a-8a0c587 laa77%3b
6361467%3b3076954751 %3b2183&_state=_lastsearchpage%25a4%2 fform%2fcong%2fs_track.html
%25a3_numdocs%25a425%25a3_menu%25a4001164%25a3 firs tname%25a4carrie%25a3 key word%25a
4% 25a31astname%25a4meek%25a3congsession%25a4LEGIS%3bBLTl03%25a3&_md5=f57268798l
bc7437075fbeefd91 Ic8b8), July, 3, 1998.
3 9 Debra Dodson, Susan Carroll (1995), Voices, Views, Votes: The Impact o f Women in the 103rd
Congress, p. 4.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Congresswomen’s daily experiences are drawn from both families and the
legislative body. According to their experiences, female lawmakers may focus more on
policies related to children and women. A staff member in the House of Representatives
said that “if it weren’t for the Congressional Caucus for women’s issues, the women
members acting together and with the support of the staff, we wouldn’t have women’s
health on the agenda.”40 Therefore, if congresswomen would not cooperate together and
speak for women, who would do that for them, who will? Women who are victims of
domestic abuse asked Congresswoman Susan Molinari (New York-R), “Why can’t you
change the system for me? Don’t you understand a little bit better than the guy that
you’re sitting next to?”4 1 To the extent that congresswomen assume the responsibilities
and commitments on behalf of women, they are likely to support women’s demands;
conversely, congressmen do not have these commitments and responsibilities for women
because of their male experiences and roles.
1. The Categorization of Policies
Men and women differ with regard to their experiences, which then influence their
policy preferences. Margaret Conway, Gertrude Steuemagel and David Ahem (1997), in
a study of sex differences in public policy preferences, reported that women supported
assistance and services provided by government to the poor more strongly than men did.
As statistical research indicates: “Forty-two percent of the women compared with 32% of
the men supported provision of more services and increased spending in policy areas such
4 0 Debra Dodson, Susan Carroll, (1995), p. 10.
4 1 Debra Dodson, Susan Carroll, (1995), p. 6.
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
as health and education; only 26 percent of the women, compared with 38 percent of the
men, supported decreased spending.”42
According to feminist standpoint theory, the categorizations of policies (See Table
2.2) are selected based on two criteria. First, these issues are related to lawmakers’ daily
experiences, such as childcare, healthcare and maternal thinking. Second, in order to
match public issues, the policies are based on pubic opinions gathered by the Gallup
Organization. In January 1994, the Gallup Poll asked the public this question—What do
you think is the most important problem facing this country today?* The answers
are as follows.
Economic problems: Unemployment (17%); Economy in general (17%);
Federal budget deficit (8%)**;
Taxes (2%); Trade relation: trade deficit (2%).
Non-economic problems: Crime: Violence (49%), Health Care (31%);
Poverty: Homelessness (9%); Education (6%);
Drugs: Drug Abuse (8%); Welfare (6%).
Note: 1. *Total adds to more than 100% due to multiple replies.
2. ** The federal budget is largely framed by the Executive Branch, so it is
excluded from the categories of policies in this study.
3. Source from George Gallup, Jr. (1994), The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1994
(Delaware: Scholarly Resources Inc.), p.28.
According to the statistical results of the Gallup Poll in 1994, Crime, healthcare, the
economy, homelessness and education are the most important issues in society.
Therefore, the policies related to these issues will be selected as the samples. Policies
related to unemployment, employment, interstate and national trade, taxes, and job
stimulus are categorized as economic issues. The problem of homeless included in
housing issues. Thus, housing policies are added in policy categories. Foreign and
military issues are one of the most important topics in Congressional Quarterly which is
4 2 Margaret Conway, Gertrude Steuemagel and David Ahem (1997), Women and Political Participation:
Cultural Change in the Political Arena, p. 38.
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
an influential journal in studying Congress. Therefore, foreign/military policies include
in policy categories.
Table 2.1_______Policies and Sex Differences in Experiences
Policies C riteria o f Classification Experiences Gender
Differences
Health/
Welfare
Public and Children Health,
Family, Welfare, Mediation
Caring, Attachment,
Maternal Thinking
Female
Family/
Children
Caring, Family and Medical
Leave, Maternal Leave
Caring, Attachment,
Maternal Thinking
Female
Education Basic and Vocational Training,
Elementary and Adult Education
Independent, Gender
Consciousness Raising,
Female
Housing Public Housing, Housing Loans Security, Protection Male
Crime
Prevention
Protection, Drugs, Gun Control,
Violence Control, Domestic
Violence
Rationality, Peace,
Independence
Male
M ilitary/
Foreign
National Security, International
Relationship, Anti-Terrorism
Security, Protection,
Rationality, Autonomy
Male
Economic Unemployment, Employment,
Taxation, and Trade
Rationality, Autonomy,
Independence
Male/Female
According to the literature on feminist standpoint theory, all non-economic
sample policies are divided into men’s issues and women’s issues. Policies concerned
with women’s experiences and compassion possess the characteristics of maternal
thinking, fertility and caring, and are so-called compassion issues or women’s issues.
Therefore, healthcare/welfare, childcare/family, and education issues are categorized as
“women’s issues”. Based on female experience, female lawmakers are more likely than
their male counterparts to support these issues.
Finally, men stereotypically play essential roles as protectors and breadwinners.
Policies related to housing, crime prevention, defense weapons, military and foreign
policies are categorized hypothetically as “men’s issues” with regard to men’s
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
experiences and gender roles.4 3 That is, male lawmakers are more likely to sponsor
military policies than their female counterparts. The purpose of these categorizations is to
compare lawmakers’ policy preferences during their terms in office. (See Table 2.2) In
Chapter Three and Chapter Four, these categorizations will be tested using empirical
research to explore lawmakers’ preferences.
1. Political Ideology and Sex Differences
With the help of gender consciousness, women’s lifestyle gave changing from the
private field to the public arena. The variation of lifestyle changes women’s thinking,
beliefs and personal experiences. Women in modem society have become more open-
minded and liberal than they were before. Political ideology is made up of individuals’
belief system which influences their political attitudes, values and goals. Therefore, it is
crucial to examine the influence of political ideology on lawmakers’ policy priorities. As
addressed by Leonie Huddy and Nayda Terkildsen (1993),
A candidate’s political ideology was responsible for their perceived areas of issue
competence. Based on the belief approach, we expected the female candidate to
be seen as more liberal, Democratic and feminist than her male counterpart, more
competent on compassion and women’s issues, less competent on military and
economic policy regardless of her gender-linked traits.4 4
4 3 Men’s issues are categorized followed by Thomas Dye (1998) in his book— Understanding Public
Policy (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), 9*. Dye divided policies as civil rights, criminal justice, health and
welfare, Education, environmental policy, defense policy, economic policy, tax policy, and international
trade and immigration. The author adapted Dye’s policy categories in this research as economic,
women’s and men’s issues.
4 4 Leonie Huddy and Nayda Terkildsen (1993), p. 126.
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Belief systems defined along a liberal/conservative continuum4 5 will influence
individuals’ policy preferences. As the Center for the American Woman and Politics
reported in 1991 in a study of state lawmakers’ attitudes about policy agendas by political
ideology, “women lawmakers were more likely than men to identify themselves as
liberals, and self-labeled liberals did score higher on both the General Policy Index than
did self-labeled moderates and conservatives. Therefore, women legislators’ greater
tendency to label themselves as liberals could contribute to the gender differences in
attitudes.”4 6 More important, ideology is considered one of the influential variables
affecting lawmakers’ policy preferences. Congressmen and congresswomen have
different political ideologies which may influence their support for legislation. Therefore,
political ideology categorized as both liberal and conservative is an independent variable
to examine differences in policy preferences between congressmen and congresswomen.
4 5 Beginning in 1972, the ICPSR at the University of Michigan began asking respondents to place
themselves on a liberal/conservative seven-point scale. The seven points were labeled as follows:
extremely liberal, liberal, slightly liberal, moderate/middle of the road, slightly conservative,
conservative, and extremely conservative. Therefore, based on this research, ideology is categorized as
liberal and conservative. From Keith Poole and L. Harmon Zeigler (1985), Women, Public Opinion,
and Politics: The Changing Political Attitudes o f American women (New York: Longman Inc.), p.95.
4 6 There are eight policies: 1. The ability of the private sector to solve economic problems; 2. The death
penalty; 3. Government provision of child care services; 4. Nuclear power; 5. Parental consent for
minors’ abortion; 6. Increasing state and local taxes for social services; 7. The Equal Rights Amendment
(ERA); 8. Prohibiting abortion in most cases. The first, the General Policy Index, was based on
responses to all eight policy questions, with high scorers giving the largest number of liberal responses on
the eight issue questions. Scores were categorized as low (0-4), medium (5-6) or high (7-8) in support of
liberal policies. The second measure, The Feminist Policy Index, used the responses to questions on the
EARA, parental consent and prohibiting abortion. For the Feminist Policy Index, we counted the number
of times each legislator’s issue preferences were in agreement with the positions of the major national
feminist organizations (e.g. National Organization for Women and National Women and National
Women’s Political Caucus) and categorized lawmakers’ scores as low (0), medium (1-2), or high (3) in
support of Feminist policies. From Debra Dodson and Susan Carroll (1991), Reshaping The Agenda:
Women in State Legislatures (New Jersey: Center for the American Woman and Politics), p.p. 13-14
and p .19.
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. Political Party and (render Differences
Individual activities can be influential only when they happen in a group as a
whole; otherwise, they can only influence or change individual outlooks. Sue Tolleson
Rinehart noted that group members were socialized by their group experiences. They
became the socialization agents for others in the group where they shared common
interests and goals, the group-specific norms and behaviors, interdependence and
sympathy with others.4 7
More important, after raising gender consciousness, women recognize that if they
want to change their politically inferior positions, they must become insiders in the
political system. Political parties provide a viable means for women to participate in the
political system and to pursue their political ambitions, as lawmakers or city governors.
Traditionally, women were limited to the private field, and did not have an
opportunity to enter the public field. Therefore, women did not understand much about
the political activities and functions that could change their lifestyles and political
positions in society. Through activities in political parties, however, women can leam
politics and be trained as female politicians. Therefore, women candidates have to
consider joining a party in order to enter Congress to realize their commitments or to shift
their lifestyles. Undoubtedly, the political party plays an important role which helps
women leam how to be political candidates and participants. Thus, the political party is
considered as one of the important indicators in exploring sex differences in policy
agendas. As Lois Lovelace Duke (1996) said,
Women’s efforts to organize, as well as the political parties’ responsiveness to
their demands for greater representation, aided women’s efforts to play a greater
4 7 Sue Tolleson Rinehart (1992), p.31.
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
role in politics. Involvement through various organized efforts played a key role
in propelling women into party politics...4 8
Meanwhile, the political party is the main political association which offers women the
opportunities to enter and participate in the political arena. It is essential to study: Which
is the most influential element for lawmakers’ policy priorities— gender, ideology or
party? The Center for the American Woman and Politics (CAWP) in 1991 discussed the
relationship between political party and top legislative priorities related to women’s
concerns. The CAWP reported that “Democratic women (67%) and Republican women
(47%) were more likely than men of the same party to work on at least one women’s
rights bill.”4 9 Their results indicated that gender and party are much important in
determining women’s legislation.
Gender, ideology and political party are considered the most important elements
influencing lawmakers’ policy decisions. The next Chapter focuses on the empirical
research and the influence of gender, ideology, and political party on legislators’ issue
priorities with regard to economic issues, women’s issues, and men’s issues.
4 8 Lois Lovelace Duke (1996), Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders? (New Jersey: Prentice Hall),
p.67.
4 9 Democratic men (40%) and Republican men (331%) supported at least on women’s rights bill. From
Susan Carroll, Debra Dodson and Rugh Madel (1991), The Impact o f Women in Public Office: An
Overview (New Jersey: The Center for the American woman and Politics), p. 11.
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter Three
Legislators’ Policy Preferences of Legislation
The United States House of Representatives represents the people by exercising
their supreme legislative power, and makes all the laws in conjunction with the Senate.1
Article 1, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states that “all legislative powers
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives.”2 Collectively, Representatives and Senators are
responsible for all lawmaking in Congress, all legislation must pass both houses before it
can be signed by the President and enacted into law. This research focuses on the House
of Representatives, because the numbers of women members and electoral districts are
far larger than that of the Senate, and therefore, permit an analysis of gender differences.
According to Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution, “the House of
Representatives is composed of 435 Members elected every two years from among the 50
states, apportioned to their total populations.”3 These 435 lawmakers propose legislation
on a side variety of policy topics. The kinds of bills proposed may be influenced by
lawmakers’ personal characteristics and beliefs, electoral districts, and political parties.
Leonie Huddy and Nayda Terkildsen (1993) studied the relationship among policies,
gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. They found that
1 Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution illustrates congressional powers which are “to make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.” In Peter
Woll (1996), American Government: Readings and Cases (New York: HarperCollins College
Publishers), 12th , p. 358.
2 Peter Woll (1996), p. 358.
3 Charles Johnson (1997), How Our Laws Are Made? {http://Tomas.loc.gov/home/holam.txt}, November
12, 1997, p. 2. A Representative must be at least 25 years of age, have been a citizen of the United States
for seven years, and when elected, be a resident of the state in which the Representative is chosen, p.2.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lawmakers’ competency on policies are influenced by their beliefs rather than by their
personal traits.
While the existence of both trait and belief stereotypes leads to predictions of
greater perceived female competency on compassion issues and greater male
competency on military and defense issues, the belief approach predicts more
pervasive stereotyping of male and female political candidates than the trait
approach.4
James Lindsay and Randall Ripley (1992) surveyed the literature related to
foreign and defense policy in Congress for the 1990s. They showed that “studies of roll-
call votes generally find that ideology (as measured by interest group ratings), rather than
constituency economic interest, provides the best predictor of congressional voting.”5
Lawmakers’ voting decisions are influenced by their ideology more strongly than by their
district interests. This chapter examines the essential determinants which influence
lawmakers’ policy preferences, and further discusses the differences between
congresswomen and congressmen in policy agendas.
This chapter employs a quantitative approach to analyze lawmakers’ policy
agendas in the 103rd (1993-1994) and 104th (1995-1996) sessions of the House of
Representatives. The quantitative research emphasizes the study of congressmen’s and
congresswomen’s policy preferences in sponsorship and cosponsorship of bills. Each
group may have different policy priorities in health/welfare, family/children, housing,
education, foreign/military, crime prevention and economic issues. In order to find the
most essential determinants influencing the policy agenda, regression analyses are used to
analyze three groups—men’s issues, women’s issues and economic issues. Analysis of
4 Leonie Huddy, and Nayda Terkildsen, “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female
Candidates, American Journal o f Political Science, Vol. 37, No.l, February 1993, p. 123.
5 James Lindsay and Randall Ripley, “Foreign and Defense Policy in Congress: A Research Agenda for the
1990s”, Legislative Studies Quarterly, XVII, 3, August 1992, p.433.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Variance (ANOVA) techniques are then employed to examine in greater detail the
influences of gender, party and ideology on the individual issue topics.
Throughout the analysis, the study explores the different majority parties in
control of the 103rd and 104th Houses. The policy preferences of congressmen and
congresswomen may be influenced by their political parties in the legislative process.
Therefore, when a different majority party controls the House, there may be a variation in
policy agendas. The 103rd session of the House was controlled by the Democratic Party;
conversely, the 104th session was controlled by the Republican Party. Therefore, it is
important to examine whether the presence of different majority parties in Congress shifts
policy priorities.
Gender, Party and Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Congresses
Since 1992, the increase in the number of congresswomen has changed the
organization of the House of Representatives. Congressmen have gradually learned to
work and cooperate with congresswomen in passing legislation. In 1992, the number of
congresswomen jumped from twenty-nine to forty-seven. In 1994, the number of
congresswomen remained “stable at forty-seven, with eleven new women taking the
place of the eight Democratic women who lost and others who retired. Of the new
women, seven are Republicans, only one of whom is pro-choice.”6 (See Table 3.1) One
female lawmaker (Democrat), who was elected in the District of Columbia in 1992 and
1994, was not included in the number of congresswomen because the District of
Columbia is not a state.
6 Glenna Matthews. “Women Candidates in the 1990s: Behind the Numbers,” A Journal o f the Carl Albert
Congressional Research and Studies Center, Spring 1995, p. 3.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.1 The Number of Representatives in the House of
Representatives in 1992 and 1994
103rd (1993-1994) 104th (1995-1996)
Parties Men (%) Women (%) Men (%) Women (%)
164 12 214 17
Republicans (93.18) (6.82) (92.64) (7.36)
222 36 172 31
Democrats (86.05) (13.95) (84.73) (15.27)
386 48 386 48
Total (88.94) (11.06) (88.94) (11.06)
Note: One Independent congressman is elected in 1992 and 1994.
Source: Based on apparent winner as of Nov. 6, 1992, and Nov. 11, 1994.
From Congressional Quarterly, January 16, 1993, p. 12; and
November 12, 1994, p.3299.
As the results of Table 3.1 indicate, female legislators account for slightly more
than eleven percent of the representatives in the 103rd and 104th sessions of the House of
Representatives. In contrast, male lawmakers comprise over eighty-eight percent in both
sessions. According to political parties, in the 103rd House the total percentage of the
Democratic lawmakers is 59%; the Republican lawmakers 41%. In the 104th House there
are 47% Democrats and 53% Republicans. In both parties, female lawmakers are the
minority with less than fifteen percent.
1. The Research Sample
The research emphasizes the differences in legislation sponsored and cosponsored
by congresswomen and congressmen policy preferences in both the 103rd and 104th
Congresses. The criterion for selecting the sample considers only gender, regardless of
lawmakers’ ages, marital status, states, incumbencies and political parties. There are
forty-eight females elected into both the 103rd and 104th Congress. All female lawmakers
were selected for the research, with the exception of the one congresswoman elected in
the District of Columbia in both sessions. According to the number of female lawmakers
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(47), forty-seven male lawmakers were randomly selected from the remaining
membership (387) in both the 103rd and 104th Congresses.7 (See Table 3.2)
Table 3.2_____ The Sample Lawm akers in the 103rd and 104th Congresses
Gender Parties
Sessions Female (%) Male (%) Democrat (%) Republican (%)
103r d House 47 47 56 38
(1993-1994) (50) (50) (59.6) (40.4)
104th House 47 47 46 48
(1995-1996)
(50) (50) (48.9) (5L1)
According to political party, 56 Democrats and 38 Republicans were selected for
the 103rd House, and 46 Democrats and 48 Republicans were included in the sample from
the 104th House. (See Table 3.2) As is the case in the real world, the political majority in
the sample shifts from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party in 1994.
Table 3.3______ Gender and Political Parties in the 103rd and 104lh Houses
Gender
Parties (103rd) Parties (104th)
Democrat (%) Republican (%) Democrat (%) Republican (%)
Male 21 (44.7) 26 (55.3) 16 (34.0) 31(66.0)
Female 35 (74.5) 12 (25.5) 30 (63.8) 17 (36.2)
Total 56 (59.6) 38 (40.4) 46 (48.9) 48 (51.1)
As Table 3.3 indicates, the sample for the 103rd Congress consists of 21 male
Democrats, 26 male Republicans, 35 female Democrats and 12 female Republicans. In
the 104th Congress, 16 male Democrats, 31 male Republicans, 30 female Democrats and
17 female Republicans were selected. The number of Republican congresswomen
increased by 5 seats from the 103rd House to the 104th House.
7 In the 103rd House, congressmen were selected from 40 states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota., Mississippi, Missouri, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.
In the 104th House, congressmen were selected from 40 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota., Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the 103rd House, the Democratic Party (59.45%) was the majority, but they lost
the 1994 election. The Republicans (53.23%) then became the majority in the 104th
House. (See Table 3.1) Therefore, the sample of Democrats (59.6%) is larger than that of
Republicans (40.4%) in the 103rd House; conversely, the sample of Republicans is
(51.1%) is larger than that of Democrats (48.9%) in the 104th House. Both parties may
have distinct policy agendas in order to realize their political messages in elections.
Thus, it is important to explore whether the different majority party has different policy
agendas in the legislative process.
2. Ideology
In this research, a legislator’s “political ideology” is categorized as liberal,
moderate or conservative8 in terms of the value of “average” rankings from the
Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) and the American Conservative Union (ACU)
in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996. Consequently, 21% of lawmakers are extremely
conservative, 25% of lawmakers are extremely liberal in the 103rd House. In the 104th
House, 27% of lawmakers are extremely conservative and 25% of lawmakers are
extremely liberal. Twenty percent of lawmakers are moderate. Thus, in order to avoid
bipolar ideology, the quintile is used to categorize ideological types—liberal,
8 The formula for calculating the scores of ideology is as follows:
i). (ADA in 1993+ ADA in l994)/2 = Average of ADA
(ACU in 1993+ ACU in 1994)/2 = Average of ACU
For example: Rep. Glen Browder’s (D-Alabama) ADA in 1993 was 20%, and ADA in 1994 was
25%; ACU in 1993 52%; ACU in 1994 62%. Therefore, The formula for computing the
middle scores of Average of ADA is (20%+25%)/2=22.5%; average of ACU is
(52%+62%)/2=57 %
ii) Average of ADA- Average of ACU = Average Ideology Score
So, (22.5% -57%)= -34.5%
iii) If a lawmaker’s average ideology score is “-40-40 ”, his/her ideology is defined as
“moderate”. If the average ideology score approaches toward “ 100”, a lawmaker’s ideology
becomes more liberal; conversely, the score is toward “- 100”, his/her ideology is more
conservative.
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
conservative and moderate. Based on the quintile, “40” and “-40” are the standard of
calculation to categorize ideology. If a lawmaker’s average ideological scores are lower
than “-40”, his/her ideology is defined as “conservative”. Conversely, if the scores are
higher than “40”, then a lawmaker’s ideology is categorized as “liberal”. If the score is
between “-40” and “40”, then a lawmaker’s ideology is grouped as “moderate”. If a
lawmaker was elected to their first term (i.e. non-incumbent members), that lawmaker
will not have ADA or ACU rating scores in the 103rd or the 104th Houses. The
ideological ranking of non-incumbent members are classified as “missing”.
Consequently, there are 19 missing in the 103rd House and 13 missing in the 104th House.
Table 3.4 The Averages of ADA and ACU by Gender in the 103r d
and 104th House of Representatives________________
Scores
103r d House 104th House
Male % Female % Male % Female %
Conservative
- 100 - - 81 12 (34.3) 4(10) 17 (40.5) 5(12.9)
- 80 - - 61 3 (8.6) 2(5) 5(12) 3 (7.8)
- 60 - - 41 3 (8.6) 1 (2.5) 1 (2.4) 1 (2.6)
Moderate
- 40 - - 21
2 (5.7) 5(12.5) 4 (9.5) I (2.6)
- 20 - -1 0 0 4 (9.5) 1 (2.6)
0 0 0 0 0
1-20 4(11.4) 0 1 (2-4) 3 (7.8)
21-40 3 (8.6) 1 (2.5) 1 (2.4) 1 (2.6)
4 1 -6 0 1 (2.9) 7(17.5) 1 (2.4) 3 (7.8)
6 1 -8 0 2 (5.7) 6(15) 4 (9.5) 5(13)
Liberal
81 - 100 5(14.3) 14 (35) 4 (9.5) 16(41)
Total 35 (100) 40(100) 42(100) 39(100)
Note: 1. There were 10.67% liberal male lawmakers, 12% moderate male lawmakers, 24% conservative
male lawmakers, 36% liberal female lawmakers, 8% moderate female lawmakers, and 9.3%
conservative female lawmakers in the 103rd House. There were 11.11% liberal male lawmakers,
28.40% conservative male lawmakers, 12.35% moderate male lawmakers, 29.63% liberal female
lawmakers, 7.40% moderate female lawmakers, and 11.11% conservative female lawmakers in the
103rd House.
2. 19 missing in the 103rd House. 13 missing in the 104th House.
Table 3.4 indicates gender differences in ideology. Female lawmakers express
substantially more liberal attitudes than their male counterparts in both the 103rd and
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104th Houses. For instance, in the 103rd House, 34% of congressmen were extremely
conservative; conversely, only 10% of congresswomen showed extremely conservative
attitudes. Thirty-five percent of congresswomen were very liberal compared to 14.3% of
congressmen. In the 104th House, 41% of congresswomen were very liberal; whereas
only 9.5% of congressmen were very liberal. However, male lawmakers are more
moderate than their female counterparts. The possible explanation is that most female
lawmakers are liberal, therefore, few female lawmakers are moderate in both Congresses.
(See Table 3.4)
Table 3.5 The Averages of ADA and ACU by Party in the 103r d andl04lh
House of Representatives
Scores
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (%) Republican (%) Democrat (%) Republican (%)
Conservative
-100 - - 81 2 (4.4) 15 (50) 0 22(51.2)
- 80 - - 61 2 (4.4) 2 (6.6) 0 8 (18.6)
- 60 - - 41 2 (4.4) 2 (6.6) 0 3 (6.9)
Moderate
- 40 ~ - 21
4 (8.8) 3(10) I (2.6) 3 (6.9)
- 20 - -1 0 0 1 (2.6) 4 (9.3)
0 0 0 0 0
1-20 2 (4.4) 2 (6.6) 2 (5.3) 2 (4.7 )
21-40 4 (8.8) 0 2(5.3) 0
41-60 7 (15.6) I (3.3) 3 (7.9) I (2.3)
61-80 4 (8.8) 4(13.3) 9 (23.7) 0
Liberal
81-100 18 (40) 1 (3.3) 20 (52.6) 0
Total 45 (100) 30(100) 38(100) 43 (100)
Note: I. In the 103 House, there are 38.67% liberal Democrats and 8% conservative Democrats, 13.33%
moderate Democrats, 8% liberal Republicans, 25.33% conservative Republicans and 6.67%
moderate Republicans. In the 104 House, there are 39.50% liberal Democrats, and 0%
conservative Democrats, 7.40% moderate Democrats, 1.24% liberal Republicans, 40.74 %
conservative Republicans and 11.12% moderate Republicans.
2. 19 missing in the 103rd House. 13 missing in the 104th House.
Anne Kelley, William Hulbary and Lewis Bowman (1996) found similar results
in their study of gender and ideological polarization among Southern party activists.
They found that women were increasingly more liberal than men on issues related to
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
minority rights and social welfare.9 These findings substantiate the view of feminist
standpoint theory that women are likely to be more liberal than their male counterparts.
Regardless of gender, Democrats were consistently more liberal than Republicans
in the 103rd and 104th Houses. As Table 3.5 illustrates, 40% of Democrats are very
liberal; while 50% of Republicans are very conservative in the 103rd House. In the 104th
House, 52.6% of Democrats are extremely liberal; conversely, 51.2% of Republican are
very conservative. Partisan differences in ideology and policy agendas are considerably
related. Therefore, the ideological split between Democrats and Republicans may
influence lawmakers’ policy priorities. (This hypothesis will be tested in next section.)
