Tough Enough for the Job? How Masculinity Predicts Recruitment of City Council Members

Abstract

Does an individual’s gender help to explain if he or she is more or less likely to be recruited to run for political office? While the effects of sex differences on the candidate emergence process have been studied extensively, the influence of masculinity and femininity is less understood. To uncover if gender influences whether an individual is recruited to run for political office, this article relies on data from an original survey of a nationally representative sample of city council members, with the primary independent variable, individuals’ self-identified masculinity, measured by the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Results show that those who identify as more masculine, whether male or female, are more likely to be recruited to run for elected office. This effect holds for a variety of types of recruitment, such as political elites and women’s organizations. The findings add an important dimension to the supply-side explanations for women’s underrepresentation.

The Application of Social Role Theory to the Study of Gender in Politics

“…However, to directly test role congruity, researchers must match the expectations of the role with elite perceptions of the candidates seeking the role. Oliver and Conroy’s () work shows promise in separating sex from the gendered dynamics of elite recruitment; we anticipate additional studies asking elites about male‐typical and female‐typical characteristics in addition to biological sex.…”

“…Men and women who themselves subscribed to traditional gender roles felt as though men were better suited to politics, citing men’s superiority in their emotional ability (McDermott, ). Even elites prefer to recruit candidates who have male‐typical personality characteristics (Oliver & Conroy, ). Though communal traits are quite desirable in general, they are often devalued (Eagly & Mladinic, ; Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, ).…”

“…Political party chairs rated male‐typical traits (individualistic, aggressive, competitive and outspoken) as more important than female‐typical traits for success in political roles (Niven, ). Male and female candidates who identified as male‐typical reported being recruited to run for office more than men and women who identified as female