Table 3.6 Ideology by Gender and Party in the 103rd and 104th Houses
Scores
103rd House 104th House
Democrats Republicans Democrats Republicans
Male
(%)
Female
(%)
Male
(%)
Female
(%)
Male
(%)
Female
(%)
Male
(%)
Female
(%)
Conservative
-100 - - 81 0 2 (6.7) 12 (60) 2(20) 0 0 16 (53.3) 5 (38.5)
- 80 - - 61 0 2 (6.7) 3(15) 0 0 0 5(16.7) 3(23.1)
- 60 - - 41 1 (6.7) 1 (3.3) 2(10) 0 0 0 I (3.3) 1 (7.7)
M oderate
- 40 - - 21
1 (6.7) 3(10) K 5) 2(20) 1 (8.3) 0 3(10) 1 (7.7)
- 20 - - 1 0 0 0 0 I (8.3) 0 3(10) 1 (7.7)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1-20 2(13.3) 0 2(10) 0 1 (8.3) 1 (3.8) I (3.3) 2(15.4)
2 1 -4 0 3(20) 1 (3.3) 0 0 1 (8.3) 1 (3.8) 0 0
4 1 -6 0 1 (6.7) 6(20) 0 1(10) 0 3 (11.5) 1 (3-3) 0
6 1 -8 0 2(13.3) 2 (6.7) 0 3(30) 4 (33.3) 5(19.2) 0 0
Liberal
8 1 -1 0 0 5 (33.3) 13 (43.3) 0 2(20) 4 (33.3) 16(61.5) 0 0
Total 15 (100) 30 (100) 20(100) 10 (100) 12(100) 26(100) 30(100) 13 (100)
Note: 19 missing in the 103rd House. 13 missing in the 104th House.
Examining ideology by gender and party reveals gender differences within each
party. Table 3.6 shows that female lawmakers in both parties are more liberal than their
9 Anne Kelley, William Hulbary and Lewis Bowman (1996), “Gender and Ideological Polarization among
Southern Grassroots Party Activists,” p. 67. In Lois Lovelace Duke, Women in Politics: Outsiders or
Insiders?
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
male counterparts. Female Democrats are consistently more liberal than all men within
both parties. If women’s issues, such as childcare and welfare issues, are supposedly
supported by liberal lawmakers, then Democrats would be more likely than Republicans
to support them. Further, female lawmakers within both parties, especially liberal
Democrat congresswomen, may be concerned with women’s issues more strongly than
their male counterparts in both parties. (These hypotheses will be tested in next sections.)
Table 3.6 indicates gender differences in both parties in the 103rd and 104th
Houses. Female lawmakers within both parties are more liberal than their male
counterparts. Male Republicans are the most conservative in Congress. However,
female Democrats are more liberal than other three groups—male Democrats, male
Republicans and female Republicans in both Congresses. The results prove the
predictions based on feminist standpoint theory. With the help of gender consciousness,
female lawmakers are more liberal than male lawmakers in both parties.
To describe the perspective of a political party, Elinor Scarbrough explains that
the purpose of a political party is not only “to offer alternative directions in public
affairs,” but also “with the governing party (or parties) to tackle the problems of the
day.”1 0 These alternative policies can be realized by party members, once they are
elected to Congress. The partisan members are willing to follow the party leadership’s
directions in public affairs because the party provides a chance for them to win election
and reelection in the future. Therefore, a political party is considered one of the most
influential factors affecting a lawmaker’s policy preferences.
1 0 Elinor Scarbrough (1984), p. 51.
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.7 Ideology and Party in the 103r d and 104lh
House of Representatives
Party
103rd House
Liberal % Conservative % Moderate %
Democrats 29 (38.67) 6(8) 10(13.33)
Republicans 6(8) 19 (25.33) 5 (6.67)
Total 35 (46.67) 25 (33.33) 15 (20)
Party
104th House
Liberal % Conservative % Moderate %
Democrats 32 (39.50) 0 6 (7.40)
Republicans 1 (1-24) 33 (40.74) 9(11.12)
Total 33 (40.74) 33 (40.74) 15 (18.52)
Note: 19 missing in the 103rd House; 13 missing in the 104th House.
As Table 3.7 indicates, the ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans
is large. In the 103rd House, 38.67% of Democrats are liberal, while only 8% of
Republicans are liberal. Conversely, 25.33% of Republicans are conservative; whereas
8% of Democrats are conservative. Democrats are more moderate than their Republican
counterparts. In the 104th House, 39.50% of Democrats are liberal, while less than 2% of
Republicans are liberal. In contrast, 40.74% of Republicans are conservative and none of
Democrats is conservative. Republicans are more moderate than Democrats. More
important, the Democratic Party is the majority in the 103rd House; in contrast, the
Republican Party is the majority in the 104th House. Therefore, the ideology shifts from
liberal to conservative from the 103rd House to the 104th House. Because of the
variations of party and ideology, it is highly likely that policy agendas will change in the
different Congresses.
Table 3.8 shows the relationship among gender, party and ideology.
Congresswomen in the Democratic and Republican parties are more liberal than their
male counterparts in both parties. The comparison of gender and party with ideology
shows that the most liberal group is made up of female Democratic lawmakers with well
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
over 60% in the 103rd House and 65% in the 104th House. The most conservative group
consists of male Republican lawmakers who represent over 65% during the 103rd session
and 75% in the 104th Congress. The polarization of ideological perspectives becomes
even more striking as the Republicans gain control of the House in 1994.
Table 3.8______ Gender, Party, and Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Gender Ideology (103rd House)
Party Liberal % Conservative % Moderate %
Male Democrats 7(20) 2 (8.30) 6 (37.50)
Female Democrats 22 (62.90) 4(16.70) 4(25)
Male Republicans 0 16 (66.70) 4(25)
Female Republicans 6(17.10) 2 (8.30) 2(12.50)
Gender Ideology (104th House)
Party Liberal % Conservative % Moderate %
Male Democrats 8 (22.90) 0 4 (28.60)
Female Democrats 24 (68.60) 0 2 (4.3)
Male Republicans 1 (2.90) 24 (75) 5 (35.70)
Female Republicans 2 (5.70) 8(25) 3 (21.40)
Note: Note: 19 missing in the 103rd House. 13 missing in the 104th House.
3. Marital Status
Maternal thinking and childcare are part of congresswomen’s daily lives. As
indicated in Table 3.9, over seventy percent of lawmakers in the 103rd and 104th Houses
are married. The percentage of married congressmen remains stable, at approximately
83%. But, the percentage of married congresswomen drops 25% from the 103rd House to
the 104th House. The percentage of divorced congresswomen increases by the same
amount from the 103rd House to the 104th House.
According to feminist standpoint theory, marriage may influence women’s life
experiences. In both sessions, over fifty percent of congresswomen were married.
Congresswomen, as family caregivers and lawmakers, have a double burden—housework
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and legislative tasks. Therefore, their marital and family experiences may influence their
policy agenda.
Marital status can change not only people’s living styles and experiences, but also
their beliefs and behavior. Therefore, marital status must be considered as one of the
possible components influencing lawmakers’ policy decision-making.
Table 3.9 Gender and M arriage in the 103rd and 104“ Houses
M arriage
Gender(103rd)
Total (%)
Gender (104th)
Total (%) M ale (%) Female (%) Male (%) Female (%)
Single 3 (6.4) 4 (8.5) 7 (7.4) 5 (10.64) 3 (6.38) 8 (8.51)
M arried 39(83) 43 (91.5) 82 (87.2) 39 (82.98) 31 (65.96) 70 (74.47)
Divorce 2 (4.3) 0 2(2.1) 2 (4.26) 10(21.28) 12(12.77)
Widow 1 (2.1) 0 1 (1-1) 1 (2.13) 3 (6.38) 4 (4.26)
O ther 2 (4.3) 0 2(2.1) 0 0 0
Total 47(100) 47 (100) 94(100) 47 (100) 47 (100) 94(100)
4. Incumbency
Incumbency is another influential factor on policy making. William Keefe and
Morris Ogul (1997) showed the importance of incumbency for the maintenance of
congressional stability.
The power of incumbency is the critical factor in the stability of Congress.
Contemporary congresses are weighted heavily on the side of experience.
Increased tenure affords members a much better opportunity to become familiar
with legislative procedures and the multiple roles of the legislator.1 1
Therefore, the factor of incumbency is included in the examination of lawmaker’s policy
priorities in the 103rd and 104th Houses.
As Table 3.10 indicates, fifty percent of congresswomen were elected to their first
term in 1992. Only 23% of congresswomen were non-incumbents in the 104th House of
1 1 William Keefe and Morris Ogul (1997), The American Legislative Process (New Jersey: Prentice Hall,
Inc.), 9th , p. 146.
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Representatives. Since 1992, the number of female lawmakers has gradually increased in
Congress. In the 1994 election, over eighty-five percent of congresswomen won their
reelection. As incumbency and experience increase for women, women become more
competent in legislative work and their sponsorship ad cosponsorship of legislation may
change.
Table 3.10 Year First Elected to Congress by Gender in the 103r d
______________ and 104t h Congresses____________________________
Electoral
Year
103rd House
Electoral
Year
104th House
Gender Gender
Male (W o) Female (%) Male (%) Female (%)
41 I (2.1) 0 72 0 1(2.1)
70 1 (2.1) 73 0 I (2.1)
72 2 (4.3) 1 (2.1) 76 4 (8.5) 0
73 1 (2-D I (2.1) 78 2 (4.3) 0
74 1 (2.1) 1 (2.1) 79 1 (2.1) 0
76 2 (4.3) 0 80 4 (8.5) 1(2-1)
78 I (2-1) 2 (4.3) 82 6(12.8) 4 (8.5)
80 3 (6.4) 1 (2.1) 84 2 (4.3) 1 (2-1)
82 4 (8.5) 4 (8.5) 86 2 (4.3) 2 (4.3)
84 3 (6.4) 2 (4.3) 87
1 (2-1) 1 (2.1)
86 6(12.8) 2 (4.3) 88 3 (6.4) 2(4.3)
87 1 (2.1) 1 (2.1) 89 0 1 (2-1)
88 2 (4.3) 2 (4.3) 90 3 (6.4) 4 (8.5)
89 2 (4.3) 2 (4.3) 92 10(21.3) 18 (38.3)
90 7(14.9) 4 (8.5) 94 9(19.2) 11 (23.4)
92 8(17) 24(51.1)
Total 47(100) 47 (100)
93 2 (4.3) 0
Total 47 (100) 47 (100)
Note: The electoral year is a lawmaker elected for the first term.
Gender, party, ideology, marital status and incumbency are used to examine the
differences in lawmakers’ policy agendas during the 103rd and 104th sessions of the
House of Representatives. Correlation Analysis, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and
Regression Analysis are employed to explore the differences in policy priorities between
congressmen and congresswomen in the quantitative research.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Influential Elements in Lawmakers’ Policy Preferences
In the 103rd House, ninety-four lawmakers sponsored 538 bills and cosponsored
26,087 bills; the same number of lawmakers in the 104th House sponsored 1,409 bills and
cosponsored 16,027 bills. For the purposes of the current analysis, sponsorships and
cosponsorships of bills in both the 103rd and 104th Congresses are grouped as
healthcare/welfare, family/children, housing, education, crime prevention,
military/foreign and economic policies. Regression analysis is used to examine the
factors that determine lawmakers’ policy preferences.
When regression analysis is employed, the small number of cases may influence
finding the real determinants which affect lawmakers’ sponsorship and cosponsorship in
the 103rd and 104th Houses. Therefore, consistent with feminist standpoint theory, the
aforementioned policies, including healthcare/welfare, family/children and education
policies, are categorized as women’s issues, while housing, foreign/military, and crime
prevention policies are categorized as men’s issues. The dependent variables are men’s
issues, women’s issues and economic issues. The independent variables are gender,
party, ideology, marital status and incumbency.
1) Men’s Issues
The main objective is to explore the important determinant in women’s issues and
men’s issues for lawmakers’ policy decision-making. As indicated in Table 3.11 and
Table 3.12, when policies are related to men’s issues, lawmakers are not affected by
gender, party or marital status in making decisions to propose policy. The coefficients
are not significant for sponsorship or cosponsorship of men’s issues. Therefore, there are
no significant differences between female lawmakers and male lawmakers, Democrats
and Republicans, or married and unmarried lawmakers in introducing men’s issues.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.11 Men’s Issues and Women’s Issues by Regression in The 103r d and 104th Houses
(Sponsorships)
Men’ s Issues Women's Issues
Term 103rd House 104th House 103rd House | 104th House
Coeffi
cient* Sig.
Coeffi
cient* Sig.
Coeffi
cient* Sig. I
Coeffi
cient* Sig.
Constant 3.60 .00 5.19 .09 5.71 .0 0 1 6.89 .30
Gender .58 .15 .73 .77 .92 .01** .86 .00**
Party .70 .09 1.32 .61 .91
• 5I
1.35 .27
Ideology .01 .02* .00 .75 .01 .02* .01 .19
Marital
Status .51 .61 .58 .91 .70 .03 .76 .52
Electoral
Year* .04 .01** .06 .18 .06 .00**j .08 .39
Note: ♦ Entries are Unstandardized Regression Coefficients.
• The electoral year is coded as the year in which a lawmaker was elected for the first time.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.12 Men’s Issues and Women’s Issues by Regression in The 103r d and
______________ 104t h Houses (Cosponsorships)______________________________
Men's Issues Women's Issues
Term 103r d House 104th House 103rd House 104th House
Coeffi
cient* Sig.
Coeffi
cient* Sig.
Coeffi
cient* Sig.
Coeffi
cient* Sig.
Constant 22.60 .47 20.63 .66 48.90 .54 40.74 .75
Gender 3.51 .48 2.82 .41 7.60 .00** 5.49 .00**
Party 3.87 .21 4.39 .51 8.37 .90 8.67 .55
Ideology .03 .23 .03 .49 .06 .23 .06 .17
Marital
Status 3.04 .11 2.30 .41 6.57 .38 4.55 .34
Electoral
Year* .25 .75 .23 .49 .54 .84 .45 .13
Note: ♦ Entries are Unstandardized Regression Coefficients.
• The electoral year is coded as the year in which a lawmaker was elected for the first time.
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Men’s issues consist of housing, crime prevention policies and foreign/military
policies. Based on feminist standpoint theory, the aforementioned policies are
categorized as conservative policies related to social safety and national security.
Supposedly, conservative lawmakers and liberal lawmakers support men’s issues
differently. Ideology, however, shows potential influence on the favor of men’s issues.
The coefficient is significant in the 103rd House. There are significant differences
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
between liberal lawmakers and conservative lawmakers when introducing bills of men’s
issues. (See Table 3.11 and Table 3.12)
2) Women’s Issues
The year 1992 was an important electoral year for congresswomen. Following
the 1992 elections, the numbers of congresswomen in the House increased from 27 to 48.
(See Appendix) Therefore, the coefficient of the electoral year in the 103rd House is
significant. (See Table 3.11) 1992 was called “The Year of Women.” The number of
congresswomen in the 104th House remains stable. Therefore, the coefficient of the
electoral year does not show any significance in the 104th House.
Women’s issues consist of healthcare/welfare, family/children, and education
policies. Based on feminist standpoint theory, the aforementioned policies are
categorized as liberal policies related to the demands and interests of women, children
and the minority. Supposedly, there is a gender gap between male lawmakers and female
on legislation related to women’s issues. Likewise, liberal lawmakers and conservative
lawmakers support women’s issues differently.
As Table 3.11 and Table 3.12 demonstrate, when policies were related to
women’s issues, the element of ‘gender’ showed a strong influence in lawmakers’
sponsorship and cosponsorship. The coefficients are significant in the 103rd and 104th
Houses. Therefore, congressmen and congresswomen may make different decisions
when policy issues are related to women’s issues.
Ideology, however, shows potential influence on the favor of women’s issues.
The coefficient is significant in the 103rd House. There are significant differences
between liberal lawmakers and conservative lawmakers when introducing bills of
women’s issues. (See Table 3.11 and Table 3.12)
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Although women are the minority in the House, they show significantly stronger
support than men for women’s issues. Arturo Vega and Juanita Firestone (1995) studied
female legislators’ voting patterns. Their findings suggest that “congressional women
display distinctive legislative behavior that portends a greater representation of women
and women’s issues.” 1 2 Congresswomen do act differently from congressmen in
introducing bills related to women’s demands. As the results of the regression analysis
show, female legislators are less affected by party and martial status when policies are
related to women’s issues. As predicted by feminist standpoint theory, gender and
ideology are the influential elements in lawmakers’ policy decision-making when issues
are related to women.
3) Economic Issues
As feminist standpoint theory states, women as well as men participate in the
workplace and earn money to support the family. The similarities in men’s and women’s
participation in the job force are bome out in the analysis of economic issues.
Congresswomen do not differ from congressmen in supporting economic issues. Table
3.13 shows gender to be an insignificant element in supporting economic policies in the
103rd and 104th Houses. A gender gap does not appear in decision-making on economic
issues.
1 2 Arturo Vega and Juanita M. Firestone, “The Effects of Gender on congressional Behavior and the
Substantive Representation of Women,” Legislative Studies Quarterly, XX, 2, May 1995, p.213.
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.13 Economic Issues by Regression in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sponsorship Cosponsorship
Term 103r d House 104th House 103rd House 104th House
Coeffi
cient ♦
Sig. Coeffi
cient*
Sig. Coeffi
cient*
Sig. Coeffi
cient*
Sig.
Constant 5.45 .00 6.80 .00 15.07 .98 11.42 .82
Gender .84 .65 .82 .39 2.34 .16 1.55 .71
Party .98 .05* 1.45 .24 2.58 .03* 2.45 .68
Ideology
Marital
.01 .08 .01 .74 .02 .16 .02 .28
Status
Electoral
.68 .86 .76 .45 2.03 .14 1.28 .86
Year*
.06 .00** .07 .00** .17 .21 .13 .19
Note: ♦ Entries are Unstandardized Regression Coefficients.
• The electoral year is coded as the year in which a lawmaker was elected for the first time.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
As the results of Table 3.13 indicate, the coefficients of party are significant in the
103rd House. Party is an influential element in explaining lawmakers’ policy preferences
related to economic issues. There are differences between Democratic lawmakers and
Republican lawmakers in legislation related to economic issues. But in the 104th House,
party is an insignificant element influencing lawmakers’ policy preferences. The possible
explanation is that the Republic Party controlled the 104th House. They are likely to
support their partisan platforms. Democratic lawmakers do not willingly support the
Republican economic programs. However, ideology and marital status are not the
significant element in economic issues. The coefficients are not significant in both the
103rd and 104th Houses.
A closer examination of separate issues indicates that gender, party and ideology
show a significant relationship with different issues in the 103rd and 104th Congresses.
To highlight these differences, analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to examine the
differences in lawmakers’ policy preferences on healthcare/welfare, family/children,
education, economics, education, crime prevention and foreign/military affairs. Since the
7 7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
element of marital status does not show to be a significant measure in either Congress, it
has been dropped from the individual policy analysis.
Lawmakers and Policy Preferences
Representatives are policymakers in the House of Representatives. When making
policy decisions in legislation, they must consider public demands and concerns from
their constituents and organized groups, and provide legislative solutions.1 3 Their
decisions are also influenced by their experiences and socialization based on their gender.
Hence, lawmakers may express different support for different policies.
1. Healthcare and Welfare Policies
Policies such as women’s breast cancer, rural health care, medicare hospital
amendments, and medicare and welfare reforms are categorized as healthcare/welfare
policies. The total number of healthcare/welfare sponsored policies in the sample was 65
in the 103rd House and 58 in the 104th House. The total number of sampled cosponsored
bills was 94 in the 103rd House and 92 in the 104th House.
As Table 3.14 indicates, female lawmakers (an average of 3.36 policies) sponsor
healthcare/welfare policies more than their male counterparts (an average of 2.09
policies) in the 103rd House. In the 104th House, female lawmakers sponsored an average
of 3.43 healthcare/welfare policies, while male lawmakers only sponsored an average of
1.52 healthcare/welfare policies.
1 3 Roger H. Davidson and Walter J. Oleszek (1994), Congress and Its Members (Washington D. C.:
Congressional Quarterly Press), 4th , p.386.
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.14 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies
by Gender in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
| Sponsorships Cosponsorships
| Male(N) Female (N) Male (N) Female (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1 2.06 (32) 3.36 (33) 22.13 (47) 38.94 (47)
104t h
1995-1996
1.52(21) 3.43 (37) 21.07(46) 26.07 (46)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = cases introduced by lawmakers.
Table 3.15 Significance between Healthcare/Welfare Policies and
____________Gender in the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect F Sig.
Main
Effect F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
29.64 9.51 .01** 6639.36 32.86 .00**
104t h
1995-1996
48.80 13.64 .00** 575.00 9.27 .00**
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
According to lawmakers’ cosponsorship by gender, female lawmakers (38.94)
cosponsor healthcare/welfare policies more than their male counterparts (22.13) did in the
103rd House. In the 104th House, female lawmakers cosponsored am average of 26.07
healthcare/welfare policies compared to male lawmakers with an average of 21.07
healthcare/welfare policies. (See Table 3.14) As analysis of variance (ANOVA) results
presented in Table 3.15 reveal, gender has a large and significant effect on sponsorship
and cosponsorship of healthcare/welfare policies in the 103rd and 104th Houses (pc.Ol).
In other words, female lawmakers are the strongest supporters in healthcare/welfare
policies. They would be more likely to introduce healthcare/welfare policies into
legislation than their male counterparts.
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.16 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies
by Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
103r d
1993-1994
3.00 (42) 2.19(27) 32.25 (56) 26.53 (38)
104t h
1995-1996
3.06 (32) 2.35 (26) 25.16(45) 22.04 (47)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = cases introduced by lawmakers.
Table 3.17 Significance between Healthcare/Welfare
Policies and Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
10.91 3.23 .08 1023.43 3.89 .06
104th
1995-1996
7.36 1.71 .20 22.78 3.38 .07
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Partisanship does not significantly influence the proposing of healthcare and
welfare legislation. Although Democratic lawmakers sponsor and cosponsor policies
related to healthcare/welfare policies more frequently than Republican lawmakers, the
differences are not statistically significant. (See Table 3.16 and Table 3.17) In the 104th
House, the Republican Party was the majority party, but they did not show stronger
support than the Democratic Party on legislation related to healthcare and welfare issues.
However, when gender and party are considered together, gender predominates.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.18 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by
Gender with Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sponsorships
Gender 103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 2.31 (16) 1.85 (20) 1.71 (7) 1.43(14)
Female 3.42 (26) 3-14(7) 3.44 (25) 3.42(12)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers.
Table 3.19 Significance among Healthcare/Welfare Policies, Gender
_______________andParty in the 103rdand M4^Houses(Sponsorships)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square 1 F
| Sig. Mean
Square
1 F
Sig.
Gender 20.77 6.58 .01** 41.62 11.24 .00**
Party 2.22 .20 .41 .18 .05 .83
2-way
Interaction .11 .04 .85 .20 .06 .82
Note: Significance of mean square and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.20 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by Gender with
_______________Party in the 103r d and 104t h Houses____________________
Gender
Cosponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 22.24(21) 22.04 (26) 21.38(16) 20.90 (30)
Female 39.36 (35) 36.25(12) 27.24 (29) 24.06 (17)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers.
Table 3.21 Significance among Healthcare/Welfare Policies, Gender,
_______________and Party in the 103r d and 1041 1 1 Houses (Cosponsorship)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square j
F | Sig. Mean
Square J
F Sig.
Gender 5764.02 27.67 .00** 424.37 6.82 .01**
Party 58.09 .28 .60 72.15 1.16 .28
2-way
Interaction 58.65 .29 .59 33.76) .62 .43
Note: Significance of mean square and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Gender differences in parties are apparent in both the 103rd and 104th Houses. As
Table 3.18 and Table 3.20 show, female Democratic and Republican lawmakers are more
likely than their male counterparts to sponsor and cosponsor healthcare/welfare policies.
For instance, in the 104th House, more female Democratic lawmakers (27.24) and female
Republican lawmakers (24.06) cosponsored healthcare/welfare policies than did their
male Democrat (21.38) and male Republican (20.90) counterparts. There are not big
differences between male Democrats and male Republicans in introducing policies
related to healthcare and welfare. Female Democratic lawmakers are consistently the
strongest supporters for health and welfare policies among the four groups.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) results presented in Table 3.19 and Table 3.21
show gender to be a significant element and party an insignificant factor in examining
lawmakers’ policy preferences. The interaction between gender and party is not
significant, since the two variables do not jointly affect lawmakers’ sponsorship and
cosponsorship of legislation related to healthcare/welfare issues. Therefore, gender is the
most significant factor influencing lawmakers’ policy agendas.
Table 3.22 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by
______________ Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Session
Sponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
3.50 (28) 1.83 (18) 2.58 (12)
104“ '
1995-1996
2.93 (29) 1.57(14) 2.67 (6)
Session
Cosponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
37.31 (35) 24.17 (24) 28.19(16)
104t h
1995-1996
26.26 (34) 21.97 (31) 22.08 (12)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.23 Significance between Healthcare/Welfare Policies
and Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
15.55 4.64 .01** 1320.38 5.21 .01**
104t h
1995-1996
8.81 3.48 .04* 172.72 2.95 .05*
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
In terms of lawmakers’ sponsorship and cosponsorship by ideology, liberal
lawmakers are more likely than conservative lawmakers to introduce healthcare/welfare
policies. (See Table 3.22) For instance, in the 104th House, liberal lawmakers cosponsor
an average of 26.26 healthcare/welfare policies; while conservative lawmakers sponsor
21.97 policies. Likewise, moderate legislators introduce healthcare and welfare policies
more frequently than conservative lawmakers. Ideology is a significant effect on
sponsorship and cosponsorship in the 104th House. (See Table 3.23) However, ideology
is an influential element affecting policy preferences.
Examining the interaction between gender and ideology reinforces the importance
of gender differences in ideology which are apparent in the 103rd and 104th Houses.
Women are more liberal than men. As the results presented in Table 3.24 and Table 3.26,
liberal female, conservative female lawmakers and moderate female lawmakers are more
likely to sponsor and cosponsor healthcare/welfare policies than liberal male,
conservative male lawmakers and moderate male lawmakers. Liberal congressmen are
more likely than conservative congressmen to sponsor or cosponsor healthcare/welfare
policies. Arrayed along a continuum, liberal female lawmakers are the strongest
supporters of healthcare and welfare policies.
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.24 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by Gender
Session
103r d House
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 2.20 (5) 1.80(15) 2.00 (8)
Female 3.78 (23) 2.00 (3) 3.75 (4)
Session
104“ * House
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 1.33 (6) 1.22(9) 2.00 (2)
Female 3.35 (23) 2.20 (5) 3.00 (4)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers.
Table 3.25 Significance among Healthcare/Welfare Policy, Gender
and Ideology in the 103r d and 104t h Houses (Sponsorships)
Variables
103rd House 104th House
Mean
Square
F Sig. Mean
Square
F Sig.
Gender 14.68 4.60 .04* 21.25 9.84 .00**
Ideology 2.66 .83 .44 2.00 .93 .40
2-way
Interaction 1.94 .61 .55 1.23 .57 .57
Note: Significance of mean square and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.26 Differences in Healthcare/Welfare Policies by Gender
______________ with Ideology in the 103r d and 104t h Houses (Cosponsorship)
Session
103r d House
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 28.43 (7) 19.67 (18) 22.30 (10)
Female 39.54 (28) 37.67 (6) 38(6)
Session
104“ House
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 24.56 (9) 20.41 (22) 19.63 (8)
Female 26.88 (25) 25.78 (9) 26.50 (4)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = cases introduced by lawmakers.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.27 Significance among Healthcare/Welfare Policies, Gender
and Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorships)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square 1 F
| Sig. Mean 1
Square I
F 1 Sig.
Gender 2948.33 13.40 .00** 306.80 5.50 .02*
Ideology 143.38 .65 .52 42.74 .77 .47
2-way
Interaction 62.44 .28 .75 29.05 .52 .60
Note: Significance of mean square and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
ANOVA results presented in Table 3.25 and Table 3.27 indicate gender as a
significant factor and ideology as an insignificant factor in lawmakers’ policy
preferences. The presence of interaction between gender and ideology is not significant,
since the two variables do not jointly affect lawmakers’ sponsorship and cosponsorship
related to healthcare/welfare issues. Therefore, gender has the primary effect on deciding
policy agendas related to healthcare/welfare policies.
In generalizing the results which support the hypotheses, the presence of gender
differences are apparent in exploring lawmakers’ policy decisions related to
healthcare/welfare issues. Female lawmakers are more likely to support policies related
to health and welfare than their male counterparts.
2. Family and Child Policies
Family/child policies include adoptive family regulations, family protection, and
childcare and support. The total number of sponsorships of family/child policies is 29 in
the sample for the 103rd House and 43 in the 104th House sample. The total
cosponsorships in the sample are 94 in the 103rd House and 92 in the 104th House.
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.28 Differences in Family/Child Policies by
____________ Gender in the 103r d and 104* Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Male (N) Female(N) Male (N) Female (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.43 (7) 3.86 (22) 17.68 (47) 35.60 (47)
104t h
1995-1996
1.73(11) 3.28 (32) 11.57(46) 17.04 (46)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in the 103r d and 104t h House.
Table 3.29 Significance between Family/Child Policies and Gender
________ in the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
31.49 5.37 .03* 7542.17 58.58 .00**
104t h
1995-1996
19.77 4.54 .04* 690.26 17.68 .00**
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; **p <.01.
The gender differences of lawmakers’ policy preferences, regarding family and
child issues, are considerable between the 103rd House and the 104th House. In
examining the statistical results of sponsorship and cosponsorship presented in Table 3.28
and Table 3.29, gender shows a strong statistical significance related to lawmakers’
policy preferences (p<.05). In the 103rd House, male lawmakers (an average of 1.43
policies) are far less likely than female lawmakers (an average of 3.86 policies) to
sponsor family and child policies. The findings are even more striking for
cosponsorships. Female lawmakers cosponsor an average of 35.60 family/children
policies, compared to male lawmakers who cosponsor an average of only 17.68 policies.
(See Table 3.28) Gender clearly differentiates effect those who sponsor and cosponsor
family/child issues from those who do not.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.30 Differences in Family/Child Policies by Party in
_________ the 103r d and 104th Houses ___
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
103r d
1993-1994
3.67(18) 2.64(11) 30.14(56) 21.47(38)
104t h
1995-1996
3.19 (26) 2.41 (17) 15.66 (44) 13.06 (48)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in the 103r d and 104t h Houses.
Table 3.31 Significance between Family/Child Policies and Party
in the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
7.25 1.07 .31 1701.37 8.85 .01**
104t h
1995-1996
6.26 1.34 .25 154.78 3.44 .07
Note: Significance of main effect and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01
As the results of family/children policies by party presented in Table 3.30 show,
Democratic lawmakers are more likely than Republican lawmakers to sponsor and
cosponsor policies related to family and children issues. In the 103rd House, Democrats
sponsored an average of 3.67 family/children policies compared to Republicans with an
average of 2.64 policies. However, the number of sponsored bills is low and these
partisan differences are not statistically significant. The cosponsorships are much greater
in number and party differences become most apparent. In the 103rd House, Democratic
lawmakers cosponsored an average of 30.14 policies; whereas Republicans cosponsored
an average of 21.47 policies. The relationship between party and family/child issues is
significant in the 103rd House, but not significant in the 104th House. The close
explanation is that Democratic lawmakers are likely to support the demands of family
and child than do Republican lawmakers. In the 103rd House, the Democratic Party was
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the majority. But they lost the 1994 election to the Republican Party. Therefore, they
could not consistently show their concerns about family/child issues.
Table 3.32 Differences in Family/Child Policies by Gender
with Party in The 103r d and 104th Houses (Sponsorship)
Gender
Sponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 1.33 (3) 1.50 (4) 2.00 (5) 1.50 (3)
Female 4.13 (15) 3.29 (7) 3.48 (21) 2.91 (11)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in the 103rd and 104th Houses.
Table 3.33 Significance among Family/Child Policies, Gender, and
Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Sponsorship)_____
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
F Sig. Mean
Square 1 F
Sig.
Gender 26.42 4.27 .05* 16.50 3.66 .06
Party 2.18 .35 .56 2.99 .67 .42
2-way
Interaction 1.30 .21 .65 8.91E-03 .00 .97
Note: Significance of mean square and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Undoubtedly, Democratic lawmakers are concerned with family and children
much more in term of sponsorship and cosponsorship of legislation than Republicans.
ANOVA results reveal a significant effect of party on cosponsorship of family/children
policies in the 103rd House. (p<.01) In other words, party differences appear on
cosponsorship of family/children policies. (See Table 3.31)
Table 3.34 Differences in Family/Child Policies by Gender
with Party in The 103r d and 104t h Houses
Gender
Cosponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 18.76 (21) 16.81 (26) 9.80(15) 12.42 (30)
Female 36.97 (35) 31.58 (12) 18.69 (29) 14.24 (17)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in the 103rd and 104th Houses.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.35 Significance among Family/Child Policies, Gender and
Par^ in jh e jjy d jmd^04th Houses (Cosponsorships)
103rd House 104t h House
Variables Mean
Square
F Sig. Mean
Square
F | Sig.
Gender 6526.75 48.85 .00** 557.19 15.18 .00**
Party 221.47 1.66 .20 21.71 .59 .44
2-way
Interaction 121.92 .91 .34 260.30 7.09 .10
Note: Significance of mean square and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Analyzing the interaction between gender and parties on sponsorship and
cosponsorship reinforces the importance of gender. Female Democrats and female
Republicans are more likely than their male counterparts to support family and children
policies. More important, female Democratic lawmakers are the strongest supporters in
introducing family and children policies. For instance, in the 103rd House, female
Democratic lawmakers cosponsored an average of 36.97 policies; while male Democrats
supported an average of 18.76 policies, and male Republicans an average of 16.81
policies. (See Table 3.34) Table 3.35 indicated gender influencing lawmakers’ policy
decision on cosponsorship related to family and child in the 103rd House. The close
explanation is that the number of female Democrats decreased five members from the
103rd House to the 104th House. Female Republicans were not as supportive as female
Democrats on family and child issues. Thus, there was no significant effect of gender on
cosponsorship in the 104th House. (See Table 3.35)
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.36 Differences in Family/Child Policies by Ideology
_______________ in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Session
Sponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
4.35 (17) 1 .0 0 (1 ) 2.20 (5)
104t h
1995-1996
3.32 (22) 2.56 (9) 2.80 (5)
Session
Cosponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N )
103r d
1993-1994
33.63 (35) 19.83 (24) 25.19(16)
104th
1995-1996
17.09 (34) 13.38 (32) 10.67(12)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in the 103rd and 104th Houses.
Table 3.37 Significance between Family/Child Policies and
______________ Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses________
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
12.88 1.88 .18 1405.12 7.97 .00**
104th
1995-1996
2.05 .38 .68 222.07 5.12 .00**
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Further, ANOVA results presented in Table 3.33 and Table 3.35 indicate gender
only as a significant element on sponsorship of family/child policies in the 103rd House.
There are not significant effect of party in examining lawmakers’ policy preferences
concerning sponsorship and cosponsorship of family/children policies in both the 103rd
and 104th Houses (p>.05). The presence of interaction between gender and party is not
significant, since the two variables do not jointly affect lawmakers’ sponsorship and
cosponsorship related to family/child issues. Therefore, gender and party do not jointly
affect lawmakers’ policy preferences related to family/child policies.
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.38 Differences in Family/Child Policies by Gender
Session
103r d House
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 1.20 (2) 1.00(15) 2.00 (8)
Female 4.56(16) 0 2.33 (3)
Session
104th House
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 1.80 (5) 1.33 (3) 2.00 (2)
Female 3.76 (17) 3.17(6) 3.33 (3)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.39 Significance among Family/Child Policies, Gender and
_______________Ideology in the 103r d and 104t h Houses (Sponsorships)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean 1
Square |
F Sig. Mean
Square
F Sig.
Gender 6.58 .95 .34 23.40 4.62 .04*
Ideology 4.03 .58 .57 1.03 .20 .82
2-way
Interaction 5.50 .80 .38 .18 .04 .97
Note: Significance of mean square and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Concerning fam ily and children policies by ideology, liberal lawmakers more
frequently support legislation concerning family and child issues than do conservative
lawmakers. As Table 3.36 indicates, in the 103rd House, while liberal lawmakers
cosponsored an average of 33.63 policies, conservative lawmakers supported legislation
at an average of 19.83 policies. Likewise, moderate lawmakers cosponsored an average
of 25.19 family/child policies. Liberal lawmakers cosponsored policies related to family
and children more than their conservative and moderate counterparts. (See Table 3.36)
Table 3.37 indicated a significant effect of ideology on cosponsorship of family/child
issues. However, the number of sponsored bills is low and these ideological differences
are not statistically significant. The cosponsorships are much greater in number and
ideological differences become more apparent.
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.40 Differences in Family/Child Policies by Gender
^ ____ with Ideology In the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
Session
103rt House |
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N) 1
Male 19.43 (7) 15.67(18) 20.40 (10)1
Female 37.18 (28) 32.33 (6) 33.17(6)1
Session
104th House |
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N) |
Male 11.56 (9) 12.30(23) 9.38 (8)1
Female 19.08 (25) 16.11 (9) 13.25 (4)|
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.41 Significance among Family/Child Policies, Gender and
Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorships)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
F
| Sig. Mean
Square
1 F
Sig.
Gender 3567.23 27.14 .00** 455.97 11.96 .00**
Ideology 138.28 1.05 .36 73.92 1.94 .15
2-way
Interaction 29.16 .22 .80 26.24 .69 .51
Note: Significance of mean square and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Looking at the interaction of gender and ideology on family/child policies, female
lawmakers, liberal, conservative and moderate, are more supportive than male
lawmakers, liberal, conservative and moderate. More important, female liberal
lawmakers are consistently stronger supporters in cosponsoring policies related to family
and children. (See Table 3.38 and Table 3.40) However, the possible explanation is that
Republican congresswomen are more liberal than Republican congressmen on supporting
family/child issues. The number of Republican congresswomen increased five seats from
103rd House to 104th House. Thus, there was a significant effect of gender on
sponsorship related to family/child issues.
ANOVA results presented in Table 3.39 and Table 3.41 indicate that there are no
significant effects for gender and ideology on sponsorship of family and children policies
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in the 103rd House. Conversely, gender and ideology significantly affect lawmakers’
policy cosponsorship in both Congresses. The presence of interaction between gender
and ideology is not significant, since the two variables do not jointly affect lawmakers’
sponsorship and cosponsorship related to family/child issues. However, gender and
ideology are separately considered to have significant effects on lawmakers’ policy
decisions related to children/family policies.
In generalizing the ANOVA results, gender proves to be a significant effect on
sponsorship and cosponsorship related to family/children issues. Hence, female
lawmakers are more active than male lawmakers in proposing family/children policies as
well as healthcare/welfare reforms. As feminist standpoint theory predicts, women
assumed responsibilities of childcare and family. Therefore, female lawmakers are likely
to support family/child issues more frequently than their male lawmakers.
3. Education Policies
Education policies consist of elementary and secondary education programs,
training for jobs, school lunch programs as well as other education programs. For each
sample, the total number of education policies sponsored was 33 in the 103rd House and
16 in the 104th House. Ninety education policies were cosponsored in the 103rd House
and 89 in the 104th House.
According to the results presented in Table 3.43, gender is not a significant main
effect on examining lawmakers policy preferences related to education policies. A
gender gap is not large on sponsorship and cosponsorship related to education policies in
both the 103rd and 104th Houses. (See Table 3.42)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.42 Differences in Education Policies by
_______________ Gender in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Male (N) Female (N) Male (N) Female (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.23 (13) 1.46 (22) 5.84 (44) 6.72 (46)
104th
1995-1996
1.00(4) 1.22(9) 3.65 (46) 4.02 (43)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.43 Significance between Education Policies and Gender in
__________ the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
4.37 1.07 .31 17.28 1.59 .21
104th
1995-1996
1.81E-02 .09 .77 3.06 .60 .44
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Table 3.44 Differences in Education Policies by Party
in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.32(25) 1.50(12) 6.29 (55) 6.39 (35)
104t h
1995-1996
1.11(9) 1.33 (6) 3.49 (45) 4.18(44)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3. 45 Significance between Education Policies and
_______________Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
.26 .64 .43 5.77E-04 .00 .99
104th
1995-1996
.18 1.04 .33 10.68 2.12 .15
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
As Table 3.44 indicates, there are not large partisan differences on sponsorship
and cosponsorship. Republican lawmakers support educational programs only slightly
more than Democratic lawmakers in both the 103rd and the 104th Houses. Likewise,
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
there are insignificant main effects between party and sponsorship or cosponsorship in
the 103rd and 104th Houses. Therefore, the element of party does not show a crucial
influence on lawmakers’ policy preferences.
Table 3.46 Differences in Education Policies by Gender with Party in
the 103r d and 104th Houses ______
Sponsorships
Gender 103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 1.00(4) 1.33 (9) 1.00(1) 1-25 (4)
Female 1.38 (21) 2.00 (3) I .13 (8) 1.67 (3)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.47 Significance among Education Policies, Gender and Party
_______________in the 103r d and 104t h Houses (Sponsorships)
103r d House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
F Sig. Mean
Square 1 F
Sig.
Gender 1.38 3.51 .07 .26 1.37 .26
Party 1.20 3.07 .09 .64 3.35 .09
2-way
Interaction .11 .28 .60 50E-02 .26 .62
Note: Significance of mean square and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.48 Differences in Education Policies by Gender with Party in
the 103r d and 104t h Houses ________________
Gender
»
Cosponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 5.62 (21) 6.04 (23) 2.94(16) 4.03 (30)
Female 6.71 (35) 6.75 (12) 3.79 (29) 4.50(14)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.49 Significance among Education Policies, Gender and Party
in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)__________
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean 1
Square |
F Sig. Mean 1
Square |
F | Sig.
Gender 18.56 1.67 .20 8.88 1762 .!9
Party 1.29 .12 .74 16.50 3275 .07
2-way
Interaction .71 .06 .80 .75 .15 .70
Note: Significance of mean square and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Further, with gender by party, gender differences in parties are small. In the 103rd
House, Republican congressmen (1.33) were slightly less likely to sponsor education
policies than Republican congresswomen (2.00). (See Table 3.46) Among Democrats
gender differences are smaller than among Republicans. For instance, in the 104th House,
male Republicans sponsored an average of 1.25 education policies, while female
Republicans sponsored an average of 1.67 policies. On the other hand, male Democrats
sponsored an average of 1.00 education policies compared to female Democrats with an
average of 1.13 policies. (See Table 3.46) Noticeably, female lawmakers in both parties
were more supportive than their male counterparts on education policies.
Looking at the interaction of gender and party on education policies, there are not
significant main effects of gender and party on sponsorship and cosponsorship of
education policies. (Table 3.47 and Table 3.49) The interaction between gender and
party is also not significant, since the two variables do not jointly affect lawmakers’
sponsorship and cosponsorship related to education issues. Gender and party do not
appear to have strong effects on lawmakers’ policy preferences related to education.
In examining ideology with education policies, ideological differences do not
clearly appear on sponsorship and cosponsorship related to education. As Table 3.50
indicates, liberal lawmakers sponsored an average of 1.14 education policies compared to
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
conservative lawmakers with an average of 1.60 policies in the 104th House. Likewise,
moderate lawmakers only sponsored an average of 1.00 education policy. The statistical
results do not show significant main effects of ideology on sponsorship and
cosponsorship of education issues in either the 103rd or 104th Houses (p>.05). (See Table
3.51)
Table 3.50 Differences in Education Policies by Ideology
In the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Session
Sponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.40 (20) 1.56(9) 1.00 (3)
104t h
1995-1996
1.14(7) 1.60(5) 1.00(2)
Session
Cosponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
5.71 (34) 6.50 (22) 5.00(16)
104t h
1995-1996
3.91 (32) 4.06 (31) 3.50(12)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.51 Significance between Education Policies and
Ideology in the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
.35 .78 .47 12.72 1.18 .32
104t h
1995-1996
.40 2.14 .16 1.38 .26 .77
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.52 Differences In Education Policies by Gender with
u ■ r _ i t t m r d a i n t t h r i _________/ p ____________
Session
103r d House
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 1.00 (7) 1_50 (18) 1.00(2)
Female 1.44(18) 1.67 (3) 1.00(1)
Session
104°* House
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 1.00(1) 1.33 (3) 0
Female 1.17(6) 2.00 (2) 1.00 (2)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.53 Significance among Education Policy, Gender and Ideology
in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Sponsorships)_____________
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean 1
Square j
F Sig. Mean
Square
F | Sig.
Gender .29 .59 .45 .43 2.59 1.42
Ideology .4! .85 .44 .61 2.68 .07
2-way
Interaction 6.18E-02| .13 .88 .13 .75 .41
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Looking at the interaction of gender and ideology on education, gender and
ideology do not separately appear significant effects on sponsorship and cosponsorship
related to education. (See Table 3.53 and Table 3.55) Likewise, the interaction between
gender and ideology is not significant, since the two variables do not jointly affect
lawmakers’ sponsorship and cosponsorship related to education programs.
Table 3. 54 Differences in Education Policies by Gender
______________ with Ideology in the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Session
103r d House
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 5.71 (7) 5.75 (16) 6.20(10)
Female 5.70 (28) 8.50 (6) 8.83 (6)
Session
104th House
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 3.78 (9) 3.86 (22) 3.50 (8)
Female 3.96 (25) 4.56 (9) 3.50 (4)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.55 Significance among Education Policies, Gender and
_______________ Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorships)
I03rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
F Sig. Mean
Square
F p Sig.
Gender 34.81 3.34 .07 2.00 1.36 .55
Ideology 25.28 2.43 .10 1.61 .29 .75
2-way
Interaction 12.10 1.16 .32 .63 .11 .89
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
In fact, gender, party, and ideology are not strongly significantly related to
education policies in sponsorship or cosponsorship. The reason may be that education
policy is not a main federal issue. Rep. Jose E. Serrano, New York-D, mentioned that
education policy was a state issue. He would be willing to explore this issue in Congress,
but he was not sure that federal lawmakers and administrators would be willing to
support this issue.1 4 Meanwhile, as Jill Zuckman reported, “Republican members said
they would prefer to leave the issue to the state, ‘we have to be careful how much we
dictate and mandate programs that are state and locally financed,” said Bill Goodlings,
Kansas-R, the ranking minority member of the Education and Labor Committee.”1 5
Members of the House would prefer to focus on other issues rather than education in
legislation.
However, compared to the number of healthcare/welfare and economic issues
sponsored, the number of education issues is low in the 103rd and the 104th Houses. The
average of healthcare/welfare issues sponsored is three policies. But the average of
education issues proposed is 1.50 in both Congresses. Thus, education policy is not
noted by lawmakers.
1 4 Jill Zuckman, “The Next Education Crisis: Equalizing School Funds,” Congressional Quarterly, March
27, 1993, p.754.
1 5 Jill Zuckman, p.754.
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. Housing Policies
Housing policies include housing and community development plans, multifamily
rental housing loan programs, housing and urban rural recovery programs, housing
program for seniors. For each sample, the total number of housing policies sponsored
was 26 in the 103rd House and 27 in the 104th House. The total number of housing
policies proposed was 77 in the 103rd House and 74 in the 104th House.
Table 3.56 Differences in Housing Policies by
Gender in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Male (N) Female (N) Male (N) Female (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.76(17) 1.44 (9) 2.31 (36) 2.05 (43)
104t h
1995-1996
1.50 (9) 1.50(18) 2.25 (36) 2.11 (38)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.57 Significance between Housing Policies and Gender
in the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
.60 1.28 .27 1.26 .79 .38
104t h
1995-1996
1.85E-02 .03 .88 3.80 .20 .66
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
As Table 3.57 indicates, gender does not have a significant effect on housing
policies in the 103rd and 104th Houses (p>.05). There are slight differences between
congresswomen and congressmen in sponsorship and cosponsorship related to housing
policies in the 103rd and 104th Houses. For instance, in the 103rd House, male lawmakers
cosponsored an average of 2.31 housing policies compared to female lawmakers with an
average of 2.05 policies. (See Table 3.56)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As the results by party presented in Table 3.58 indicate, partisan differences in
housing policy are small in both the 103rd and 104th Houses. Party does not have a
significant effect on sponsorship and cosponsorship of housing policies in the 103rd and
104th Houses. (See Table 3.59)
Table 3.58 Differences in Housing Policies by Party in
the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.57(14) 1.75(12) 2.14(43) 2.21 (34)
104t h
1995-1996
1.31 (13) 1.71 (14) 2.14(36) 2.21 (38)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3. 59 Significance between Housing Policies and
______________ Party in the 103r d and 104t h Houses______
Sponsorships Cos ponsorships
Sessions Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
.21 .42 .52 8.36E-02 .05 .82
104t h
1995-1996
1.11 1.58 .22 9.48E-02 .05 .83
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Looking at the interaction between gender and party on housing policies, gender
differences in party are not apparent. Likewise, gender and party do not have statistically
significant relationships related to sponsorship or cosponsorship of housing policies. The
interaction between gender and ideology is also not significant, since the two variables do
not jointly affect lawmakers’ sponsorship and cosponsorship related to education issues.
(See Table 3.61 and Table 3.63) Therefore, gender and party are not main effects in
examining lawmakers’ policy preferences related to housing policies.
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.60 Differences in Housing Policies by Gender with
Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Gender
Sponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 1-71(7) 1.80(10) 1-25(4) 1.80(5)
Female 1.43 (7) 1.50 (2) 1.33(9) 1.67 (9)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.61 Significance among Housing Policies, Gender and Party
in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Sponsorships)__________
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square 1 F
| Sig. Mean 1
Square |
F I Sig.
Gender .44 .85 .37 6.54E-03 .10 .24
Party 3.79E-02 .07 .79 1.10 1.45 .24
2-way
Interaction 2.30E-03 .00 .98 6.98E-02 .09 .77
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.62 Differences in Housing Policies by Gender with
_______________Party in the 103r d and 104t h Houses__________
Gender
Cosponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 2.15(13) 2.39 (23) 2.18(11) 2.28 (25)
Female 2.13 (30) 1.82(11) 2.12(25) 2.08 (13)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.63 Significance among Housing Policies, Gender and Party
______________ in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)________
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
1 F
| Sig. Mean
Square 1 F
Sig.
Gender 1.20 .74 .39 .30 .15 .70
Party 19.45E-02 .01 .91 8.99E-03 .00 .95
2-way
Interaction 1.25 .77 .38 8.05E-02 .04 .84
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
As Table 3.64 indicates, ideology differences are not apparent. Liberal
lawmakers and conservative lawmakers sponsored and cosponsored similarly related to
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
education policies in the 103rd and 104th Houses. The results presented in Table 3.65 do
not indicate significant main effects of ideology for sponsorship or cosponsorship of
housing policies. Perhaps, the number of proposed bills is low and these ideological
differences are not statistically significant.
Table 3.64 Differences in Housing Policies by Ideology
In the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Session
Sponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.60(5) 1.69(13) 1.40(5)
104th
1995-1996
1.40(10) 1.90(10) 1.33 (3)
Session
Cosponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
2.12(26) 2.60 (20) 1.81 (16)
104th
1995-1996
2.22 (27) 2.46 (24) 1.80(10)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.65 Significance between Housing Policies and
_______________Ideology in he 103r d and 104t h Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
.16 .60 .56 2.89 1.64 .20
104t h
1995-1996
.76 .95 .41 1.54 .77 .45
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* P < .05, ** p < .01.
The results of Table 3.66 indicate that gender differences in ideology are not
apparent on sponsorship and cosponsorship related to housing policies. Gender and
ideology do not have statistically significant relationships related to the sponsorship of
housing policies. Meanwhile, the interaction between gender and ideology is also not
significant, since the two variables do not jointly affect lawmakers’ sponsorship related to
housing issues. (See Table 3.67) The reasons may be that the number of bills related to
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
housing is too small to test the relationship between lawmakers’ policy preferences and
housing policy.
Table 3.66 Differences in Housing Policies by Gender with
______________ Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses
103r d House
Session Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 1.67 (3) 1.70(10) 1.50 (27)
Female 1.50(2) 1.67 (3) 1.33 (3)
104th House
Session Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 1.50 (2) 2.00 (3) 1.50(2)
Female 1.38 (8) 1.86(7) 1.00(1)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.67 Significance among Housing Policy, Gender and Ideology
______________ in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Sponsorships)___________
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square |
F Sig. Mean
Square 1 F
Sig.
Gender 4.83E-02 .16 .69 .16 .17 .68
Ideology .it .35 .71 .78 .84 .68
2-way
Interaction 1.05E-02 .04 .97 3.79E-02 .04 .96
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3. 68 Differences in Housing Policies by Gender with
______________ Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
103r d House
Session Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 2.25 (4) 2.64(14) 2.00(10)
Female 2.09 (20) 2.50 (6) 1.50 (6)
104t h House
Session Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 2.43 (7) 2.47 (17) 2.17(6)
Female 2.15(20) 2.43 (7) 1.25(4)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.69 Significance among Housing Policies, Gender and
Ideology in the 103rd and 104th Houses (Cosponsorships)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square 1 F
Sig. Mean
Square
F Sig.
Gender .80 .44 .51 1.18 .57 .45
Ideology 2.61 1.42 .25 1.43 .69 .50
2-way
Interaction .15 .08 .92 .62 .30 .74
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Looking the interaction between gender and ideology, gender differences in
ideology are not apparent on housing policies. (See Table 3.67) Gender and ideology do
not separately have significant effects influencing lawmakers’ policy preferences related
to housing policies. However, the two-way interaction between gender and ideology
does not present significance, since the two variables do not jointly affect lawmakers’
sponsorship related to housing issues. (See Table 3.69) The results reject the prediction
based on feminist standpoint theory—male lawmakers as the protectors and the
supporters of the families would be likely to support housing policies. In fact, male
lawmakers support housing policies slightly more than their female lawmakers.
5. Crime Prevention Policies
Based on feminist standpoint theory, men play traditional roles as the supporters
and the protectors for families and women as the caregivers for children and housework.
Supposedly, congressmen would be more likely to support crime prevention policy to
protect women or criminal victims. Crime prevention policy includes handgun and
violence control, drug prevention, rape and the protection of crime victims’ rights. For
each sample, the total number of crime prevention policies sponsored was 48 in the 103rd
House and 94 in the 104th House. The total number of crime prevention policies
cosponsored was 94 in the 103rd and 91 in the 104th House.
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.70 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies
by Gender in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Male (N) Female (N) Male (N) Female (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.61 (23) 1.84(25) 15.11 (47) 15.43 (47)
104t h
1995-1996
1.17 (47) 1.21 (47) 8.93 (45) 10.15(46)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.71 Significance between Crime Prevention Policies and
______ Gender in the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
.64 .56 .46 2.39 .07 .79
104th
1995-1996
4.26E-02 .03 .87 33.49 1.32 .25
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
As the results of Table 3.70 indicate, gender differences are apparent in the 103rd
and 104th Houses. In contract to the hypothesis, congresswomen are more supportive
than congressmen in favoring sponsorship or cosponsorship related to crime prevention
policies. For example, in the 104th House, the statistical results of cosponsorship display
larger differences of policy preferences related to crime prevention. In fact, however,
female lawmakers (with an average of 10.15 policies) are more supportive than male
lawmakers (with an average of 8.93 policies) in cosponsoring crime prevention policies.
However, the relationships between gender and sponsorship or cosponsorship of crime
prevention policies do not reach statistical significance (p>.05). (See Table 3.71)
Therefore, the hypothesis must be rejected. Male lawmakers do not support crime
prevention policies more often than female lawmakers.
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Jon Hurwitz and Shannon Smithey (1998) explain women’s support of crime
prevention issues in their research in which 501 adults were interviewed about crime
issues and punishment between June and July, 1994.
Controlling crime is one of the best ways to protect the vulnerable and prevent
victimization. Crime is also a serious disturbance in the web of relational
connections; it threatens the safety of neighborhoods...this makes it likely that
women, with their greater concern for preventing harm, will put the most
emphasis on prevention as the answer to crime. Stopping crime before it starts is
the best way to keep people from getting hurt.1 6
Hurwitz and Smithey noted the existence of a gender gap in dealing with crime
prevention policies. Their research findings further indicated that women, more often
than men, supported crime prevention policies which sought to protect women from rape
and domestic violence, decrease the rate of crime, and support gun control. Women more
easily become victims than do men in domestic violence, and rape issues. Therefore,
based on shared experiences and compassion, women are more willing to support crime
prevention programs.
Table 3.72 presents ANOVA results of party differences on sponsorship and
cosponsorship of crime prevention policies. Republican lawmakers are more supportive
than Democratic lawmakers in sponsoring and cosponsoring of crime prevention policies
in the 103rd and 104th Houses. However, there are not significant main effects of party on
lawmakers’ decisions of sponsorship or cosponsorship of crime prevention programs.
Therefore, party is not a crucial element of influence on lawmakers’ decisions about
crime prevention policies.
1 6 Jon Hurwitz and Shannon Smithey (1998), “Gender Differences on Crime and Punishment”, Political
Research Quarterly, Vol. 51, No.l, March 1998, p.95.
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.72 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Party in the 103r d
and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.60 (30) 1.84 (25) 14.52 (56) 16.37 (38)
104t h
1995-1996
1.15(46) 1.23 (48) 8.75 (44) 10.33 (46)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3. 73 Significance between Crime Prevention Policies
and Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
1.34 1.18 .28 77.53 2.40 .13
104t h
1995-1996
.14 .09 .77 55.86 2.22 .14
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01
Looking at the interaction between gender and party on crime prevention policies,
female Republicans and female Democrats are slightly more supportive than their male
counterparts in both parties of sponsorship and cosponsorship of crime prevention
policies. However, gender differences in parties are small. For instance, in the 103rd
House, male Democrats (an average of 1.50 policies) and male Republicans (an average
of 1.73 policies) are less likely than female Democrats (an average of 1.67 policies) and
female Republicans (an average of 2.29 policies) to sponsor crime prevention policies.
(See Table 3.74 and Table 3.76) However, there are not significant interactions on
sponsorship and cosponsorship among gender, party and crime prevention. Hence,
gender and party do not jointly affect lawmakers’ policy decisions on sponsorship or
cosponsorship in both the 103rd and 104th Houses. (See Table 3.75 and Table 3.77)
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.74 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Gender with
Party In the 103r d and 104th Houses___________________
Gender
Sponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 1.50(12) 1.73 (10) 1.13(16) 1.19(31)
Female 1.67 (18) 2.29 (7) 1.17 (30) 1.29(17)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.75 Significance among Crime Prevention Policies, Gender
and Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Sponsorships)
Variables
103rd House 104th House
Mean
Square
F Sig. Mean
Square
F Sig.
Gender 1.12 .98 .33 .11 .07 .80
Party 1.82 1.58 .22 .21 .12 .72
2-way
Interaction .14 .36 .55 1.86E-02 .01 .92
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.76 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Gender with
_______________Party In the 103r d and 104t h Houses__________________
Gender
Cosponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 14.00 (21) 16.00 (26) 7.40(15) 9.72 (29)
Female 14.83 (36) 17.17 (12) 9.45 (29) 11.35(17)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.77 Significance among Crime Prevention Policies, Gender
and Party in the 103r d and 104t h Houses (Cosponsorship)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
1 F
Sig. Mean
Square
F | Sig.
Gender 19.61 .60 .44 63.00 2.77 .10
Party 94.74 2.89 .09 91.38 3.66 .06
2-way
Interaction .58 .02 .90 .91 .04 .85
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.78 presents ideological differences in the sponsorship and cosponsorships
of crime prevention policies. Conservative lawmakers are slightly more supportive than
liberal lawmakers and moderate lawmakers on crime prevention policies. In the 104th
House, liberal lawmakers sponsored an average of 1.06 crime prevention policies,
whereas conservative lawmakers sponsored an average of 1.25 policies and moderate
lawmakers sponsored an average of 1.07 crime prevention policies. Because of small
ideological differences in sponsorship and cosponsorship, the results do not show
significant main effects of ideology on lawmakers’ policy decisions (p>.05). (See Table
3.79)
Table 3.78 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Ideology
In the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Session
Sponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.91 (23) 1.71 (7) 1.29 (7)
104th
1995-1996
1.06 (35) 1.25(32) 1.07 (14)
Session
Cosponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
14.46 (35) 16.04 (24) 14.75 (16)
104t h
1995-1996
9.76 (33) 10.40 (30) 8.08(12)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.79 Significance between Crime Prevention Policies
______________ and Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
1.06 .78 .47 18.65 .72 .49
104t h
1995-1996
.35 .22 .81 23.01 .83 .44
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
1 1 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As the results presented in Table 3.80 and Table 3.82 indicate, conservative
lawmakers, both female and male, are slightly more supportive than liberal and moderate
lawmakers, whether female or male, of sponsorship or cosponsorship of crime prevention
policies. Gender differences in ideology, however, are not large. As expected, the two-
way interaction between gender and ideology does not present significance, since the two
variables do not jointly affect lawmakers’ decisions of sponsorship and cosponsorship
related to crime prevention issues. (See Table 3.81 and Table 3.83)
Table 3.80 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Gender
with Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Session
103r d House
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 1.80(5) 1.60(5) 1.20(5)
Female 1.94(18) 2.00 (2) 1.50 (2)
Session
104th House
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 2.43 (7) 2.47 (17) 2.17(6)
Female 2.15(20) 2.43 (7) 1.25(4)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.81 Significance among Crime Prevention Policy, Gender
______________ and Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Sponsorships)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
F Sig. Mean
Square 1 F
Sig.
Gender .36 .24 .63 .29 .18 .68
Ideology .62 .41 .67 .48 .29 .74
2-way
Interaction 3.85E-02 .03 .98 .23
L -1 4
.87
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.82 Differences in Crime Prevention Policies by Gender
_______________ with Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Session
103r d House
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 15.29 (7) 15.94(18) 14.90(10)
Female 14.25 (28) 16.33 (6) 14.50 (6)
Session
104lh House
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 7.38 (8) 10.55 (22) 7.75 (8)
Female 9.96 (25) 11.78 (9) 8.75 (4)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.83 Significance among Crime Prevention Policies, Gender
and Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorships)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
F | Sig. Mean
Square 1 F
Sig.
Gender 2.22 .08 .78 26.96 .94 .34
Ideology 11.96 .45 .64 26.21 .92 .41
2-way
Interaction 2.53 .09 .91 2.17 .08 .93
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
In summary, the ANOVA results of crime prevention policies indicate that
gender, party and ideology do not significantly affect lawmakers’ policy decisions to
propose crime prevention measures. The hypothesis is rejected. In fact, male lawmakers
as protectors are not more supportive than their female counterparts as caregivers at home
of legislation to prevent crime.
6. Foreign/Military Policies
Based on feminist standpoint theory, boys in childhood are socialized as
protectors of the family. Therefore, after growing up as adults, they will be more likely
than women to support foreign and military policies in order to protect people and
national security. As hypothesized, feminist standpoint theory suggests that congressmen
would be more likely to support foreign/military policies than congresswomen.
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Foreign/military policies consist of the withdrawal of U.S. armed forces from
foreign countries, aircraft upgrade programs, international assistance, and international
peacekeeping programs. The total number of foreign/military bills sponsored was 60 in
the 103rd House and 51 in the 104th House. The total number of foreign/military bills
cosponsored was 94 in the 103rd House and 91 in the 104th House.
Table 3.84 Differences in Foreign/Military Policies
_______________by Gender in the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Male (N) Female (N) Male (N) Female (N)
103r d
1993-1994
2.06 (35) 1.44(25) 12.28 (47) 10.19(47)
104t h
1995-1996
2.21 (24) 1.72 (32) 11.10(45) 11.00(46)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.85 Significance between Foreign/Military Policies and
_______________Gender in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
5.55 2.30 .14 102.17 3.60 .06
104th
1995-1996
3.29 2.94 .09 9.36E-03 .00 .98
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in A.15NOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01
As the results of Table 3.84 indicate, gender differences are not large on
sponsorship and cosponsorship of foreign/military policies. Male lawmakers sponsor
foreign and military policies slightly more often on average than female lawmakers. In
the 104th House of Representatives, congressmen (with an average of 2.21 policies)
sponsored foreign/military policies more often than congresswomen (with an average of
1.72 policies). However, there is not significant effect of gender on sponsorship and
cosponsorship of foreign/military policies in the 103rd or 104th House. (Table 3.85)
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.86 Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by Party in the 103r d
_______ and 104th Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.68 (31) 1.92(29) 10.32 (56) 12.58 (38)
104t h
1995-1996
1.71 (31) 2.20 (25) 10.45 (44) 11.66(47)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.87 Significance between Foreign/Military Policies and
Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses_____________
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
.96 .38 .54 115.37 4.07 .06
104t h
1995-1996
3.33 2.98 .09 32.99 2.08 .15
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.86 presents the results of sponsorship and cosponsorship of
foreign/military Issues by parties. Partisan differences are also small. Republican
lawmakers support foreign/military policies more often on average than do Democratic
lawmakers. In the 103rd House, Republicans (an average of 1.92 policies) sponsored
foreign/military issues slightly more often than did Democrats (an average of 1.68
policies). The statistical results in Table 3.87 show an insignificant relationship between
political parties and foreign/military policies on sponsorship and cosponsorship (p>.05).
Hence, party has no main effect on lawmakers’ decisions to propose foreign/military
policies.
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.88 Differences In Foreign/Military Policies by Gender with
Party in The 103r d and 104th Houses
Gender
Sponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 2.00(14) 2.10(21) 1.86(7) 2.14(14)
Female 1.14(17) 1.50 (8) 1.64 (22) 1.88 (8)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.89 Significance among Foreign/Military Policies, Gender and
Party in the 103r d and 1 0 4 * * * Houses (Sponsorships)______
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square |
F Sig. Mean
Square
1 F
| Sig.
Gender 2.84 1.14 .33 .62 .53 .47
Party 4.71 1.89 .18 .71 .61 .44
2-way
Interaction .12 ..05 .83 5.76E-03 .01 .94
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.90 Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by Gender
______________ with Party in The 103r d and 104th Houses(Cosponsorships)
Gender
Cosponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat(N) Republican (N)
Male 11.71 (21) 12.92 (26) 11.73 (15) 11.90 (30)
Female 9.77 (35) 11.83(12) 13.79 (29) 12.29(17)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.91 Significance among Foreign/Military Policies, Gender and
Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorships)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
1 F
1 Sig. Mean
Square
F 1 " Sig.
Gender 55.62 2.00
-17
3.57 .22 .64
Party 51.29 1.80 .18 36.56 2.25 .13
2-way
Interaction 3.68 .13 .72 .57 .04 .85
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
As expected from the individual analyses of gender and party, there are no
significant interaction effects on foreign/military policies. Male Democratic lawmakers
and male Republican lawmakers are slightly more likely on average than female
Democratic lawmakers and female Republican lawmakers to sponsor foreign/military
policies in the 103rd and 104th Houses. However, there are not significant main effects of
gender and parties for lawmakers’ policy agendas on foreign/military policies (p>.05).
Further, gender and party do not have jointly significant effects for lawmakers’ decision
on sponsorship or cosponsorship of foreign/military policies in the 103rd and 104th
Houses. (See Table 3.89 and Table 3.91)
Table 3.92 Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by
_______________Ideology in the 103 and 104t h Houses
Sponsorship
Session Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
1.45(20) 1.74 (23) 1.13 (8)
104t h
1995-1996
1.79 (24) 2.00(15) 1.33 (3)
Cosponsorship
Session Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
10.57 (35) 11.96 (24) 11.25 (16)
104t h
1995-1996
10.36 (33) 11.03 (31) 10.00(12)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.93 Significance between Foreign/Military Policies and
_______________Ideology in the 103r d and 104t h Houses___________
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
1.22 1.39 .26 13.78 .50 .61
104t h
1995-1996
.60 .58 .57 5.96 .44 .64
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.92 presents ideological differences on sponsorship and cosponsorship of
foreign/military policies. Ideological gaps are small on sponsorship and cosponsorship in
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
both the 103rd and the 104th Houses. The results in Table 3.93 indicate that ideology has
an insignificant effect on lawmakers’ preferences in foreign and military policies (p>.05).
Hence, ideology is not a crucial factor in lawmakers’ policy decisions on foreign and
military issues.
Table 3.94 Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by Gender
with Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Sponsorships)
Session
103r d House
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 1.50(6) 1.82(17) 1.17(6)
Female 1.43(14) 1.50 (6) 1.00 (2)
Session
104t h House
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 2.20 (5) 2.25(11) 1.50(2)
Female 1.68(19) 1.50(4) 1.00(1)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.95 Significance among Foreign/Military Policies, Gender and
_______________Ideology in the 103r d and 104t h Houses (Sponsorships)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
F Sig. Mean
Square
1 F
Sig.
Gender .40 .42 .52 2.53 2.40 .13
Ideology 1.14 1.23 .30 .66 .62 .24
2-way
Interaction 6.93 .08 .93 2.54E-02 .02 .97
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Not surprisingly, there are no interaction effects between gender and ideology.
The results of Table 3.94 show small gender gaps in ideology with male conservative
lawmakers being slightly more supportive than female conservative lawmakers (an
average of 2.35 vs. 1.50 policies) in sponsoring foreign and military policies in the 104th
House. However, gender and Ideology do not have jointly significant relationships with
foreign and military issues. Hence, gender and ideology are not significant factors in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
influencing lawmakers’ policy decisions related to foreign/military issues. (See Table
3.95 and Table 3.97)
Gender
; (Cosponsorship)
Table 3.97 Significance among Foreign/Military Policies, Gender and
Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorship)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
F Sig. Mean
Square
1 F 1
Sig.
Gender 42.50 1.52 .22 7.13 .51 .48
Ideology 1.44 .05 .95 4.37 .31 .73
2-way
Interaction .28 .01 .99 .64 .05 .96
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
In short, gender, party and ideology do not have significant influence over
lawmakers’ policy support for foreign/military issues. The hypothesis is rejected. Based
on feminist standpoint theory, male play traditional roles as the protectors. Thus, they
would be likely to propose foreign and military policies to protect national security. In
fact, male lawmakers do not demonstrate stronger concerns about foreign/military issues
than do female lawmakers.
Table 3.96 Differences in Foreign/Military Policies by
with Ideology in the 103r d and 104t h House;
Session
103r d House
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 12.14(7) 12.39(18) 11.80(10)
Female 10.18(28) 10.67 (6) 10.33 (6)
Session
104th House
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 10.63 (8) 11.32 (22) 10.25 (8)
Female 10.28 (25) 10.33 (9) 9.50 (4)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7. Economic Policies
Based on feminist standpoint theory, women, with the help of gender
consciousness, shift their lifestyles from the private field to the public arena. Women as
well as men participate in the workplace and earn money to support the family.
Therefore, hypothetically, men would not differ from women in supporting economic
issues.
Economic policies are related to taxation, job opportunities, and employee
benefits. The total number of economic policies sponsored was 81 in the 103rd House
and 69 in the 104th House. The total number of economic policies cosponsored was 94 in
the 103rd House and 93 in the 104th House.
Table 3.98 Differences in Economic Policies by ender in
the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Male (N) Female (N) Male (N) Female (N)
103r d
1993-1994
5.10(42) 4.00 (39) 18.04(47) 16.09 (46)
104t h
1995-1996
5.08 (38) 3.55 (31) 17.94 (47) 17.67(46)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.99 Significance between Economic Policies and Gender in
the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
24.25 2.63 .11 55.15 1.61 .21
104t h
1995-1996
39.99 3.37 .07 88.91 2.97 .09
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.98 indicates gender differences on economic policies in both the 103rd
and 104th Houses. Congressmen are slightly more likely than congresswomen to sponsor
or cosponsor economic issues. For example, in the 103rd House, congressmen (average
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of 18.04 policies) cosponsored economic issues more often than congresswomen
(average of 16.09 policies). The results in Table 3.99 revealed insignificant main effects
of gender for lawmakers’ policy decisions on sponsorships or cosponsorships of
economic policies (p>.05).
Table 3.100 Differences in Economic Policies by Party in the 103r d and 104u > Houses
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
103r d
1993-1994
4.00 (49) 5.44 (32) 17.41 (56) 21.29 (38)
104t h
1995-1996
3.45(31) 5.16(38) 15.47 (45) 18.58 (48)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.101 Significance between Economic Policies and
______________ Party in the 103r d and 104t h Houses_______
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
40.00 4.44 .04* 340.59 10.91 .00**
104t h
1995-1996
49.71 4.24 .04* 225.61 7.94 .00**
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
By political parties, Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to sponsor
and cosponsor policies related to economics in the 103rd and 104th Houses. In the 103rd
House, Democrat lawmakers sponsored an average of 4.00 economic policies compared
to Republican lawmakers with an average of 5.44 policies. The statistical results in Table
3.100 illustrate a strong significant relationship between party and economic policies in
both sessions (p<.05). Party has a significant main effect for lawmakers’ policy decisions
on sponsorship and cosponsorship of economic issues. Based on feminist standpoint
theory, men and women do not have differences on economic issues because both work
on the workplace to support families. However, gender does not appear influential force
1 2 0
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in lawmakers’ policy preference on economic issues. Thus, party is predicted to have a
main effect in lawmakers’ policy making on economic issues. The statistical results
indicate party as a significant element influencing lawmakers’ policy decision-making.
Likewise, Table 3.101 demonstrates the large and significant effects of party on
lawmakers’ sponsorship and cosponsorship of economic issues in the 103rd and 104th
Houses (p < .05).
Table 3.102 Differences in Economic Policies by Gender
______________ with Party in the 103r d and 104th Houses
Gender
Sponsorships
103rd House 104th House
Democrat (N) Republican (N) Democrat (N) Republican (N)
Male 4.26(19) 5.78 (23) 3.64(14) 5.92 (24)
Female 3.83 (30) 4.56 (9) 3.29(17) 3.85(14)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.103 Significance among Economic Policies, Gender and Party
______________ in the 103r d and 104t h Houses (Sponsorships)___________
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
F | Sig. Mean
Square
F Sig.
Gender 9.25 1.02 .32 26.41 2.30 .13
Party 24.99 .275 .10 36.12 3.15 .04*
2-way
Interaction
2.64 .29 .59 12.03 1.05 .31
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.102 and Table 3.104 present gender differences by party on sponsorship
and cosponsorship of economic issues in the 103rd and 104th House. Republican
lawmakers, whether male or female, are far more likely than Democrats, whether male or
female, to sponsor or cosponsor economic issues in both sessions. Meanwhile,
Republican congresswomen are more willing than Democratic congresswomen to support
economic issues. Looking at the interaction between gender and party on economic
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
issues, party has main effects on sponsorship for lawmakers’ decisions in the 104th
House. Republicans regained the control of the House after around 50 years. In the
campaign pledged, Republicans provided their own economic policies on “the Contract
with America”, such as cut taxation. In the 104th House, they would be likely to apply
their partisan economic issues in legislation related to economic issues. The interaction
between gender and party on cosponsorship of economic issues provides further evidence
that party has significant effects on lawmakers’ economic policy decisions. Party is the
overriding variable in explaining lawmakers’ economic policy priorities.
Table 3.104 Differences in Economic Policies by Gender
with Party in the 103r d and 104t h Houses
Gender
Cosponsorships
103rd House 104“ * House
Democrat (N) Republican(N) Democrat(N) RepubIican(N)
Male 17.52 (21) 21.54 (26) 15.31 (16) 19.45 (31)
Female 17.34 (35) 20.75 (12) 15.55 (29) 17.00(17)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.105 Significance among Economic Policies, Gender and Party
______________ in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorships)_________
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square 1 F 1
Sig. Mean
Square
1 F
r~ sig.
Gender 3.67
•12
.74 28.08 .99 .32
Party 289.11 9.08 .00** 164.78 5.82 .02*
2-way
Interaction 1.86 -06 .81 38.50 1.36 .25
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Considering ideology, conservative lawmakers are more likely to sponsor and
cosponsor economic issues. (See Table 3.106) In the 103rd House, conservative
lawmakers cosponsored an average of 20 policies; whereas liberal lawmakers
cosponsored an average of 17.69 policies and moderate lawmakers cosponsored 19.06
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
economic policies. The statistical results show that ideology does not have significant
effect in lawmakers’ policy decisions on economic issues. However, ideology is not a
variable worth considering as a main effect to explain lawmakers’ policy preferences
related to economic issues. (Table 3.107)
Table 3.106 Differences in Economic Policies by Ideology
In the 103r d and 104th Houses
Session
Sponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
4.21 (29) 4.71 (21) 4.07(14)
104t h
1995-1996
3.68 (22) 5.41 (27) 2.00 (5)
Session
Cosponsorship
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
103r d
1993-1994
17.69 (35) 20.00 (24) 19.06(16)
104t h
1995-1996
16.68 (34) 18.47 (32) 14.42(12)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.107 Significance between Economic Policies and
______________ Ideology in he 103r d and 104th Houses_____
Sessions
Sponsorships Cosponsorships
Main
Effect
F Sig. Main
Effect
F Sig.
103r d
1993-1994
2.23 .24 .78 39.32 1.91 .16
104t h
1995-1996
33.77 2.90 .06 76.18 3.02 .06
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Looking at the interaction between ideology and gender, conservative lawmakers,
both male and female, are more likely to support economic issues than liberal and
moderate lawmakers, both male and female, in the 103rd and 104th Houses. (See Table
3.108 and Table 3.110). As the results present in Table 3.109 and Table 3.111, there is
not a significant effect of ideology on lawmakers’ sponsorship and cosponsorship of
economic issues. Likewise, gender does not present a significant main effect on
lawmakers’ sponsorship and cosponsorship of economic issues. However, there are not
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
jointly significant main effects of gender and ideology on lawmakers’ economic policy
proposals (p>.05). Gender and ideology are not influential variables in examining
lawmakers’ economic policy priority.
Table 3.108 Differences in Economic Policies by Gender with
_______________Ideology in the 103r d and 1041 1 1 Houses
Session
103r d House
Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 4.71 (7) 4.80(15) 4.11 (9)
Female 4.05 (22) 4.50 (6) 4.00 (5)
Session
104th House
Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 4.22 (9) 6.16(19) 2.67 (3)
Female 3.31 (13) 3.63 (8) 1.00 (2)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
N = Cases introduced by lawmakers in legislation.
Table 3.109 Significance among Economic Policy, Gender and Ideology
_______________in the 103r d and 104t h Houses (Sponsorships)_____________
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square
F
| Sig. Mean
Square
F | Sig.
Gender 2.11 .22 .64 36.72 3.21 .08
Ideology 1.60 .10 .85 24.64 2.15 .13
2-way
Interaction .35 .04 .96 3.59 .31 .73
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 3.110 Differences in Economic Policies by Gender
______________ with Ideology in the 103r d and 104 Houses
103r d House
Session Liberal (N) Conservative(N) Moderate (N)
Male 19.14 (7) 20.22(18) 19.50(10)
Female 17.32 (28) 19.33 (6) 10.33 (6)
104th House
Session Liberal (N) Conservative (N) Moderate (N)
Male 17.78 (9) 19.13(23) 15.00 (8)
Female 16.28 (25) 16.78 (9) 13.25 (4)
Note: Entries are means in ANOVA.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3.111 Significance among Economic Policies, Gender and
Ideology in the 103r d and 104th Houses (Cosponsorships)
103rd House 104th House
Variables Mean
Square 1 F
Sig. Mean
Square
1 F
Sig.
Gender 24.91 1.18 .28 56.36 2.30 .14
Ideology 13.50 .6 .53 68.40 2.68 .08
2-way
Interaction
1.16 .06 .95 1.23 .05 .95
Note: Significance of main effects and comparable F ratios are tested in ANOVA.
* p < .05; ** p < .01.
In sum, when lawmakers sponsor or cosponsor policies related to different issues,
their decisions appear to be influenced by different elements. While policies are related
to economic issues, lawmakers consider their partisan positions rather than their gender
or ideology.
Table 3.112 The Relationship among Gender, Party and Ideology on Policies
Policies
103ra House 104m House
Gender Party Ideology Gender Party Ideology
Healthcare/
Welfare Y N Y Y N Y
Family/
Child Y N N Y N N
Education N N N N N N
Housing N N N N N N
Crime
Prevention N N N N N N
Foreign/
Military N N N N N N
Economic N Y N N Y N
Note: “Y” means that there is relationship between gender, party or ideology and policies.
“N” means that there is no relationship between gender, party or ideology and policies.
Different issues are influenced by different variables. As the results presented in
Table 3.112 and Table 3.113 show, gender and ideology have significant effects on
lawmakers’ decisions to propose healthcare/welfare policies. When lawmakers propose
family/child policies, only gender has main effects influencing lawmakers’ policy
decision-making. Party and ideology do affect lawmakers’ legislation on family and
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
child issues. However, gender, party and ideology do not have significant effects in
lawmakers’ decisions on education, housing, crime prevention and foreign/military
issues.
Table 3.113 The Relationship among Gender, Party and Ideology on Policies
in the 103r d and 104th Congresses (Cosponsorship)_________
Policies
103"1 House 104m House
Gender Party Ideology Gender Party Ideology
Healthcare/
Welfare Y N Y Y N Y
Family/
Children Y Y Y Y N Y
Education N N N N N N
Housing N N N N N N
Crime
Prevention N N N N N N
Foreign/
Military N N N N N N
Economic N Y N N Y N
Note: “Y” means that there is relationship between gender, party or ideology and policies.
“N” means that there is no relationship between gender, party or ideology and policies.
Analyzing the relationship among gender, party and ideology on
healthcare/welfare cosponsorship reinforces the importance of gender and ideology.
Gender and ideology have main effects in lawmakers’ decisions to propose
healthcare/welfare policies. Gender and ideology also have significant effects on
family/child issues. (See Table 3.113) Party affects lawmakers’ decisions to propose
family/child policies in the 103rd House. The close explanation is that Democratic
legislators are more likely to support family and child policies than Republican
lawmakers. Likewise, the Democratic Party was the majority in the 103rd House. Thus,
party has a main effect on lawmakers’ decisions to propose family and child policies.
Gender is worth considering when policies are related to healthcare, welfare, family and
child issues.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
When lawmakers’ cosponsorships are related to education, housing, crime
prevention and foreign/military issues, gender, party and ideology do not present
significant influences on lawmakers’ policy making. Analyzing the relationship among
economic policies and gender, party, and ideology, reinforces the importance of party.
There are partisan differences in sponsorship and cosponsorship of economic policies.
After understanding the differences between gender, party and ideology on bill
sponsorship and cosponsorship, floor speeches provide further rationale for these
differences. The language used by lawmakers on the floor show lawmakers’ political
attitudes and positions. Throughout the content of speeches, we can understand the
reasons why lawmakers support or oppose policies. The next chapter focuses on
lawmakers’ floor speeches tested by gender, party, ideology and marital status using a
qualitative approach.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
Chapter Four
Lawmakers and Floor Speeches
Floor debates offer tangible opportunities for lawmakers to express not only
political viewpoints and positions on public policies, but also to communicate with their
colleagues, interest groups and constituents. Leroy Rieselbach (1995), in Congressional
Politics, points out that “floor statements permit members to get their views on the
record, perhaps satisfying interest groups or concerned citizens that they are taking a
correct stand.” 1
Further, positive and negative opinions of policies can be raised on the floor in
order to try to work out differences in the debate process. Through floor debates,
lawmakers not only communicate and negotiate with other colleagues, but also strengthen
the cohesiveness of the bill’s supporters. They may earn additional support from those
who are undecided on a bill. In addition, speeches on the House floor allow
representatives to show what they have done for their constituents and society. These
functions of floor speeches help to build legislators’ political credits in the constituents’
minds. They also can be used to create a positive public image and to establish a strong
policy record for future campaigns. Floor speeches also may benefit lawmakers as they
may become more well known through the media.2
William Keefe and Morris Ogul (1997), in The American Legislative Process,
emphasized the importance of floor speeches.
Floor debate in the legislature, as well as in Congress, is highly useful in
advancing personal interests and objectives: It is a good way for members of
1 Leroy N. Rieselbach (1995), Congressional Politics: The Evolving Legislative system (San Francisco:
Westview Press), 2n d , p.299.
2 Leroy N. Rieselbach (1995), p.299.
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
persuade colleagues of their competence in a public policy filed: it enables them
to affirm a personal position or to support or back off from a party position; it
presents an opportunity to gain publicity, to consolidate old support, and perhaps
to attract new followers; and it permits member to marshal evidence useful in
campaigns for reelection.3
Legislators show their expert knowledge and experiences on the House floor.
Likewise, they also demonstrate political concerns, and beliefs on public issues, such as
healthcare/welfare and economic issues, in debate on the floor. Therefore, floor debates
are important to explore the kinds of arguments underlying lawmakers’ political
commitments and positions.
Data and Method
Based on feminist standpoint theory, men’s and women’s beliefs and attitudes are
influenced by different patterns of socialization and life experiences. With their different
beliefs and life experiences, female and male lawmakers are likely to support different
issues. In legislation, they may not only speak for different issues, but also may speak
differently on the same issues. This chapter focuses on studying the differences in the
language used by congressmen and congresswomen to articulate their policy preferences.
Based on feminist standpoint theory, women and men have different life
experiences. Women are socialized as caregivers. They have responsibilities for
children, family members, and other kin (especially in sickness and old age). Women’s
life experiences reveal the caring and value of maternal thinking which implies “love,
nurturance and socialization of those for whom they care.”4 Therefore, when female
3 William Keefe and Morris Ogul (1997), The American Legislative Process: Congress and the States
(New Jersey: Prentice Hall), 9th , p. 250.
4 Mary Mahowald, “A Feminist Standpoint for Genetics,” The Journal o f Clinical Ethics, Vol. 7, No.4,
Winter 1996, p. 335.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
legislators speak on the House floor, it is hypothesized that their language will reveal
their life experiences including caring, sympathy, and compassion. Likewise, they are
likely to speak for women, children and seniors based on their caring experiences and
maternal thinking. On the other hand, men are socialized to be assertive, independent
and brave in order to protect their families. They play traditional roles as the financial
supporters of their families. As a consequence, male lawmakers are expected to be more
likely than female lawmakers to pay attention to the costs and benefits of policies in their
speeches on the House floor. Based on the different experiences of men and women,
female lawmakers and male lawmakers are predicted to employ different kinds of
arguments in their floor speeches. (See Table 4.1)
Table 4.1_______Speeches and Gender Differences in Experiences
Policies
Criteria of Classification of Speeches
Men W omen
Healthcare/
W elfare
Cost of Healthcare System,
Health Safety and Risk
Family, Women and Children
Education Student Loan, Education
Funding
Equal Education, Children
Education
Housing Structures of Building, Rent
and Interest Rate in the
Housing Market.
Neighborhood, Children and
Seniors
Crime
Prevention
Protect Women and Children,
Social Safety
Anti-domestic Violence, Family,
Women and Children
Foreign/
M ilitary
National Security and
International Peace
Peacekeeping, Anti-war, and
Troop Protection
Economic Taxation, Spending and
Deficit Reduction
For Women Workers, and
Women Owned Business
Hypothetically, based on gender differences in experiences, female lawmakers
will be more likely than their male counterparts to speak for women’s and children’s
concerns. In Chapter Three, party and ideology were found to have significant effects on
the sponsorship and cosponsorship of some bills. For example, the results in Chapter
Three show that Democratic lawmakers are more likely than Republican lawmakers to
sponsor or cosponsor bills on women’s issues, such as healthcare and welfare issues. It is
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
expected that Democratic lawmakers will speak for healthcare and welfare issues more
often than Republicans. According to ideology, liberal lawmakers are more likely than
conservative and moderate lawmakers to sponsor or cosponsor bills on women’s issues.
Accordingly, liberal lawmakers will be likely to speak for women’s issues more often
than their conservative and moderate counterparts. Thus, party and ideology, as well as
gender, are employed to explore the differences in floor speeches.
Lawmakers’ speeches on the floor are indexed in the Congressional Record which
includes speakers’ names and states, bill numbers and titles, contents, and the dates and
times of speeches. The speeches were selected based on their titles. These speech titles
are divided into groups as healthcare/welfare, education, housing, crime prevention,
foreign/military and economic policies. The purpose is to match the categories of
sponsorship and cosponsorship in the quantitative analysis. Healthcare and welfare
policies have been combined with family and child policies in order to have enough
sample speeches related to women’s benefits. Lawmakers’ speech frequencies in these
six categories were calculated based on speech titles in the 103rd and the 104th Houses.
For example, if a lawmaker spoke for a policy related to healthcare five times, then the
frequency of healthcare policy speeches on health policy was recorded as five.
Further, the contents of speeches are analyzed in order to understand the reasons
that lawmakers speak for or against health/welfare, education, housing, crime prevention,
foreign/military and economic policies. The language or words used in the speeches
were categorized into different reasons for the same issue, such as speaking for women,
children or against seniors with regard to healthcare/welfare policies. This analysis
should illuminate differences in the language and political positions used by female and
male lawmakers on the same issue. The data from the Congressional Record are taken
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
from the on-line database available through “Thomas” and “the Congressional
Information Service Company 5. The total sample of speeches includes 619 in the 103rd
House and 688 in the 104th House.
This chapter focuses on the qualitative analysis; exploring whether lawmakers use
different kinds of language and take different political positions in floor speeches. The
analysis of speeches focuses on analyzing the content and language of speeches by
comparing the differences between congressmen and congresswomen, Democrats and
Republicans, and liberals, conservatives and moderates in the six categories of policies
used throughout the study—health/welfare, economic, education, housing, crime
prevention and foreign/military issues.
The Correlation between Lawmakers and floor Speeches
In order to determine whether floor speeches are related to lawmakers’ gender,
party, ideology and marriage, this section focuses on exploring the correlation between
floor speeches and lawmakers. The results in Table 4.2 indicate that the number of
speeches in education and housing policies are small. Hence, floor speeches related to
education and housing policies are not included in the correlation analysis.
s The analysis does not include the “Extension of Remarks” because these comments are not made on the
floor of the House.
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.2 Frequency of Speeches in Six
Categories of Policies In The
103r d and 104th Houses (Support)
Speeches
103r d House 104th House
Frequency Frequency
Healthcare/
Welfare 61 66
Education 5 25
Crime
Prevention 59 39
Foreign/
Military 40 30
Housing 0 7
Economic 81 51
Table 4.3 Correlation between Lawmakers and Speeches
______________ in Policies in the 103r d and 104lh Houses
The 103r d House
Variables Healthcare/
Welfare
Crime
Prevention
Foreign/
Military^
Economic
Gender .28* .24 .01 -.04
Party .31* -.32* -.04 -.23*
Ideology -.38** -.47** -.14 -.23
Marital
Status -.12 .07 .23 -.01
The 104t h House
Variables Healthcare/
Welfare
Crime
Prevention
Foreign/
Military
Economic
Gender .08 -.19 -.23 -.24
Party -.12 .19 .11 .05
Ideology -.06 .15 .12 .08
Marital
Status -.16 -.07 -.09 -.04
Note: * p < .05; ** p < .01.
The results of healthcare/welfare policies by gender, party, ideology and marital
status presented in Table 4.3 indicate that lawmakers’ speeches in support of
healthcare/welfare issues are significantly correlated with gender, party and ideology in
the 103rd House. For floor speeches on crime prevention policies, party and ideology are
significant factors in the 103rd House. (See Table 4.3) Further, floor speeches related to
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
foreign/military issues are not significantly correlated with gender, party, ideology or
marital status. In examining the relationship among speeches related to economic issues
and gender, party, ideology or marital status, only party is significantly correlated with
lawmakers’ speeches on economic issues. Marital status is not significantly correlated
with speeches concerning any of the issues examined in the 103rd House.
In the 104th House, analyzing the correlation among floor speeches on
healthcare/welfare, crime prevention, foreign/military and economic policies and gender,
party, ideology and marital status does not reinforce the importance of gender, party,
ideology and marital status. A possible explanation is that the majority party changed
from the 103rd House to the 104th House. In the 103rd House, the Democratic Party was
the majority party. It lost its majority position in the 1994 election. The Republican
Party controlled the majority in the 104th House. As the results presented in Chapter
Three showed, different parties focused on different policies. For instance, Republican
lawmakers consistently demonstrate more concern for economic issues than Democratic
lawmakers in the 103rd and 104th Houses. But there are no significant correlations
between party and economic issues.
Since gender, party and ideology are related to in the 103rd House, the next
section focuses on the differences between congresswomen and congressmen; Democrats
and Republicans; and among liberals, conservatives and moderates in the floor speeches.
Marital status does not significantly explain the differences in floor speeches. Hence, it is
not included in the qualitative analysis of differences between lawmakers in their floor
speeches.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Speeches and Lawmakers’ Political Commitments
According to feminist standpoint theory, women are more concerned about
women’s interests than men are. Conversely, men are more concerned about national
security and protection than women are. In Chapter Three, the analysis of sponsorship
and cosponsorship indicates that female lawmakers sponsored healthcare and welfare
issues related to women more strongly than did their male counterparts. Rep. Barbara
Kennelly, Connecticut-D, emphasizes the importance of healthcare reform for women.
Health care reform gives us the opportunity to help reverse the years of neglect. It
gives us the opportunity to help the mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives whose
health needs have previously been neglected.6
Congresswomen consistently sponsor and cosponsor women’s issues. Do they
also speak for women’s benefits and demands on the House floor? In order to answer
this question, this research focuses on lawmakers’ speeches on the 103rd and 104th House
floors to explore whether, through floor speeches, female lawmakers show their concerns
for health/welfare and education policies more frequently than do male lawmakers. In
contrast, men may show their concerns about military, foreign and crime prevention
policies more frequently than women do. On economic issues, men and women may not
have differences because both of them now have responsibilities for family finances.
1. Healthcare and Welfare Policies
The language used in speeches related to healthcare, welfare, children, seniors and
families were grouped together under the heading of healthcare/welfare policies. In the
103rd House, ninety-four lawmakers spoke 61 times for healthcare/welfare policies, and
in the 104th House, ninety-four lawmakers spoke 66 times on similar policies.
6 Congressional Record, May 17, 1994, H3378.
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.4 The Percentage of Speeches Lawmakers made in the 103r d and
103r d House
Gender Party
Male % Female % Republican % Democrat %
Healthcare/
Welfare
23
(37.70)
38
(62.30)
23
(37.70)
38
(62.30)
Economic
42
(51.90)
39
(48.10)
30
(37.00)
51
(63.00)
Crime
Prevention
22
(37.30)
37
(62.70)
22
(37.30)
37
(62.70)
Foreign/
Miiitaiy
21
(52.50)
19
(47.50)
18
(45.00)
22
(55.00)
104th House
Gender Party
Male % Female % Republican % Democrat %
Healthcare/
Welfare
30
(45.50)
36
(54.50)
31
(47.00)
35
(53.00)
Economic
28
(54.90)
23
(45.10)
28
(54.90)
23
(45.10)
Crime
Prevention
20
(51.30)
19
(48.70)
20
(51.30)
19
(48.70)
Foreign/
Military
17
(56.70)
13
(43.3)
19
(63.30)
1 1
(36.70)
As the results of speeches on healthcare/welfare policies by gender presented in
Table 4.4 indicate, in the 103rd House, 62.30% of female lawmakers spoke for
healthcare/welfare policies on the House floor, whereas only 37.70% of male lawmakers
spoke for them. In the 104th House, 54.50% of female lawmakers made speeches on
healthcare/welfare issues, while 45.50% of male lawmakers spoke for them. Female
lawmakers showed their concern about healthcare and welfare policies by giving
speeches on the floor more often than did male lawmakers.
According to speeches supporting healthcare/welfare policies by party, Democrats
showed their concern for healthcare/welfare policies more often than their Republican
counterparts. In the 103rd House, 62.30% of Democratic lawmakers spoke for Healthcare
and welfare policies, whereas only 37.70% of Republican lawmakers spoke for them. In
the 104th House, the Republican Party was in the majority, but Republican lawmakers did
not speak for healthcare/welfare policies more often than did Democratic lawmakers.
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(See Table 4.4) Regardless of majority or minority status in Congress, Democratic
lawmakers consistently show their concerns for healthcare/welfare policies in the
legislative process.
Table 4.5 The Percentage of Speeches made by Lawmakers
Democrats Republicans
103r d House Male Female Male Female
% % % %
Healthcare/ 10 28 13 10
Welfare (16.40) (45.90) (21.30) (16.40)
20 31 22 8
Economic (24.70) (38.30) (27.20) (9.90)
Crime 9 28 13 9
Prevention (15.30) (47.50) (22.00) (15.30)
Foreign/ 9 13 12 6
Military (22.50) (32.50) (30.00) (15.00)
Democrats Republicans
104U l House Male Female Male Female
% % % %
Healthcare/ 12 23 18 13
Welfare (18.20) (34.80) (27.90) (19.70)
7 16 21 7
Economic (14) (31.40) (41.20) (13.70)
Crime 8 1 1 12 8
Prevention (20.50) (28.20) (30.80) (20.50)
Foreign/ 5 6 12 7
Military (16.70) (20) (40) (23.30)
Further, female Democratic lawmakers made speeches more frequently than
female Republicans did on healthcare policies in the 103rd and 104th Houses. As the
results of speeches in supporting healthcare/welfare policies by gender with party in
Table 4.5 indicate, 45.90% of Democratic congresswomen expressed more concern
related to healthcare/welfare policies, whereas only 16.40% of Republican
congresswomen did in the 103rd House. Male Democratic lawmakers spoke on
healthcare/welfare policies more frequently than did male Republican lawmakers in the
103rd House. Conversely, Republican congressmen showed a stronger concern for
healthcare/welfare policies than Democratic congressmen did in the 104th House. (See
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.5) One explanation is that the number of Republicans increased from the 103rd
House to the 104th House, therefore, Republicans had more chances to speak on the floor.
However, female Democratic lawmakers were consistently concerned about
healthcare/welfare policies. Noticeably, when the number of female Republican
lawmakers increased by five seats in the 104th House, female Republicans spoke for
healthcare/welfare issues more often than they did in the 103rd House. (See Table 4.6)
Table 4.6 Ideology and Speeches in the 103r d and 104t h Houses
103r d House
Policies Liberal % Conservative % Moderate %
Healthcare/ 25 20 10
Welfare (45.5) (36.40) (18.20)
Crime 16 13 4
Prevention (48.50) (39.40) (12.10)
Military/ 7 13 4
Foreign (29.20) (54.20) (16.70)
17 20 6
Economic (39.50) (46.50) (14.00)
104U l House
Policies Liberal % Conservative % Moderate %
Healthcare/ 25 15 7
Welfare (53.20) (31.90) (14.90)
Crime 14 28 7
Prevention (28.60) (57.10) (14.30)
Military/ 15 11 7
Foreign (45.50) (33.30) (21.20)
29 22 12
Economic (46.00) (34.90) (19.00)
Concerning ideology, the results of speeches in supporting healthcare/welfare
policies by ideology presented in Table 4.4 indicate outcomes similar to those for
sponsorship and cosponsorship. Liberal lawmakers were more concerned about
healthcare and welfare policies than were their conservative and moderate counterparts.
Meanwhile, in the floor speeches, liberal lawmakers were more likely than conservative
and moderate lawmakers to speak for healthcare/welfare policies. In the 103rd House,
45.50% of liberal lawmakers spoke for healthcare/welfare policies, while 36.40% of
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
conservative lawmakers and 18.20% of moderate lawmakers spoke for them. (See Table
4.4) Female liberal lawmakers consistently supported healthcare and welfare policies.
Table 4.7______ Reasons for Health/Welfare Policies in the 103r d House of Representatives
Support
M ale Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Reforming Healthcare System 30 Reforming Healthcare System 43
Children 4 Women 23
American Family 2 Children 14
Avoid Health Risk 2 Family 14
Minority Health 1 Breast Cancer 5
Universal Care 1 Rural Areas 5
Put it on Budget 1 Universal Care 4
Good for Economy I Health Security 4
Small Business I AIDS Prevention 3
Health Insurance 1 Good for Seniors 3
Medical Reasons for Leaving Small Business 3
Jobs 1
Single Payer 2
Mental Illness 2
Non-insurance People 1
Workers 1
Health Insurance 1
Oppose
M ale Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Increase Tax/Private Sector Cost 5 Healthcare Reform Fail 3
Healthcare System Fail 4 Increase Poverty 1
Increase Deficit 3
Clinton’s Healthcare Plan 2
Good for the rich I
Without Helping Jobless 1
Benefits
According to feminist standpoint theory, women should be more concerned about
women, children and the elderly than men were. In the floor speeches, congresswomen
spoke for children’s and women’s concerns and interests more frequently than did
congressmen. In the 103rd House, congresswomen spoke for healthcare reform forty-
three times, while congressmen spoke thirty times. Female lawmakers spoke twenty-
three times for women and fourteen times for children, in contrast, male lawmakers spoke
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for children and family less than five times. (See Table 4.7) In short, male lawmakers did
not express concerns for women and children as often as female lawmakers did.
Table 4.8______ Reasons for Health/Welfare Policies in the 104t h House of Representatives
Support
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Reforming Healthcare System 36 Reforming Healthcare System 43
For Children 10 For Children 21
Health Insurance 8 For Women 11
Protect Seniors 7 Protect Seniors 8
For Women 3 For Family 8
For Family 3 Veterans 4
Small Business 2 Breast Cancer 4
Veterans 2 For AIDS 3
National Interests 2 Help Disaster 2
Medical Trust Fund 1 Health Insurance 1
For AIDS 1 American People 1
For Cancer 1
Oppose
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Against Medicare Reform 22 Hurt the Seniors 13
Reject Republican Plan 4 Against Welfare Reform 1 1
Hurt the Middle Class 1
Against Veterans I
As Table 4.7 and Table 4.8 indicate, “reforming the healthcare system,” “women”
and “children” are the three most important reasons that congresswomen use in
explaining their concern for healthcare and welfare policies in the 103rd and 104th
Houses. Female lawmakers demonstrate their concern more often than their male
counterparts about reforming healthcare, women and children in the 103rd and 104th
Houses. In fact, male lawmakers are also concerned about children and American
families, but male lawmakers and female lawmakers have different standpoints when
talking about women’s and children’s interests. Female lawmakers spoke for healthcare
and welfare policies based on their life experiences, but male lawmakers did not share
similar experiences in their speeches.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
For example, in the 104th House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Califomia-D, stressed child
support when talking about healthcare and welfare policies because of her own life
experiences as a single, working mother:
I know personally just how important child support is because, in 1968, I was a
single, working mother who never received a penny in child support. In order to
provide my children with the health care and childcare they needed, even though I
was employed, I was forced to go on welfare to supplement my wages. Today,
millions of American families rely on welfare for exactly the same reason.7
Rep. Woolsey’s political position in healthcare/welfare policies is influenced by
her personal life experiences. She personally obtained benefits from the
healthcare/welfare system. Therefore, she noticed the importance of a good healthcare
system for single or working mothers. Rep. Marily Lloyd, Tennessee-D, was a breast
cancer patient. She became a strong sponsor in the passage of legislation for health care
policies, especially for women’s cancer. Undoubtedly, life experiences strongly
influence individual’s political positions and commitments.
Rep. Peter Visclosky, Indiana-D, emphasized the importance of healthcare reform
for families. Healthcare reform would help the families to take care of sick children.
We need to pass health care reform so no family will ever be faced with the
choice of taking their sick child to the hospital or paying their mortgage.8
Rep. Matthew Martinez, Califomia-D, indicated the support of the Family and Medical
Leave Act of 1993 based on family values—take care of family members.
Our family values are something that is right about America, but there is really
something wrong if we support family values, but fail to support the family. The
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 supports family values because it allows
working family members to support what is most important in their lives without
fear of losing their jobs. For that reason, I ask my colleagues to search their hearts
and their consciences and vote for this bill.9
7 Congressional Record, January 3, 1995, H895.
8 Congressional Record, May 12, 1994, H3282.
9 Congressional Record, February 3, 1993, H393.
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Male and female lawmakers are concerned about family and children based on
different standpoints. Female lawmakers speak for family and children based on personal
experiences, but male lawmakers only consider the benefits of family and children with
little regard to their personal experiences.
Further, congressmen speak against healthcare/welfare policies giving reasons of
financial cost and people’s dependency. Rep. Jim Ramstad, Minnesota-R, criticized huge
spending for welfare programs without solving people’s problems. Welfare programs are
not cost effective, since people, especially poor people, become more dependent on
welfare policies.
The time for action is long overdue. Our Nation's welfare system is in dire need of
reform. America has spent $5.4 trillion on social welfare programs since the
beginning of the "War on Poverty" in thel960's. Yet, the poverty rate has not
decreased and the number of families on welfare has skyrocketed from 1.9 million
in 1970 to 5 million today. The sad history of welfare is one of three generations
of people who have become trapped in a cycle of dependency. Since 1993 alone,
the number of single women who are heads of households in poverty has
increased by 175,000 women.1 0
In contrast, congresswomen spoke against existing healthcare/welfare policies
because of the failure of the system, the increase in poverty, or the lack of benefits for
seniors. For instance, Rep. Jennifer Dunn, Washington-R, opposed the existing welfare
system based on their limited benefits for children and families.
I am involved in this debate on welfare because I believe that the current welfare
system and what it does to children, and families is a crime. The system is cruel, it
is broken, and it needs to be fixed.11
1 0 Congressional Record, July 18, 1996, H7808.
1 1 Congressional Record, July 18, 1996, H7801.
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In summary, male lawmakers and female lawmakers have different political
commitments and argue from different experiential positions on healthcare and welfare
policies.
2. Education Policies
Policies related to education, such as elementary school reform, were not the main
issues in the 103rd and 104th Houses. Only five of ninety-four lawmakers delivered
speeches on the house floor on the topic of education policies—one man and four
women. All five lawmakers supported education policies as reasons for children’s
educational benefits and education system reform. Only one female lawmaker, Patricia
Schroeder, Colorado-D, emphasized equal education.
It is a composite of nine very important bills that tries to get on target once again
treating young women equally in our schools. The parents of girls pay exactly the
same in taxes as the parents of boys, and yet we have studies that would fill this
room showing that the young women do not receive the same kind of education or
the same kind of treatment.1
The one male lawmakers paid more attention to financial problems with education
policies than did female lawmakers. Rep. Albert Wynn, Maryland-D, explains the
importance of financial support for education programs.
The Democrats are trying to get more money for education, about $3.1 billion for
education and job training. No, it will not unbalance the budget. The budget will
be fine. But it will enable us to provide funds for basic math and reading
skills...The American people want more Federal support for education.1 3
Noticeably, these five lawmakers are Democrats (1 male; 4 female). None of the
female Republican lawmakers spoke for policies related to education reform or education
improvement.
1 2 Congressional Record, April 21, 1993, H1944.
1 3 Congressional Record, September 19, 1996, H10606.
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.9______ Education Policy and Speeches in the 103ri House
Names/
G ender
States/Party Position on
Education Policy
Reasons Totals
1. James
Clybum (M)
South Carolina-D Support For Children Education 1
2. Anna
Eshoo (F)
Califomia-D Support For Children Education 1
3. Patricia
Schroeder (F)
Colorado-D Support Equal Education for
Women
1
4. Carrie
Meek (F)
Florida-D Support Education System
Reform
I
5. Pat
Danner (F)
Missouri-D Support For Elementary
Education
1
Note: M = Male, F = Female.
In the 104th House, fifteen Democrats (seven males and eight females) and six
Republicans (three males and three females) spoke on the floor about education policy.
As Table 4.9 and Table 4.10 indicate, Democrats paid more attention to education
policies than Republicans did. There are partisan impacts on education programs. Rep.
Earl Hilliard, Alabama-D, criticized Republican education programs.
The Republicans have slashed funds for reading and math programs, they have
slashed funds for safe and drug-free schools, for vocational education and adult
education programs. There seems to be no end to this madness. Public education
is the foundation of our democracy. Public education must be maintained to
preserve and protect our democracy. The Republican madness must not be
tolerated, but it must be stopped.1 4
Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana-R, defended the Republican position on education programs.
Now, that is wrong; that is wrong. The fact of the matter is we are going to
increase school lunch funding by 4 percent, we are going to increase it. What we
are going to cut is the bureaucracy. We are going to send it to the States in block
grants, so that the Governors who understand their States and the mayors who
understand their cities can distribute this money properly so that it goes to the
intended purpose without a lot of bureaucratic expense.1 5
1 4 Congressional Record, March 13, 1996, H2129.
1 5 Congressional Record, March 7, 1995, H2735.
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.10 Education Policy and Speeches in the 1041 1 * House
Names State/Party
Position on
Education
Policy
Reasons of Support/Oppose Totals
1 Earl Hilliard Alabama-D Support
Oppose
Reject Educational Funding Cut
Support Student Loan
3
1
2 Jim Kolbe Arizona-R Support Support Education Plan 2
3 Ray LaHood Illinois-R Support For School Lunch Plan 1
4 Dan Burton Indiana-R Support For School Lunch Plan 1
5 Albert Wynn Maryland-D Support For Children/Students 2
6 Robert
Menedez
New Jersey-D Oppose Hurt Children’s Future/
Reject Educational Funding Cut
2
7 Bill
Richardson
New Mexico-D Oppose Reject Educational Funding Cut 1
8 Ken Bentsen Texas-D Oppose
Support
Reject Student Loan Cut/
For School Lunch Plan
I
1
9 John Ensign Nevada-R Support For Education Assistance 1
10 Edward
Markey
Massachusetts-D Oppose Reject Educational Funding Cut 2
11 Lynn
Woolsey
Califomia-D Support
Support
Children’s Education/
School Lunch Plan
7
I
12 Nancy Pelosi Califomia-D Support For Students I
13 Anna Eshoo Califomia-D Support
Support
Education Investment/
For School Lunch Plan
1
1
14 Zoe Lofgren Califomia-D Oppose Reject Education Funding Cut 2
15 Patricia
Schroeder
Colorado-D Support
Oppose
For School Lunch Plan/
Reject Educational Funding Cut
1
2
16 Rosa
DeLauro
Connecticut-D Oppose Reject Education Funding Cut 1
17 Carolyn
Maloney
New York-D Support For School Lunch Plan I
18 Nydia
Velazquez
New York-D Oppose
Oppose
Reject Student Loan Cut/
Hurt School Lunch Plan
I
1
19 Sue Myrick North Carolina-R Oppose Hurt School Lunch Plan I
20 Linda Smith Washington-R Support For School Lunch Plan 1
21 Barbara
Cubin
Wyoming-R Support For School Lunch Plan 2
Note: I-10 male; 11-21 female.
In the 104th House floor, ten of forty-seven male lawmakers spoke eighteen times
for education policies, while eleven of forty-seven female lawmakers spoke twenty-one
times. Male lawmakers spoke nine times for education policies in order to support
children and the school lunch program. (See Table 4.10) As Rep. Jim Kolbe, Arizona-R,
says, “the medical needs and the education needs of the young and the old are met, and
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that we feed not only the body but the mind and the soul.”1 6 Male lawmakers spoke nine
times against education policies because of the cuts in student loans and educational
funding. (See Table 4.10) Children’s futures will be impacted by these cuts. Rep. Robert
Menendez, New Jersey-D, rejected the shutting down of educational funding.
It comes at a time when we ought to be preparing our children for a more globally
integrated, more technologically advanced and more competitive workplace.
Shortchanging our students today means shortchanging the Nation tomorrow. We
should not be shutting down the Government, and we should not be shutting down
our children's educational future.1 7
Children’s and the country’s futures are one of the main concerns which lawmakers
addressed when speaking about education policies.
As the results of Table 4.10 show, on the 104th House floor, female lawmakers
spoke sixteen times for education, and eight times against education programs. The
reasons why female lawmakers spoke for or against education programs were similar to
those given by their male counterparts. Female lawmakers focused on school lunch
programs and educational funding cuts. They spoke against educational funding cuts
because these cuts eliminated educational assistance and opportunities for children and
students. On the other hand, female lawmakers supported school lunch programs to
improve children’s nutrition and health. As Rep. Carolyn Maloney, New York-D, says,
“the child nutrition program is a health care program, it is necessary to our children, it is
18
an education program, and it is an important part of our country.” Rep. Patricia
Schroeder, Colorado-D, also strongly supported education programs for children.
If we do not care about our children, if we do not prepare for our future, this
country is really on the wrong course. We must put our children first, We cannot
shortchange them on education.1 9
1 6 Congressional Record, July 10/1996, H7223.
1 7 Congressional Record, March 13, 1996, H2128.
1 8 Congressional Record, March 22, 1995, H3549.
1 9 Congressional Record, March 6, 1996, H1276.
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Education was not the main issue in the 103rd and 104th Houses. As the results in
Chapter three indicate, lawmakers put the responsibility for education programs on local
government. Therefore, only a few lawmakers mentioned education policies in floor
speeches.
3. Housing Policies
Housing policies, like education policies, were not an important issue in the 103rd
f h f J
and 104 Houses. In the 103 House, none of the ninety-four lawmakers spoke for
housing policies. Only a few lawmakers in their speeches showed a concern for housing
policies in the 104th House. The notable finding in the 104th House was that all
lawmakers who spoke for housing policies were Republicans— two male and three
female. No Democrats spoke for housing programs. Probably lawmakers put the
responsibility for housing policies like education policies, on local government. As Rep.
Jim Kolbe, Arizona-R, indicated, local government knew the residents’ needs better than
the federal government. The Federal government should reduce its role in providing
housing support.
Local authorities know their community's needs far better than a Washington
bureaucrat, which is why H.R. 2406 replaces the current tangle of Federal strings
with two funding grants for public housing. If we are going to hold local officials
responsible for the quality of their community's public housing, they should have
the power to implement the solutions that fit their community's needs.2 0
Rep. Michael Castle, Delaware-R, also supported this argument.
Last November, the House Banking Committee passed H.R.2406, the U.S.
Housing Act. This bill will fundamentally reform, restructure, and streamline
Federal housing programs to provide greater flexibility to local housing officials
2 0 Congressional Record, May 8, 1996, H4576.
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and start the process of giving tenants the opportunity to move out of public
housing as soon as they are able.2 1
Table 4.11 Lawmakers and Housing Policies in the 104 House
Names State/Party Reasons Totals
Position on
Housing Policy
1 Jim Kolbe (M) Arizona-R For Senior’s Benefits 1 Support
2 Michael Castle (M) Delaware-R For Senior’s safety
Homeless Aids 3 Support
3 Jim Leach (F) lowa-R For Senior’s Benefits 1 Support
4 Nancy Johnson (F) Connecticut-R For Senior’s Benefits I Support
Note: M = Male, F = Female.
As Table 4.11 indicated, the main reason in the 104th House for lawmakers to
support housing policies was “seniors safety and homeless assistance.” Rep. Michael
Castle, Delaware-R, argued in support of housing policies in order to protect seniors’
safety.
Seniors should feel protected and secure in their homes. This bill (Senior Citizens
Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act Of 1995) takes us one major step closer
to making public housing communities safer and bringing peace of mind to
residents.--
In contrast, female lawmakers focused on helping those who needed houses rather
than on the restructuring of existing buildings. Rep. Nancy Johnson, Connecticut-R,
spoke for elderly and disabled people’s benefits and concerns.
By adding these funds over the life of these buildings, tens of thousands of our
Nation's seniors and disabled persons will have housing opportunities they would
otherwise not have. These funds not only provide affordable housing; they also
provide those key supportive services that mean independence to seniors and our
disabled citizens.2 3
Although male and female Republicans are concerned about housing policies for
the elderly, they gave different reasons. Male lawmakers emphasized reliance on local
communities, whereas, female lawmakers focused on the people who needed housing
2 1 Congressional Record, February 27, 1996, H1276.
2 2 Congressional Record, October 24, 1995, H 10656.
2 3 Congressional Record, June 26, 1996, H6854.
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assistance. Therefore, female lawmakers spoke for housing policies as a basis for
humanization. Male lawmakers focused more on concrete assistance, such as facilities,
equipment, and buildings for people.
4. Crime Prevention Policies
The problem of crime prevention is an important issue in American society. Rep.
Rosa Delauro, Connecticut-D, explained the serious criminal problems in family and
society. “In 1993,4 million American women reported being beaten by their husbands or
boyfriends, and in 1990, 6 out of 10 women who were victims of homicide were
murdered by someone they knew.”2 4 In general, women and children are victims of
crime more often than men. Lawmakers have the responsibility of making laws to prevent
the abuse of guns and drugs, rape, domestic violence, and homicides in society and
families. Rep. Eva Clayton, N. Carolina-D, indicates that the protection of women is her
legislative responsibility.
I want women to feel safer because of our work here. I want them to know that
their elected officials are making necessary changes to ensure their safety on the
streets and especially in their homes. I want them to know that the law is on then-
side and they do not have to sit back and take abuse.2 5
According to feminist standpoint theory, men are socialized as the protectors of
family, women as the caregivers. Supposedly, men would support criminal protection
policies more frequently than women. Table 4.4 indicates, however, that women are
more supportive than men in supporting crime prevention policies. In the 103rd House,
62.70% of female lawmakers made speeches supporting crime prevention policies, while
2 4 Congressional Record, October 4, 1994, H I0691.
2 5 Congressional Record, October 4, 1994, H10678.
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
only 37.30% of male lawmakers spoke on these policies. Female lawmakers showed a
consistent attitude in supporting crime prevention policies.
Table 4.12 Reasons of Speaking Crime Prevention Policies in the 103r d
House of Representatives
Supports
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Public Safety 12 Against Domestic Violence 22
Crime Control 9 Crime Control 20
Anti-Drug 4 Women 13
Anti-Crime 4 Anti-Gun 8
Protect Children 3 Children 7
Anti-Gun 1 Public Safety 6
HTV Virus Test 1 Anti-Crime 6
Anti-Death Penalty I Family 2
Anti-Drug 1
Anti-Terrorists 1
Oppose
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Bad Social Program 5 None 0
Soft on Crime 2
Hurt Hunters 1
Wasteful Spending I
Considering crime prevention policies by party, there are different results in the
103rd and 104th Houses. In the 103rd House, 62.70% of Democrats spoke in favor of
crime prevention policies; while only 37.30% of Republicans spoke for them. In the
104th House, 51.3% of Republicans gave attention to crime prevention compared with
48.7% of Democrats. (See Table 4.4) The partisan shift in crime speeches between these
two sessions may be due to the shift in majority party dominance in the 104th House. The
Republican Party became the majority in the 104th House. Therefore, committee
responsibility for legislation shifted to the Republican Party and their issue priorities.
Considering both gender and party, female Democrats showed more concern for crime
prevention than did female Republicans in the 103rd and 104th Houses. Republican
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
congressmen made more speeches on crime prevention than Democratic congressmen did
in the either session. (See Table 4.5)
As Table 4.12 and Table 4.13 illustrate, male lawmakers and female lawmakers
gave different reasons for dealing with criminal problems. Male lawmakers emphasized
public safety, crime control and anti-drug causes in the 103rd House, and anti-terrorism,
anti-gun, anti-crime and judicial system reform in the 104th House. Rep. Peter Visclosky,
Indiana-D, illustrated the need to pass a crime prevention policy.
This crime bill will put more police on the streets, throw away the key for repeat
violent criminals, and prevent crime before it happens. This is a balanced bill that
the Nation wants and needs. It should pass as soon as possible.2 6
Rep. Sam Farr, Califomia-D, indicated the responsibility of lawmakers to pass laws to
protect children and the country.
It is not about pork. It is about violence in America. It is about members who
forgot why they came here to promote the domestic tranquility. Members came
here to enact laws that would protect this country and protect the children in this
country.2 7
Female lawmakers showed their concern for domestic violence, crime control, the
protection of women and children, and anti-drug policies in the 103rd and 104th Houses.
Rep. Barbara Kennelly, Connecticut-D, explained the importance of the passage of the
Crime Bill for protecting women and children in the 103rd House.
The families of our Nation have talked to all of us. They are concerned about
crime, worried about their children’ s safety. We must put our differences aside
and pass this crime bill. This bill is historical. For the first time Federal law has
addressed violence against women. In fact, a child that observes violence is 700
times more apt to be an abusive adult.2 8
2 6 Congressional Record, April 21, 1994, H2587.
2 7 Congressional Record, August 21, 1994, H8944.
2 8 Congressional Record, April 20, 1994, H2510.
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Noticeably, in the 103 and 104 Houses, protecting women from domestic
violence and drug abuse is the main reason female lawmakers support crime prevention
policies. The number of women involved in “alcohol and drug” problems has grown in
society. Rep. Constance Morelia, Maryland-R, reports that “women are approximately
50 percent of the total alcohol and drug dependent population.”2 9 Rep. Patsy Mink,
Hawaii-D, emphasizes the passage of the Violence against Women Act3 0 for protecting
women.
The Violence against Women Act is a monumental step forward in domestic
violence prevention, in assistance to women who have been battered, and
assurances that domestic violence will be taken as seriously as any other type of
assault or similar crime.3 1
Rep. Elizabeth Furse, Oregon-D, gave her viewpoint about the crime bill on the floor.
This crime bill is not a perfect bill and there are things in this bill that I do not
support-such as the 50 additional death penalty offenses, the three strikes and
you're out; and the omission of the Racial Justice Act. But in spite of these
limitations this bill has value for the American people and their communities; it
includes law enforcement, jail construction, stricter sentencing, and prevention
resources.3 2
Female lawmakers considered women’s safety and stiff punishment for crime.
Conversely, male lawmakers considered the policies related to crime prevention based on
public safety, the judicial system, and financial considerations, such as taxes and the cost
of increasing the number of police officers on the streets.
2 9 Congressional Record, November 20, 1993, H10307.
3 0 The Violence against Women Act was passed in the 105th House.
3 1 Congressional Record, October 4, 1994, H10688.
3 2 Congressional Record, August 17, 1994, H8573.
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.13 Reasons of Speaking the Crime Prevention Policies in the 104th House
Supports
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Anti-Terrorism 7 Anti-Drug 10
Anti-Gun 5 Anti-Crime 4
Anti-Crime 4 Anti-Terrorism 3
Protect Children 4 Protect Children 3
Judicial System Reform 4 Anti-Gun 2
For Women 3 For Women 2
Anti-Drug 3 Judicial System Reform 1
Family 2 Social Safety 1
Protect Property 2
Against Domestic Violence 1
Anti-Tobacco for Youth 1 Protect Knowledge I
More Prisons 1
Against Domestic Violence 1
Social Safety 1
Protect Victims I
Oppose
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Increase Drug-related Crime 2 Hurt Women 2
Bad to Americans 1
Hurt Hunters 1
Hurt Public Safety I
Considering crime prevention policies by ideology, liberal lawmakers made more
speeches on crime prevention issues than conservative and moderate lawmakers in the
103rd House. In the 104th House, conservative lawmakers made more speeches on crime
prevention issues than liberal and moderate lawmakers. In the 103rd House, 48.50% of
liberal lawmakers showed more concern related to crime prevention policies, whereas
only 39.40% of conservative lawmakers and 12.10% of moderate lawmakers spoke for
them. In the 104th House, 57.10% of conservative lawmakers spoke for crime prevention
policies compared to 28.60% liberal lawmakers and 14.30% of moderate lawmakers. A
possible explanation for the differences between both sessions is that in the 103rd House,
female lawmakers spoke for crime prevention more often than male lawmakers,
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
conversely, male lawmakers spoke for crime prevention more often than their female
lawmakers in the 104th House. Female lawmakers are more liberal than their male
lawmakers. (See Table 3.4) Therefore, in the 103rd House, liberal lawmakers showed
more concern about crime prevention policies than conservative lawmakers or moderate
lawmakers.
In conclusion, female lawmakers consistently supported crime prevention policies
in both the 103rd House and the 104th House. Likewise, their support for crime
prevention policies was not influenced by the change of the majority party from the 103rd
House to the 104th House. Female lawmakers also consistently mention women, children
and anti-violence in their speeches concerning crime prevention policies. Male
lawmakers speak about crime in terms of anti-crime, social safety and judicial system
reform.
5. Foreign/Military Policies
According to feminist standpoint theory, men as the protectors support and protect
the families. Men are more concerned about the protection and safety for families and
societies than women. Therefore, on the House floor, male lawmakers would be more
likely than female lawmakers to speak for military and foreign policies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
Table 4.14 Reasons for Supporting or Opposing Foreign/Military Policies
________ in the 103r d House
Supports
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Troops Back 9 Peacekeeping 9
Limited Authorization 4 Anti-Cuba 3
Peacekeeping 3 Defense Bill 3
National Safety 2 Troops Back 3
Defense Base Closure 1 Women in Military 2
Veteran’s Legal Rights 1 Support Haitians 2
Military Punishment I Support Bosnia 1
Democracy 1 Defense Base Closure I
Support Missile 1 Reduce Military Spending 1
Oppose
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Clinton’s Foreign Plan* 7 Clinton’s Foreign Plan* 2
Human Rights 3 Against Democracy 1
Embargo to Haiti 1 Nuclear Weapon I
Hurt Children/Elders 1
Economic Impact 1
Hurt National Security 1
Note: * It includes the plans which delegate military troops to Haiti, Bosnia,
Cuba and other politically unstable foreign countries. It also includes
speeches in support of the peace troop of United Nations.
As the results of foreign/military policies by gender in Table 4.4 indicate, there
are no big differences between male lawmakers and female lawmakers in support of
military and foreign policies in the 103rd and 104th Houses. In the 103rd House, 52.50%
of male lawmakers spoke for military and foreign policies compared to 47.50% of female
lawmakers. In the 104th House, 56.7% of congressmen showed their concern for
foreign/military policies, while 43.3% of congresswomen did. Congressmen spoke for
military and foreign policies more often than did congresswomen. By contrast,
congresswomen spoke for healthcare/welfare policies more often than congressmen did.
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.15 Reasons for Supporting or Opposing Foreign/Military Policies
______________ in the 104*h House
Supports
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Troop Protection 12 Peacekeeping 6
Clinton’s Military Plan* 8 Troop Protection 4
Peacekeeping 7 Military Construction 3
National Interest 6 Clinton’s Military Plan* 3
Support Peace Corps 4 National Safety 1
Foreign Assistance 4 Reduce Foreign Assistance 1
Democracy 3
Increase Military Spending 2
For Service Women I
For Family 1
For People Safety I
Defense Base Closure 1
Oppose
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Clinton’s Foreign Plan* 8 For Political Purpose 3
Nuclear Weapons 5 Against Human Rights 2
Anti-Democracy 5
No Military Troops 4
Hurt Human Rights 2
Defense Base Closure 1
Hurt Stability in Mexico I
Hurt Foreign Relations 1
* This includes the plans which delegate military troops to Haiti, Bosnia, Cuba and
other politically unstable foreign countries. It also includes to support the peacekeeping
troops for the United Nation.
While examining lawmakers’ attitudes on foreign/military policies in the 103rd
and 104th Houses, congressmen mainly focused on these issues: 1.) getting military
troops back from foreign countries, such as Haiti and Bosnia; 2.) limiting the military
authorization of the president; 3.) peacekeeping; and 4.) national safety. (See Table 4.14
and Table 4.15) Congressmen emphasized military troops rather than other reasons. As
Rep. Joel Hefley, Colorado-R, explained, “A strong military, a coherent foreign policy,
and an effective intelligence network work together to keep our country out of danger and
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
in peace.”3 3 Without a strong military, there cannot be a powerful country with a strong
foreign policy.
In the 104th House, male lawmakers offer three reasons: 1.) military troops; 2.)
Clinton’s military/foreign plans; 3.) peacekeeping for supporting military policies. The
core of President Clinton’s foreign plans is that “the United States should explore the
possibility of establishing a standby voluntary UN, rapid deployment force to deter
international aggression”3 4 and join European allies. Rep. John Mica, Florida-D,
provides the reason why American troops should be back from foreign countries, such as
Somalia.
This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democrat issue. This is not an issue
of national security. This is an issue for many of my colleagues who, after the
night that we saw the bodies of our servicemen dragged through the streets of
Mogadishu, said, 'I wish we had a vote, I wish we had the opportunity to fulfill
the wishes of the American people that our troops should not be in Somalia. They
don't want us there. We do not have a defined mission there. It is time we leave
there.3 5
Clinton’s foreign policy plans, such as using American troops to support the UN
peace initiative, and the delegation of American troops to Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti and
Cuba, appear in male lawmakers’ support or opposition reasons for military policies in
the 103rd and 104th House. Conversely, female lawmakers do not speak for Clinton’s
military plan as frequently as male lawmakers. They are more concerned about
peacekeeping as the most important reason for foreign/military policies in the 103rd and
104th Houses. In considering military and foreign policies, congresswomen cite the
following reasons: peacekeeping (9); anti-Cuba plan (3); and defense bills (3). (See Table
3 3 Congressional Record, May 24, 1994, H3895.
3 4 Carroll Doherty, “United Nations’ Newfound Muscle Relieves worries Washington,” Congressional
Record, March 6, 1993, p.526.
3 5 Congressional Record, November 9, 1993, H9061.
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4.14 and Table 4.15) Rep. Jackson-Lee, Texas-D drew on her personal experience of
motherhood to present herself as a supporter of peacekeepers on foreign/military policies.
I am however an American, and I am a human being and a supporter of world
peace. I am a mother as well, and I had the opportunity just this past week to talk
to some of the parents of some of the troops who are now in Germany, prepared
to liberate those in the former Yugoslavia and Croatia and Bosnia...If my
colleagues are for peace, they have got to stand for peace. They have got to take
risks for peace.3 6
Based on feminist standpoint theory, maternal thinking and being concerned
about children and family, influence women as caretakers. On military and foreign
issues, congresswomen play roles as the peacekeepers to strive for domestic and
international political stability and peace, as well as being the caretakers at home. Sara
Ruddick (1989) brought the value of maternal thinking to military issues. “Mothers are
often militarist and usually supporters of the war policies of their states...maternal
thinking and practices are important resources for developing peace politics.”3 7 In their
role as caretakers, female congresswomen focus on peacekeeping for military policies
more strongly than other reasons in the 103rd and 104th House.
As the results of foreign/military policies by party presented in Table 4.4, in the
103rd House, 45% of Republican legislators supported foreign/military policies on the
floor compared to 55% of Democratic legislators. In the 104th House, 63.3% of
Republican lawmakers spoke for military policies, whereas only 36.7 % of Democrat
lawmakers spoke for them. Not surprisingly, Republicans spoke more frequently than
Democrats on foreign/military programs when they were the majority party.
3 6 Congressional Record, December 13, 1995, H14844.
3 7 Sara Ruddick (1989), Maternal Thinking: Toward A Politics o f Peace (Boston: Beacon Press), p. 12.
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Party interacts with gender: male Republican lawmakers showed the strongest
concern for in military policies compared to the other three groups— male Democrats,
female Democrats and female Republicans. In the 104th House, male Democratic
lawmakers (only 16.7%) are the least supportive in speaking for military programs
compared to the other three groups—male Republicans (40%), female Democrats (20%)
and female Republicans (23.30%). (See Table 4.5) The results match the image of
Republicans who are more likely to be concerned about military issues than Democrats.
As the results of foreign and military issues by ideology in Table 4.4, in the 103rd
House, liberal lawmakers (45.50%) spoke for foreign/military programs more often than
conservative lawmakers (33.30%) and moderate lawmakers (21.20%). In the 104th
House, 54.20% of conservative lawmakers made speeches for foreign/military program,
while only 29.20% of liberal lawmakers and 16.70% of moderate lawmakers spoke for
them. More important, the Democratic Party was the majority party in the 103rd House,
but they lost the 1994 election. Ideological patterns shifted from liberal to conservative.
Thus, liberal lawmakers spoke for military/foreign policies in the 103rd House more often
than in the 104th House. Conversely, the Republican Party controlled the 104th House.
Conservative lawmakers showed their concerns in these foreign/military policies more
frequently than did liberal lawmakers. Moderate lawmakers spoke for military policies
less often than other two groups in both Congresses.
In short, in the military field, congressmen and congresswomen have different
commitments and political positions. Female lawmakers are more concerned about
peacekeeping as the most important reason for foreign/military policies in the 103rd and
104th Houses. Male lawmakers consider national security and military troops back from
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
foreign countries in both sessions. Moreover, partisan control of Congress shifted the
balance of foreign/military speeches to the dominant party.
6. Economic Policies
As feminist standpoint theory predicts, nowadays men and women are the
financial supporters of their families. In fact, the gender gap between congressmen and
congresswomen on economic issues is not large either in terms of the frequency of
speeches or the reasons for supporting/opposing economic policies.
Table 4.16 Reasons of Speaking Economic Policies in the 103r d
House of Representatives
Supports
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Clinton’ s Economic Plan 36 Clinton’ s Economic Plan 61
Cut Spending 13 Deficit Reduction 19
NAFTA* 12 Small Business 6
Deficit Reduction 8 NAFTA* 5
Balanced Trade 5 Balanced Trade 3
Help Farmers 4 Family/Children 3
Good to Small Business 2 Cut Spending 3
Agricultural Development I Women Owned Business 1
Oppose
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Clinton’ s Economic Plan 14 NAFTA* 23
Employer Mandates 8 Employer Mandates 10
Injury Taxpayers 4 Clinton’ s Economic Plan 10
Hurt Small Business 4 Hurt Small Business 4
NAFTA* 2 Cut Spending 3
Hurt Under Class 2 Injury Taxpayers 2
Export Policy I Hurt the Seniors I
Against Children 1 Hurt Crime Prevention I
Gas Tax Hurt Workers I
Note: * North America Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4.17 Reasons of Speaking Economic Policies in the 104*1 1 House of Representatives
Supports
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Clinton’s Economic Plan 18 Clinton's Economic Plan 10
Deficit Reduction 18 Unfunded Mandate Reform 6
Support Minimum Wage 12 Small Business 6
Support Farmers 7 Support Minimum Wage 4
Unfunded Mandate Reform 5 Deficit Reduction 2
Financial Stability 5 For Children 2
Spending Cut 4 Urban Economic Development 2
Small Business 4 Reduce Trade with Japan 2
Children 2 For the Worker 1
MFN* 2
NAFTA** I
Family 1
Gas Tax 1
Oppose
Male Lawmakers Totals Female Lawmakers Totals
Clinton's Economic Plan 10 MFN* 6
For the Rich 6 For the Rich 6
Tax Increase 5 Hurt Workers 2
Injury Taxpayers 5 Deficit Reduction 2
NAFTA** 3 Clinton's Economic Plan I
Hurt Farmers 2 Unfunded Mandate Reform I
Trade with Japan 2 Tax Increase 1
Gas Tax Increase 2 Hurt Small Business 1
Lift Embargo in Bosnia 2
Unfunded Mandate Reform 2
MFN* 2
Small Business 2
Increase Interest Rates 1
Against Children 1
Minimum Wage 1
Note: * Most Favored Nation Status (MFN).
** North America Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
As the results of economic policies by gender presented in Table 4.4 indicate,
48.10% of female lawmakers spoke for economic policies, while 51.90% of male
lawmakers spoke for them in the 103rd House. In the 104th House, 54.9% of male
lawmakers mentioned economic issues on the floor; while 45.1% of female lawmakers
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
demonstrated their viewpoints on economic issues. (See Table 4.4) But there is no
significant correlation between gender and economic policies. (See Table 4.3) In these
two sessions of the House, Clinton’s economic plans set the agenda for congressmen and
congresswomen on economic issues, including economic recovery, reemployment, a job
stimulus program and tax relief.
As Table 4.16 indicates, female lawmakers spoke 61 times in support of President
Clinton’s proposals as compared to male lawmakers (36). This was significantly greater
than male legislators. But the main reason that male and female legislators support
economic issues is President Clinton’s economic policies in the 103rd and 104th Houses.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Califomia-D, urges support of the President’s economic plan
based on economic recovery.
Last night the President called on the American people to help address our
Nation's most urgent priority: Reviving the American dream by restoring the
American economy. Of course, I support the President's plan, and I urge my
colleagues to do so...The President’s economic plan must be adopted promptly
to get our economy moving.3 8
Rep. James Clybum, South Carolina-D, strongly supported Clinton’s economic plan
which improves economic growth.
We cannot leave it to chance that this Nation's economy will heal itself and the
deficit will reduce itself. We cannot leave to chance jobs and educational
opportunities for America's people...If we do not make some fundamental
changes today. It is time to support President Clinton's plan for economic growth
and fundamental change.3 9
In addition to Clinton’s economic plans, deficit reduction, unfunded mandate
reform, and minimum wage plans were essential issues for male lawmakers. Similarly,
female legislators considered the issues of: deficit reduction, unfunded mandate reform,
3 8 Congressional Record, August 4, 1993, H5745.
3 9 Congressional Record, May 13, 1993, H2468.
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and small business in economic policies. Rep. Jan Meyers, Kansas-R, argued for the
necessity of helping small business interests, especially women-owned business.
Small businesses do not want to dodge their responsibility; they want to grow into
larger, stronger businesses that can afford to offer their employees good health
care benefits. Frankly, I am amazed that White House officials believe that small
businesses are getting off easy— there is nothing easy in the personal and financial
risks these women take everyday. We should assist our small women-owned
businesses, not burden them with further mandates.40
Table 4.4 indicates the results of economic policies by party in the 103rd and 104th
Houses. In the 103rd House, Republicans and Democrats showed strong differences.
Sixty-three percent of Democrats spoke for economic policies, while only 37% of
Republicans demonstrated their support for them. In the 103rd House, 38.30% of female
Democrats showed their strongest support for economic policies compared to male
Democrats (24.60%), male Republicans (27.20%) and female Republicans (9.9%). (See
Table 4.5)
In the 104th House, 54.9% of Republicans supported economic policy, while
45.1% of Democrats demonstrated their support for them. Female Democrats (31.4%)
consistently showed their strong support as compared to female Republicans (13.7%).
(See Table 4.5) In the 104th House, Republicans controlled the House as the majority
party. Since that moment, the impact of partisan identity appeared in economic issues.
Democrats criticize Republicans’ activities on economic issues which hurt economic
recovery and the middle class. Rep. Nydia Velazquez, New York-D, criticizes
Republicans because they do not support policies that will aid urban youth and poor
children.
They exercised this authority in November when they elected a Democratic
President to reverse the human disregard of the past 12 years. However, by
4 0 Congressional Record, June 21, 1994, H4730.
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
blocking the President’ s much-needed economic stimulus package, the
Republicans have proven that they will not listen to the American voter. So, while
they relish their political victory over the stimulus package today, the American
people will be suffering for some time to come. Poor children will go without
immunizations, at-risk urban youth will not find summer jobs, our damaged roads
and bridges will remain in disrepair, and our homeless families will continue to
live without shelter and proper services. We cannot allow this to happen.4 1
Even though Democrats are the minority in the House, they still show strong support for
President Clinton’s economic programs in the 104th House.
Concerning economic issues by ideology, in the 103rd House, liberal lawmakers
(46%) are more supportive than conservative lawmakers (34.90%) and moderate
lawmakers (19%) in the economic field. In the 104th House, 39.50% of liberal lawmakers
spoke for economic policies; while 46.50% of conservative lawmakers spoke for them.
(See Table 4.4) Moderate lawmakers (14%) spoke for economic policies less often than
the other two groups in the 104th House.
Male and female lawmakers had similar reasons for supporting economic policies.
Party and ideology seemed to be more important factors in influencing lawmakers’
speeches on economic issues. The different majority in the different Congresses showed
their distinct commitments and political positions on economic issues.
In summary, floor debates are important in understanding lawmakers’ political
positions on different issues. Supporters or opponents of bills are given the chance to
speak for or against the measures on the floor. Female lawmakers tend to talk about
healthcare and welfare policies in terms of children, women, and families. Male
lawmakers consider the costs and benefits of healthcare and welfare policies more than
other reasons.
4 1 Congressional Record, April 22, 1993, H1998.
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Similar differences in language uses between male and female legislators emerge
in the discussions of crime prevention and foreign/military issues. In terms of crime
issues, male legislators focus on the protection of the families as a whole and on over all
social safety. Female legislators tend to focus on crimes against women and children,
and the issues of domestic violence. On foreign and military affairs, male lawmakers
emphasize the importance of national security, whereas female lawmakers argue in terms
of America’s peacekeeping duties. When it came to economic issues, both male and
female legislators showed similar concerns about President Clinton’s economic plans.
This study has shown that language used by male and female legislators on floor
speeches are affected by the differences in lawmakers’ political attitudes and positions on
policy agendas. Floor speeches also offer insight into the influences of socialization and
life experiences on lawmakers. Therefore, when congressional legislation is explored,
floor debates should not be ignored.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
Chapter Five
Conclusion
Feminist standpoint theory emphasizes the different life experiences of men and
women. Basically, women’s experiences are formed by maternal thinking and childhood
socialization which affect women’s beliefs, attitudes and later political identification.
Because of maternal thinking and socialization, women are assigned roles in families as
caregivers for family and children, whereas men are socialized in the public arena as the
protectors to support and protect the families.
With the help of gender consciousness raising, women recognized that they could
be competent in the public arena as well as men. They gradually transformed their life
styles from the private sphere to the public sphere. Women have become not only
financial supporters for the families, but also a crucial part of the workforce. More
important, with the help of gender consciousness, women have also recognized that
participation in the political arena may be an additional way to benefit women. Because
of their personal life experiences, they have become the supporters and the speakers for
women’s demands and interests in the public arena, especially in Congress.
Because of the influence of life experience, lawmakers demonstrate different
policy preferences in legislation. Female lawmakers are more likely than their male
counterparts to support women’s issues, such as healthcare/welfare and education; in
contrast, male lawmakers prefer supporting men’s issues, such as housing and
foreign/military policies. Nowadays, both men and women share financial responsibility
in families. Therefore, male and female lawmakers show similar support for economic
policies.
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1. Women’s Issues
The results presented in Chapter Three and Chapter Four show gender differences
in sponsorship, cosponsorship and floor speeches related to women’s issues. Gender is a
significant variable and consistently influences lawmakers’ policymaking decisions on
healthcare/welfare and children/family issues that are traditionally associated with
women. Female lawmakers sponsor and cosponsor bills related to healthcare/welfare and
children/family issues more than their male counterparts do. Debra Dodson and Susan
Carroll (1991) studied state legislators’ top legislative priorities. The results indicated
that 51% of female lawmakers supported distinctive women’s concerns, while 37% of
male lawmakers supported the same concerns.1 They indicated that “women indeed were
more likely than men to mention a women’s concern as their top legislative priorities.
This was true among Democrats as well as among Republicans.”2
With regard to floor speeches, female lawmakers also express stronger concern
for women and children than did male lawmakers. They speak for women, children and
families based on their personal experiences in discussing policies related to healthcare
and welfare issues. Male lawmakers also speak for women and children regardless of
their life experiences. Likewise, they consider financial costs and reform of healthcare
systems in their speeches on these issues.
“Party identification” is not a significant variable in legislation related to
women’s issues. But when party is tested with gender, the results illustrate significant
gender differences among Democrats and Republicans on healthcare/welfare and
family/children policies. Female Democrats and Republicans show the strongest support
1 Debra Dodson and Susan Carroll (1991), Reshaping the Agenda: Women in Sate Legislatures (New
Jersey: Center For the American Woman and Politics), p.54.
2 Debra Dodson and Susan Carroll (1991), p.54.
167
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
for welfare and children policies. The results do not show differences between male
Democrats and male Republicans on these same issues.
Based on feminist standpoint theory, women are more liberal than men.
Supposedly, with the help of gender consciousness and life experiences, liberal
lawmakers would be more likely than their conservative and moderate counterparts to
support women’s issues, such as healthcare, welfare, family and children issues.
Ideology significantly addresses the gender impact of these issues in examining
sponsorship, cosponsorship and floor speeches. Liberal lawmakers indeed sponsor and
cosponsor healthcare/welfare and family/child policies more than do conservative
lawmakers. Moderate lawmakers are less likely than the other two groups to support
healthcare, welfare, family and child policies. While examining ideology with gender, a
gender gap is apparent on women’s issues. Liberal and conservative female lawmakers
show greater concern for women’s issues than do liberal and conservative male
lawmakers. Liberal congressmen do not show obvious differences compared to
conservative congressmen on women’s issues.
Based on feminist standpoint theory, married legislators are more concerned
about family and children than unmarried legislators. Supposedly, married lawmakers
are more likely than unmarried lawmakers to support women’s issues in legislation. Data
from the 103rd and 104th Congress suggest that marital status is not a significant variable
in legislation related to women’s concerns. Gender differences in marital status are not
apparent on women’s issues.
In exploring education policies, the factors of gender, party identification,
ideology and marriage do not illustrate significant relationships with education policies in
sponsorships, cosponsorships or floor speeches. The probable explanation is that
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
education policy is not a major legislative focus in these sessions of the House of
Representatives. Rep. Jose E. Serrano, New York-D, mentioned that education policy
was a state issue. He would have willingly explored this issue in Congress, but he was
not sure that federal lawmakers and administrators would be willing to support
educational programs.
In short, gender gaps evidently exist in sponsorship, cosponsorship and floor
speeches when policies are related to women’s issues.
2. Men’s Issues
In terms of feminist standpoint theory, men have been trained since their
childhood to be the protectors to sustain and protect their families. Accordingly, male
lawmakers are more likely than female lawmakers to support men’s issues, such as crime
prevention, military and foreign affairs. From the results of the regression analyses
presented in Chapter Three, it appears that gender is not a significant variable when
examining men’s issues. There are no apparent differences between female legislators
and male legislators on crime prevention, housing and foreign/military issues.
Female lawmakers may support crime prevention policies because of the
influence of maternal thinking and childcaring. They assume some responsibilities for
protecting children from violence and crime. As a result, female lawmakers become
stronger supporters on these issues. Women and men play roles as protectors of families
and children. Therefore, gender differences are small between congressmen and
congresswomen on crime prevention programs.
Gender is also not significantly related to floor speeches when examining crime
prevention issues. But by looking at the content of speeches, female lawmakers and male
lawmakers are shown to emphasize different reasons for handling crime prevention
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
issues. Female lawmakers demonstrate their concern for women, children and domestic
violence. On the other hand, male lawmakers are concerned about judicial system reform
and social security. Women express their concern for women and children in crime
programs as well as healthcare and welfare issues. Men still emphasize financial
problems and system reforms on crime prevention as well on women’s issues.
While exploring the variable of party with sponsorships and cosponsorships on
crime prevention issues, Republicans express stronger support than do Democrats on
crime prevention issues. By party regarding gender, female lawmakers, within both the
Democratic and Republican parties, are more likely than male lawmakers within both
parties to support crime prevention issues. Noticeably, female Republican lawmakers are
more supportive than female Democratic lawmakers on crime prevention programs.
Male Republicans are not significantly different from male Democrats on these same
issues.
In testing ideology, it is not strongly related to legislation concerning crime
prevention issues. Conservative lawmakers are slightly more likely than liberal
lawmakers to sponsor and cosponsor these policies. While examining ideology regarding
gender, liberal, conservative and moderate female lawmakers are more supportive than
liberal, conservative and moderate male lawmakers on crime prevention issues.
However, the differences between female conservative lawmakers and female liberal
lawmakers are small in terms of bill sponsorship, cosponsorship and floor speeches
related to crime prevention policies. In addition, the differences between liberal and
conservative male lawmakers are not large on crime prevention issues. Liberal and
conservative male lawmakers also do not demonstrate large differences on crime
prevention issues. Moreover, there are not apparent differences between male moderate
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lawmakers and female moderate lawmakers. In sum, the factors of party and ideology
are not significantly related to crime prevention issues.
Considering gender, party, and ideology with military and foreign policies, male
lawmakers show stronger concern than female lawmakers for sponsorship, cosponsorship
and floor speeches related to military and foreign policies. Regardless of gender,
Republican lawmakers are more supportive than Democratic lawmakers on military and
foreign policies. Within each party, gender differences are apparent. Gender differences
are smaller among Republicans, but male Republican lawmakers are more supportive
than female Republican lawmakers on foreign/military issues. Among Democrats,
gender differences are larger but in the same direction. In testing ideology, conservative
lawmakers are slightly more likely than liberal lawmakers to sponsor, cosponsor and
speak for these issues. By ideology with gender, male conservative legislators are more
likely to support foreign/military issues than are liberal male and female legislators and
conservative female lawmakers.
In considering floor speeches, male lawmakers speak for military and foreign
issues more frequently than do female lawmakers. In examining speech content, gender
differences are apparent on foreign and military issues. Female lawmakers emphasize
anti-terrorism, the importance of peacekeeping, and the protection of American soldiers.
Conversely, male lawmakers focus on discussing national interests and security and
President Clinton’s foreign policy plans. A substantial gender gap appears in floor
speeches related to military and foreign issues. When the different party controls the
House, partisan differences appear in floor speeches related to military/foreign policies.
In the 103rd House, the Democratic Party was the majority party, then Democratic
lawmakers spoke for military and foreign policies more often than Republican
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lawmakers. Conversely, the Republican Party controlled the 104th House. Republican
lawmakers spoke for military/foreign issues more often than Democratic lawmakers.
In sum, gender differences appear in floor speeches rather than in sponsorships
and cosponsorships of men’s issues. Party and ideology influence men’s issues
considerably, but neither can predict which one is more influential in legislation related to
men’s issues. The reason is that significant relationships cannot be found among party,
ideology and men’s issues.
3. Economic Issues
Based on feminist standpoint theory, both women and men have become financial
supporters of families. Supposedly, the differences between congressmen and
congresswomen are not large in supporting legislation related to economic issues. From
the analyses presented in Chapter Three, it appears that gender is not significant relative
to legislation regarding economic issues. There are only slight differences between
congressmen and congresswomen in sponsorships, cosponsorships and floor speeches
concerning economic issues.
Party shows a significant relationship with economic legislation. Republicans
demonstrate stronger support than do Democrats in sponsorships, and cosponsorships of
economic issues. Within the parties, the gender differences are apparent as well. Among
Republicans, the gender gap is rather smaller, but Republican women are less supportive
than are Republican men. Among Democrats, the gender gap is larger, but in the same
direction. Among the four groups, male Republicans are more supportive than male
Democrats of legislation concerning economic issues. Likewise, female Republicans are
more likely than female Democrats to support economic issues in sponsorships,
cosponsorships and floor speeches.
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
When the Republican Party controlled the House, then conservative lawmakers
demonstrated stronger support than did liberal lawmakers for economic programs.
Conversely, when the Democratic Party was the majority party in the House, liberal
lawmakers showed more concern for economic programs than conservative lawmakers.
However, the gap between moderate male and female lawmakers is small. Comparing
ideology with gender, there are no apparent differences among male liberal, male
conservative and male moderate legislators on economic issues. But conservative female
lawmakers are more supportive than female liberal and moderate lawmakers on economic
issues. The factors of party and ideology are significant variables on economic issues.
Regarding floor speeches, when a different majority party gains power in the
House of Representatives, the support of economic issues shits in a different direction. In
the 103rd House, the Democratic Party was the majority, therefore, Democratic
lawmakers spoke for Clinton’s economic programs more strongly than did Republican
lawmakers. In contrast, the Republican Party controlled the 104th House, and
consequently, they discussed economic programs more frequently than did Democratic
lawmakers. Republicans spoke against economic programs more frequently than
Democrats. This is not surprising since many economic proposals were put forth by the
Democratic while House. Partisan impact on floor speeches between Democrats and
Republicans was apparent as well. The results of the regression analysis for economic
issues indicate that party appears to be more important than other factors on economic
issues. The variable of marriage is not as important as was expected. The possible
reason is that over seventy percent of lawmakers are married. Therefore, the differences
between unmarried and married lawmakers cannot be found in policy agendas in the
103rd and 104th Houses.
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Feminist standpoint theory is a useful theory to explain gender differences, rather
than partisan and ideological differences in the research of sponsorships, cosponsorships
and floor speeches. The root cause of women’s issues appears to be related to their
different life experiences from those of men. Gender differences are apparently more
important than either partisan or ideological forces in affecting women’s issues. Female
lawmakers show stronger commitments than their male counterparts to their legislative
responsibilities for women’s benefits based on gender and life experiences. Rep. Jane
Harman, Califomia-D, emphasizes the honor to work for women and for the needs of
female lawmakers.
I was pleased to play a part in this fight,...as an initial cosponsor and passionate
supporter of the Freedom of Choice Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the
Freedom of Access to Clinics Act and legislation to promote gender, workplace,
and health equity for women. Women take our place at the table as equals. This is
what the election of more women to public office means.3
The analyses presented in this research are most useful to explain gender-based
differences and policy agendas. Gender is the most important element when lawmakers
make policy decisions related to women’s issues. Women are more likely than men to
support women’s issues. Regarding economic issues, however, party is more influential
than other factors in lawmakers’ policy decision making. Republican lawmakers support
economic programs more strongly than Democrats. Partisan differences are substantial
on economic issues. Concerning men’s issues, it is difficult to predict the most
influential element because none of the examined variables appears to predict men’s
issues with any statistical significance.
3 Congressional Record, April 28, 1994, H2847.
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Undoubtedly, gender differences are apparent in legislation. Female legislators
show different commitments and beliefs than do male legislators. Because of different
commitments, female lawmakers make policy agendas differently in Congress. They
have their own policy priorities, such as healthcare/welfare issues. Further, they speak
for their preferred policies on the House floor and support the passage of legislation that
benefits women and children. Therefore, if we expect to have more policies to benefit
women, then we have to elect more female lawmakers who are likely to support women’s
demands in Congress.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
Bibliography
A. Books
Apter, David E. (1964), Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press).
Bader, John B. (1996), Taking the Initiative: Leadership Agendas in
Congress and the “Contract with America” (Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown University Press).
Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, Richard E. Cohen (1995), The Almanac o f
American Politics 1996: The Senators, the Representatives, and the
Governors: Their Records and Election Result, their States and
Districts (Washington, DC: National Journal).
Birke, Lynda (1986), Women, Feminism and Biology: The Feminist Challenge
(New York: Wheatsheaf Books Ltd.).
Bosnich, Victor W. (1992), Congressional Voting Guide: A Ten Year
Compilation, 4th, (Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data).
Bositis, David (1994), The Congressional Black in Caucus in the 103rd
Congress (Washington, D.C.: Joint Center for Political and Economic
Studies).
Braden, Maria (1996), Women Politicians and The Media (Kentucky: The
University Press of Kentucky).
Brown, Robin (1993), Women’ s Issues (New York: The H. W. Wilson
Company).
Burrell, Barbara C. (1994), A Woman’ s Place is in the House: Campaigning
For Congress in the Feminist Era (Ann Arbor: The University of
Michigan Press).
Carroll, Susan J. (1994), Women as Candidates in American Politics, 2n d ,
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
Conway, Margaret, Gertrude Steuemagel, & David Ahem (1997), Women &
Political Participation: Cultural Change in the Political Arena
(Washington D. C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc.).
Cook, Elizabeth Adell, Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox (1994), The Year of the
Women: Myths and Realities (Boulder: Westview Press).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Crawford, Mary (1995), Talking Difference: on Gender and Language (New
Delhi: SAGE Publications).
Dewhirst, Robert E. (1997), Rites o f Passage: Congress Makes Laws (New
Jersey: Prentice Hall).
Dodson, Debra, Susan Carroll, Ruth Mandel, Katherine Kleeman, Ronnee
Schreiber, Debra Liebowitz (1995), Voices, Views, Votes: The Impact o f Women
in the 103rd Congress (Rutgers: Center for the American Woman and Politics).
Duke, Lois Lovelace (1996), Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders? A
Correction o f Readings (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), 2nd.
Gertzog, Irwin N. (1995), Congressional Women: Their Recruitment,
Integration, and Behavior (Westport: PRAEGER), 2nd.
Gergen, Mary and Sara Davis (1997), Toward a New Psychology o f Gender
(New York: Routledge).
Gimpel, James (1996), Legislating The Revolution: the Contract with
America in the First 100 Days (Boston: Ailyn and Bacon).
Hartsock, Nancy C.M. (1983), Money, Sex, and Power: Toward a Feminist
Historical Materialism (New York: Longman).
Hess, Beth B. and Myra Marx Ferree (1987), Analyzing Gender: A Handbook
o f Social Science Research (New Delhi: SAGE Publications).
Jacobson, Gary C. (1997), The Politics o f Congressional Elections (California:
Longman), 4th.
Jaggar, Alison (1983), Feminist Politics and Human Nature (New Jersey: The
Harvester Press).
Kahn, Kim Fridkin (1996), The Political Consequences o f Being A Woman:
How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of
Political Campaigns (New York: Columbia University Press).
Keefe, William and Morris Ogul (1997), The American Legislative Process:
Congress and The States (New Jersey: Prentice Hall), 9th.
Klein, Ethel (1984), Gender Politics: From Consciousness to Mass Politics
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
Koopman, Douglas L. (1996), Hostile Takeover: The House Republican Party,
1980-1995 (London: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.).
i l l
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Kozak, David C. John D. Macartney (1987), Congress and Public Policy: A
Source Book o f Documents and Readings (Chicago: The Dorsey
Press), 2nd.
Lea, James F. and Cecil L. Eubanks (1982), Political Consciousness and
American Democracy (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi).
Little, Jo (1994) Gender, Planning and the Policy process (New York:
PERGAMON).
Lovenduski, Joni and Pippa Norris (1993), Gender and Party Politics (New
Delhi: SAGE Publications).
Makus, Ingrid (1996), Women, Politics and Reproduction: The Liberal Legacy
(Buffalo: University of Toronto Press).
Martin, Frenton S. and Robert U. Goehlert (1996), How to Research
Congress (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.).
Maisel, L. Sandy and William G. Shade (1994), Parties and Politics in
American History: A Reader (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.).
Margolies-Mezvinsky, Maijorie and Barbara Feinman (1994), A Woman’s Place:
The Freshmen Women who Changed the Face o f Congress (New York:
Crown Publishers, Inc.).
McGlen, Nancy and Karen O’Connor (1995), Women, Politics, and American
Society (New Jersey: Prentice Hall).
McSweeney, Dean and John Zvesper (1994), American Political Parties (New
York: Routledge).
Mueller, Carol M. (1988), The Politics o f the Gender Gap: The Social
Construction o f Political Influence (Newbury Park: SAGE Publications).
Norris, Pippa (1997), Women, Media and Politics (New York: Oxford
University Press).
Phillips, Anne (1991), Engendering Democracy (Pennsylvania: The
Pennsylvania State University Press).
Rai, Shirin M. & Geraldine Lievesley (1996), Women and the State:
International Perspectives (Pennsylvania: Taylor & Francis Inc.).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rieselbach, Leroy N. (1995), Congressional Politics: The Evolving
Legislative System (San Francisco: Westview Press), 2nd.
Salmore, Barbara and Stephen Salmore (1989), Candidates, Parties, and
Campaigns: Electoral Politics in America (Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Quarterly Inc.), 2nd.
Sapiro, Virginia (1983), The Political Integration o f Women: Roles,
Socialization, and Politics (Chicago: University of Illinois Press).
Schlesinger, Joseph A (1994), Political Parties and the Winning o f Office
(USA: The University of Michigan Press), 4th.
Schneier, Edward V. and Bertram Gross (1993), Congress Today (New York:
St. Martin’s Press).
Schneider, Jerrold E. (1979), Ideological Coalitions in Congress (Connecticut:
Greenwood Press).
Sinclair, Barbara (1995), Legislators, Leaders, and Lawmaking: The U.S.
House o f Representatives in the Postreform Era (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press).
Smith, Dorothy (1987), The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist
Sociology (Boston: Northeastern University Press).
Thomas, Su (1994), How Women Legislate (New York: Oxford University
Press).
Tilly, Louise A. and Patricia Gurin (1990), Women, Politics, Change (New York:
Russell Sage Foundation).
Wattenberg, Martin P. (1994) The Decline o f American Political Parties:
1952-1992 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press).
Winston, Kenneth and Mary Jo Bane (1993), Gender and Public Policy: Cases
and Comments (San Francisco: Westview Press).
Witt, Linda, Karen Paget and Glenna Matthews (1994), Running as a Woman:
Gender and Power in American Politics (New York: The Free Press).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B. Articles
Amenta, Edwin, “Campaign ‘98: The Real Women’s Issues,” Boston Focus, April 26,
1998, D l.
Barabak, Mark, ‘The Women of the Year that Was,” LA Times, October 6, 1997, A3.
Berreman, Gerald D., “Race, Caste, and Other Invidious Distinctions in Social
Stratification,” Race 13, April 1972, pp. 385-414.
Bourque, Susan C. & Jean Grossholtz, “Politics an Unnatural Practice: Political
Science Looks at Female Participation,” Politics and Society 4, Winter 1974,
pp. 225-266.
Buchanan, Christopher, “Why Aren’t there more women in Congress?”
Congressional Quarterly Weekly Reports 36, August 12, 1978,
pp. 2108-2110.
Bullock, Charles S. & Patricia Findley Heys, “Recruitment of Women for
Congress: A Research Note,” Western Political Quarterly 25, September 1972,
pp. 416-423.
Center for the American Woman and Politics, “Women in the US House of
Representatives 1993,” Fact Sheet.
Chock, Phyllis Pease, “Ambiguity in Policy Discourse: Congressional Talk About
Immigration,” Policy Sciences 28, 1995, pp.165-184.
Considine, M and I. E. Edutchman, “The Gendering of Political-Institutions-A
Comparison of American and Australian State legislators,” Social Science
Quarterly, Vol. 75, Issue 4, December 1994, pp. 854-866.
Ekstrand, L and W. Eckert, ‘The Impact of Candidates Sex on Voter Choice,”
Western Political Quarterly 34, 1981, pp. 78-87.
Gillespie, Piane and Cassia Spohn, “Adolescents’ Attitudes Towards Women
In Politics: The Effect of Gender and Race,” Gender and Society 1,
19887, pp. 208-218.
Gillespie, Piane and Cassia Spohn , “Adolescents’ Attitudes Towards Women in
Politics: A Follow Up Study,” Women and Politics 10, 1990, pp. 1-16.
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Harding, Sandra (1993), Chapter 3 “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: “What
is Strong Objectivity”?” In Linda Alcoff & Elizabeth Potter (1993), Feminist
Epistemologies (New York: Routledge), pp. 49-82.
Harding, Sandra, “Women’s Standpoints on Nature What Makes Them
Possible?” OSIRIS 12, 1997, p.p. 1-15.
Hartsock, Nancy, ‘The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground For a
Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism”, pp283-311. In Sandra Harding
and Merrill Hintikk, Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on
Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology, and Philosophy o f
Science (Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company)
Hawkesworth, Mary, “Policy Studies Within a Feminist Frame, ” Policy Sciences
27, pp. 97-118.
Hershey, Maijorie, “The Politics of Androgyny: Sex Roles and Attitudes Toward
Women in Politics,” American Politics Quarterly 3, 1977, pp. 261-287.
Huddy, Leonie and Nayda, “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male
and Female Candidates,” American Journal o f Political Science 37,
1993, p p .119-147.
Hurwitz, Jon and Shannon Smithey, “Gender Differences on Crime and Punishment,”
Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 1, March 1998, pp. 89-115.
Huspek, Michael and Kathleen Kendall, “On Withholding Political Voice: An Analysis
of the Political Vocabulary of A “Nonpolitical” Speech Community,” The
Quarterly Journal o f Speech, Vol. 77, No.l, February 1991, pp.1-19.
Kessler, Daniel and Keith Krehbirl, “Dynamics of Co-sponsorship,” American
Political Science Review, Vol. 90, Issue 3, September 1996, pp. 555-566.
Maltzman, Forrest and Lee Sigelman, ‘The Politics of Talk: Unconstrained Floor Time in
the U.S. House of Representatives,” The Journal o f Politics, Vol. 58, No. 3,
August 1996, pp. 819-830.
Meemik, James, “Congress, the President, and the Commitment of the U.S. Military,”
Legislative Studies Quarterly 20, August 1995, pp. 377-387.
Outzs, Lori, “A Principled Use of Congressional Floor Speeches in Statutory
Interpretation,” Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, Vol28, No.2,
Winter 1995, pp. 297-338.
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Riggle, Ellen, Penny Miller, Todd Shields and Mitzi Johnson (1997), “Gender
Stereotypes and Decision Context in the Evaluation of Political Candidates,”
Women & Politics, Vol. 17 (3), pp. 69-87.
Rinehart, Sue Tolleson, “Gender Differences and the Political Orientations of
Southern College Students,” Women and Politics 8, 1988, pp. 65-82.
Rixecker, Stefanie, “Expanding the Discursive Context of Policy Design: A Mater of
Feminist Standpoint Expitemology,” Policy Sciences 27, 1994, pp. 119-142.
Schiller, Wendy J., “Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship
to Shape Legislative Agendas,” American Journal o f Political Science,
Vol. 39, N o.l, February 1995, pp. 186-203.
Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Nancy Bums, Sidney Verba, and Jesse Donahue,
“Gender and Citizen participation: Is There a Different Voice?” American
Journal o f Political Science, Vol. 39, No. 2, May 1995, pp. 267-293.
Solomon, Gerald and Donald Wolfensberger, “The Decline of Deliberative Democracy in
the House and Proposals for Reform,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, Vol. 31,
Issue 2, Summer 1994, pp. 321-370.
Sullivan, John, L. Earl Shaw, Georgry McAvoy and David Bamum, “The Dimensions of
Cue-Taking in the House of Representatives: Variation by Issue Area,” The
Journal o f Politics, Vol.55, No 4, November 1993, pp. 975-997.
Swigonski, Mary E., “The Logic of Feminist Standpoint Theory for Social-Work
Research,” Social Work, vol. 39, issue 4, July 1994, p.p. 387-393.
Thornton, Arland, Duane Alwin, and Donald Cambum, “Causes and
Consequences of Sex-Role Attitudes and Attitude Change,” American
Sociological Review 42, 1983, pp. 211-227.
Trevor, Margaret C., “Childhood Attitudinal Socialization and Gender Differences
in Party Identification,” paper for the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Western
Political Science Association, Los Angeles, CA, March 19-21, 1998.
Vega, Arturo and Juanita Firestone, “The Effects of Gender on Congressional Behavior
and the Substantive Representation of Women,” Legislative Studies Quarterly,
22, May 1995, pp. 213-221.
Wilson, Rick K and Cheryl D. Young, “Cosponsorship in the US Congress,”
Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 22, Issue 1, February 1997,
pp. 25-43.
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix
Table 1 The Number of Female Lawmakers in Congress From 1917 to 1999
Sessions Dates Women in Senate Women in House Total
65 1917-1919 0 (0D.0R) 1 (OD, IR) 1 (OD, IR)
66 1919-1921 0 (0D, OR) 0 (OD, OR) 0 (OD, OR)
67 1921-1923 1 (ID , OR) 3 (OD, 3R) 4 (1D,3R)
68 1923-1925 0 (OD, OR) 1 (OD, IR) 1 (OD, IR)
69 1925-1927 0 (OD, OR) 3 (ID, 2R) 3 (ID, 2R)
70 1927-1929 0 (OD, OR) 5 (2D, 3R) 5 (2D, 3R)
71 1929-1931 0 (OD, OR) 9 (5D, 4R) 9 (5D, 4R)
72 1931-1933 1 (ID , OR) 7 (5D, 2R) 8 (6D, 2R)
73 1933-1935 1 (ID , OR) 7 (4D, 3R) 8 (5D, 3R)
74 1935-1937 2 (2D, OR) 6 (4D, 2R) 8 (6D, 2R)
75 1937-1939 2 (ID , 1R)** 6 (5D, IR) 8 (6D, 2R)
76 1939-1941 1 (ID , OR) 8 (4D, 4R) 9 (5D, 4R)
77 1941-1943 1 (ID , OR) 9 (4D, 5R) 10 (5D, 5R)
78 1943-1945 1 (ID , OR) 8 (2D, 6R) 9 (3D, 6R)
79 1945-1947 0 (OD, OR) 11 (6D, 5R) 11 (6D, 5R)
80 1947-1949 1 (OD, 1R) 7 (3D, 4R) 8 (3D, 5R)
81 1949-1951 1 (OD, 1R) 9 (5D, 4R) 10 (5D, 5R)
82 1951-1953 1 (OD, 1R) 10 (4D, 6R) 11 (4D, 7R)
83 1953-1955 2 (OD, 2R) 11 (5D, 6R)*** 13 (5D, 8R)***
84 1955-1957 1 (OD, 1R) 16 (10, 6R)*** 17 (10D, 7R)***
85 1957-1959 1 (OD, 1R) 15 (9D, 6R) 16 (9D, 7R)
86 1959-1961 2 (ID , IR) 17 (9D, 8R) 19 (10D, 9R)
87 1961-1963 2 (ID , 1R) 18(1 ID, 7R) 20(12D, 8R)
88 1963-1965 2 (ID , IR) 12 (6D, 6R) 14 (7D, 7R)
89 1965-1967 2 (ID , IR) 11 (7D, 4R) 13 (8D, 5R)
90 1967-1969 1 (OD, IR) 11 (6D, 5R) 12 (6D, 6R)
91 1969-1971 1 (OD, IR) 10 (6D, 4R) 11 (6D, 57R)
92 1971-1973 2 (ID , IR) 13 (10D, 3R) 15(1 ID, 4R)
93 1973-1975 0 (OD, OR) 16 (14D, 2R) 16 (14D, 2R)
94 1975-1977 0 (OD, OR) 19 (14D, 5R) 19 (14D, 5R)
95 1977-1979 2 (2D, OR) 18 (13D, 5R) 20 (15D, 5R)
96 1979-1981 1 (OD, IR) 16(1 ID, 5R) 17 (11D, 6R)
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Sessions Dates Women in Senate Women in House Total
97 1981-1983 2 (0D, 2R) 21 (1 ID, 10) 23(1 ID, 12R)
98 1983-1985 2 (0D, 2R) 22(13D, 9R) 24 (13D, HR)
99 1985-1987 2 (0D, 2R) 23 (12D, 11R) 25 (12D, 13R)
100 1987-1989 2 (ID, IR) 23 (12D, 11R) 25 (13D, 12R)
101 1989-1991 2 (ID, IR) 29 (16D, 13R) 31 (17D, 14R)
102 1991-1993 4 (3D, 1R)++ 28 (I9D, 9R)+ 32 (22D, 10R)+
103 1993-1995 7 (5D, 2R)+++ 47 (35D, 12R)+ 54 (40D, 14R)+
104 1995-1997 9 (5D, 4R)# 48 (3ID, 17R)+ 57 (36D, 21R)+
105 1997-1999 9 (6D, 3R) 50 (35D, 16Rym 59 (4ID, 19R)##
Note: 1. D = "Democrat”; R = “Republican”.
2. Fact sheets from the Center for the American Woman and Politics (CAWP), National
Information Bank on Women in Public Office, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers
University, January 1998.
3. * Table shows maximum number of women elected or appointed to serve in that
Congress at one time. Some filled out unexpired terms and some were never sworn in.
** A total of three (2D, IR) women served in the Senate in the 75th Congress, but no
more than two served together at any one time. Part of the time two Democrats served
together, and part of the time one Democrat and one Republican served together.
*** Does not include a Republican Delegate to the House from pre-statehood Hawaii.
+ Does not include a Democratic Delegate to the House from Washington, DC.
++ On election day in 1992, three women served in the Senate; two were elected and
one was appointed. On November 3rd, Dianne Feinstein won a special election to
complete two years of a term; she was sworn in on November 10, 1992.
+++ Includes Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), who won a special election on June 5, 1993
to serve out the remaining year and one half of a term.
# Includes Sheila Frahm (R-KS), who was appointed on June 11, 1996 to fill a vacancy
caused by resignation. She was defeated in her primary race to complete the full term
and will vacate the seat in November.
## Does not include two Democratic Delegates from the Virgin Islands and Washington,
DC. Also does not include Susan Molinari (R-NY) who resigned 8/1/97.
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2 Number of Women in Congress, by year
Election Sessions of
Congress
President
And Party
Number of Women
in Congress*
Percentage
1922 68 Warren G. Harding [R] 1 0.2
1924 69 Calvin Coolidge [R] 3 0.5
1926 70 5 0.9
1928 71 Herbert C. Hoover [R] 9 1.6
1930 72 8 1.5
1932 73 Franklin D. Roosevelt [D] 8 1.5
1934 74 8 1.5
1936 75 Franklin D. Roosevelt [D] 9 1.6
1938 76 9 1.6
1940 77 Franklin D. Roosevelt [D] 10 1.8
1942 78 9 1.6
1944 79 Franklin D. Roosevelt [D] 1 1 1.9
1946 80 8 1.4
1948 81 Harry S. Truman [D] 9 1.6
1950 82 9 1.6
1952 83 Dwight D. Eisenhower [R] 13 2.3
1954 84 16 3.0
1956 85 Dwight D. Eisenhower [R] 15 2.8
1958 86 19 3.4
1560 87 John F. Kennedy [D] 20 3.6
1562 88 14 2.5
1964 89 Lyndon B. Johnson [D] 13 2.4
1966 90 12 2.2
1968 91 Richard M. Nixon [R] 1 1 2.0
1970 92 15 2.7
1972 93 Richard M. Nixon [R] 16 2.9
1974 94 19 3.5
1976 95 Jimmy Carter [D] 19 3.5
1978 96 17 3.1
1980 97 Ronald Reagan [R] 24 4.4
1982 98 24 4.4
1984 99 Ronald Reagan [R] 25 4.6
1986 100 26 4.8
1988 101 George Bush [R] 28 5.2
1990 102 32 6.0
1992 103 Bill Clinton [D] 54 10.0
1994 104 55 10.4
Summary by party of president Republican Democrat
Number of terms 19 18
Average number of women per congress 16.3 16.3
Percentage of women per term 3.0 3.0
Note: * Congress means the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Source: Marcia Lynn Whicker, Malcolm Jewell, and Lois Lovelace Duke, “Women in Congress”, p. 133.
In Lois Lovelace Duke (1996), Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders? (New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, Inc.), 2n d .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 Lawmakers and Legislation in the 103r d House of Representatives
Names Gender Party States Sponsorship Cosponsorship Frequency of
Speeches
Glen Browder Male D Alabama 32 293 1 7
Don Young Male R Alaska 29 273 102
John Kyi Male R Arizona 18 279 99
Tim
Hutchinson Male R Arkansas 6 296 58
Sam Farr Male D California 10 203 41
Ron Packard Male R California I 312 94
Joel Hefley Male R Colorado 45 166 141
Wayne Allard Male R Colorado 15 158
i 0 0
1 O J
Christopher
Shays Male R Connecticut 21 601 57
John Mica Male R Florida 6 124 72
Nathan Deal Male D Georgia 5 160 1 0
Neil
Abercrombie Male D Hawaii 4 319 52
Larry LaRocco Male D Idaho 31 148 53
Jerry Costello Male D Illinois 5 173 178
Peter
Visclosky Male D Indiana 1 1 153 117
Fred Grandy Male R Iowa 14 142 22
Tim Leach Male R Iowa 12 205 49
Pat Roberts Male R Kansas 25 250 296
Ramano
Mazzoli Male D Kentucky 21 233 208
Richard Baker Male R Louisiana 12 383 221
Wayne
Gilchrest Male R Maryland 12 231 28
Kweisi Mfume Male D Maryland 11 194 82
Joe Moakley Male D Massachusetts 47 165 209
Peter Hoekstra Male R Michigan 17 233 o o
James Oberstar Male D Minnesota 32 291 51
Jamie Whitten Male D Missouri 4 96 1 1
Harold
Volkmer
Male D Missouri 32 181 51
James Saxton Male R New Jersey 15 415 63
Michael
McNulty Male D New York 12 245 1 9
Jack Quinn Male R New York 2 335 47
Howard Coble Male R N. Carolina 13 281 53
Bill Zeliff Male R N. Hampshire 77 420 80
Rob Portman Male R Ohio 7 164 51
Mide Synar Male D Oklahoma 12 202 61
MiKe
Kopetski Male D Oregon 29 463 114
Rick Santonin Male R Pennsylvania 46 229 252
Thomas Ridge Male R Pennsylvania 6 170 33
Tim Johnson Male D S. Dakota 24 381 303
1 8 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Names Gender Party States Sponsorship Cosponsorship Frequency of
Speeches
James Clyburn Male D S. Carolina 3 308 286
Charles
Wilson Male D Texas 11 355 17
Don Sundquist Male R Tennessee 13 272 35
James Hansen Male R Utah 16 291 72
Hebert
Bateman Male R Virginia 10 359 31
Jay Inslee Male D Washington 7 176 34
Steve
Gunderson Male R Wisconsin 21 323 61
Thomas
Barrett Male D Wisconsin 8 346 73
Craig Thomas Male R Wyoming 24 261 485
Blanche
Lambert Female D Arkansas 13 117 36
Karan English Female D Arizona 9 126 30
Lynn Woolsey Female D California 15 365 103
Nancy Pelosi Female D California 17 433 136
Anna Eshoo Female D California 6 282 136
Lucille Roybal
Allard Female D California 4 290 26
Maxine Waters Female D California 15 224 34
Jane Harman Female D California 7 109 80
Lynn Schenk Female D California 15 217 41
Patricia
Schroede Female D Colorado 40 264 488
Barbara
Kennelly Female D Connecticut 28 227 107
Rosa Delauro Female D Connecticut 11 259 107
Nancy Johnson Female R Connecticut 37 280 306
Corrie Brown Female D Florida 3 286 261
Tillie Fowler Female R Florida 13 310 60
Karen
Thurman Female D Florida 6 375 42
Carrie Meek Female D Florida 15 436 92
Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen Female R Florida 2 135 39
Oynthia
Mchinney Female D Georgia 4 277 36
Patsy Mink Female D Hawaii 34 370 62
Cardiss Collins Female D Illinois 46 192 50
Jill Long Female D Indiana 10 122 41
Jan Meyers Female R Kansas 16 429 57
Olympia
Snowe Female R Maine 46 244 109
Helen Delich
Bentley Female R Maryland 16 222 129
187
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Names Gender Party States Sponsorship Cosponsorship Frequency of
Speeches
Constance
Morelia Female R Maryland 28 463 164
Barbara-Rose
Collins Female D Michigan 20 323 327
Pat Danner Female D Missouri 6 242 21
Barbara
Vucanovich Female R Nevada 21 345 85
Marge
Roukema Female R New Jersey 21 234 89
Nydia
Velazquez Female D New York 3 381 58
Susan Molianri Female R New York 16 355 343
Carolyn
Maloney Female D New York 26 442 162
Nita Lowey Female D New York 16 300 75
Louise
Slaughter Female D New York 35 364 74
Eva Clayton Female D N. Carolina 5 325 44
Marcy Daptur Female D Ohio 16 310 90
Deborah Pryce Female R Ohio 4 255 39
Elizabeth
Furse Female D Oregon 13 488 68
Marjorie
Margolies-
Mezvlosky Female D Pennsylvania 14 262 238
Marilyn Lloyd Female D Tennessee 13 308 72
Eddi Bernice
Johson Female D Texas 5 361 249
Karen
Shepherd Female D Utah 16 248 66
Leslie Byrne Female D Virginia 52 420 76
Jolene Unsoeld Female D Washington 19 435 54
Jennifer Dunn Female R Washington 7 242 60
Maria
Cantwell Female D Washington 6 135 36
Note: Frequency of Speeches includes Extensions of Remarks in Congressional Record.
D = Democrats; R = Republicans.
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4_____ Lawmakers and the numbers of legislation in the 104t h House
Names Gender Parties States Sponsor
ship
Cosponsor
ship
Frequency
of Speeches
Earl Hilliard Male D Alabama 7 239 52
Jay Dickey Male R Arkansas 9 157 15
Ray Thornton Male D Arkansas 5 55 2
Jim Kolbe Male R Arizona 9 125 31
Anthony
Beilenson Male D California 9 137 22
Richard Pombo Male R California 9 144 to
David Skaggs Male D Colorado 21 58 37
Christopher
Shays Male R Connecticut 21 294 38
Michael Castle Male R Delaware 21 107 34
Newt Gingrich Male R Georgia 5 26 46
Porter Goss Male R Georgia 65 171 193
Neil
Abercrombie Male D Hawaii 7 205 27
Michael Crapo Male R Idaho 14 163 11
Richard Durbin Male D Illinois 17 184 58
Ray LaHood Male R Illinois 4 186 23
Dan Burton Male R Indiana 30 248 101
Jim Leach Male R Iowa 16 142 10
Pat Roberts Male R Kansas 23 141 393
Harold Rogers Male R Kentucky 1 1 86 39
Jim McCrery Male R Louisiana 10 152 3
Albert Wynn Male D Maryland 13 205 43
Roscoe Barltett Male R Maryland 14 259 40
Edward Markey Male D Massachusetts 26 150 44
James Barcia Male D Michigan 4 160 88
Jim Ramstad Male R Minnesota 9 126 24
Ike Skelton Male D Missouri 8 85 64
Roger Wicker Male R Mississippi 3 184 15
Doug Bereuter Male R Nebraska 32 233 82
Charles Bass Male R Hampshire 1 1 90 22
Rodney
Frelinghuysen Male R New Jersey 4 115 34
Robert
Menedez Male D New Jersey 1 1 102 115
Bill Richardson Male D New Mexico 25 146 135
Bill Paxon Male R New York 3 155 10
John Ensign Male R Nevada 10 171 19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Names Gender Parties States Sponsor
ship
Cosponsor
ship
Frequency
of Speeches
John Kasick Male R Ohio 22 74 22
Curt Weldon Male R Pennsylvania 15 150 96
Patrick
Kennedy Male D Rhode Island 10 118 38
Bob Inglis Male R S. Carolina 5 223 7
Charles Taylor Male R N. Carolina 7 206 33
Zach Wamp Male R Tennessee 3 165 5
Ken Bentsen Male D Texas 6 152 53
James Hansen Male R Utah 26 134 71
Norman Sisisky Male D Virginia 0 94 3
Richard
Hastings Male R Washington 14 169
32
Alan Mollohan Male D West Virgin 8 29 2
Steve
Gunderson Male R Wisconsin 11 130 24
Thomas Petri Male R Wisconsin 19 167 15
Blanche
Lambert Female D Arkansas 0 0 22
Lynn Woolsey Female D California 1 1 287 48
Nancy Plosi Female D California 9 298 68
Anna Eshoo Female D California 10 192 70
Zoe Lofgren Female D California 18 409 30
Lucille Roybal-
Allard Female D California 3 199 13
Maxine Waters Female D California 29 134 12
Jane Harman Female D California 6 117 30
Andrea
Seastrand Female R California 5 215 22
Patricia
Schroeder Female D Colorado 31 207 80
Barbara
Kennelly Female D Connecticut 18 138 46
Rosa DeLauro Female D Connecticut 15 194 66
Nancy Johnson Female R Connecticut 40 153 45
Corrie Brown Female D Florida 5 171 6
Tillie Fowler Female R Florida 8 147 23
Karen Thurman Female D Florida 11 214 13
Carrie Meek Female D Florida 9 244 81
Lleana Ros-
Lehtihen Female R Florida 5 81 31
Oynthia
Mckinney Female D Georgia 9 268 4
Patsy Mink Female D Hawaii 34 183 22
Helen
Chenoweth Female R Idaho 8 225 14
Cardiss Collins Female D Illinois 46 121 95
Jan Meyers Female R Kansas 24 212 6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Names Gender Parties States Sponsor
ship
Cosponsor
ship
Frequency
of Speeches
Constance
Morelia Female R Maryland 34 269 76
Lynn Rivers Female D Michigan 4 257 7
Barbara Rose
Collins Female D Michigan 5 81 8
Karen
McCarthy Female D Missouri 1 66 24
Pat Danner Female D Missouri 7 168 12
Barbara
Vucanovich Female R Nevada 31 173 20
Marge
Roukema Female R New Jersey 21 135 34
Nydia
Velazquez Female D New York 14 207 18
Susan Molinari Female R New York 17 202 12
Carolyn
Maloney Female D New York 34 244 113
Nita Lowey Female D New York 44 336 26
Sue Kelly Female R New York 7 216 28
Louise
Slaughter Female D New York 16 268 22
Eva Clayton Female D N. Carolina 4 240 22
Sue Myrick Female R N Carolina 7 191 8
Marcy Kaptur Female D Ohio 16 209 41
Deborah Pryce Female R Ohio 35 183 10
Elizabeth Furse Female D Oregon 24 278 25
Sheila Jackson-
Lee Female D Texas 16 175 56
Eddi Bernice
Johnson Female D Texas 2 177 37
Enid Waldholtz Female R Utah 26 97 45
Linda Smith Female R Washington 17 118 264
Jennifer Duun Female R Washington 8 197 15
Barbara Cubin Female R Wyoming 30 119 6
Note: Frequency of Speeches includes Extensions of Remarks in Congressional Record.
D = Democrats; R = Republicans.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Isotope Geochemistry Of Mono Basin, California: Applications To Paleoclimate and Paleohydrology
PDF
Cyclic AMP binding proteins in adrenal cortex
PDF
Tide-induced currents in harbors of arbitrary shape
PDF
Globalization and the Canadian provinces: Costs, benefits, consequences, and responses.
PDF
The formation of governing capacity in local governments and its consequences: Focusing on developmental and progressive policies from a regime theoretic perspective
PDF
Policy-making by the joint committee on reorganization of large urban unified school districts of the California legislature, 1969-1970: a case study
PDF
Legislative intent and aging policy in Los Angeles County: the relative effects of age versus need in public conservatorship
PDF
Who Chooses Choice? The Political Economy Of *Education *Policy Formulation and Direct Democracy
PDF
Military department rulings on discrimination: An evaluation of decision criteria and EEOC policy implications
PDF
The determinants of electoral participation in the United States, 1952-1992: A theoretical and empirical examination
PDF
Trip chaining in urban travel
PDF
Policy legitimation on the use of force: Normative and interest-based war justification in the United States and Canada.
PDF
Toward administrative effectiveness in Korean public administration: Whistleblowing and ethical culture
PDF
Ethnic cleavages and conflict. The sources of national cohesion and disintegration: The case of Yugoslavia
PDF
Reforming federal information technology policy: The 104th Congress in a separated system
PDF
Toward the welfare state: social welfare policy in the ROK and its ecological contexts
PDF
Institutions, routines, and crises: Post-earthquake housing recovery in Mexico City and Los Angeles
PDF
Spatial transformation of an urban ethnic community from Chinatown to Chinese "Ethnoburb" in Los Angeles
PDF
The human rights of girl children: An argument for establishing gender equality as a jus cogens.
PDF
The new careerists: aspect of change in the world of employment and education
Asset Metadata
Creator
Chiang, Li-Chun
(author)
Core Title
Gender and policy-making in Congress.
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration,women's studies
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-586699
Unique identifier
UC11350393
Identifier
9933787.pdf (filename),usctheses-c17-586699 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
9933787.pdf
Dmrecord
586699
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Chiang, Li-Chun
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
women's studies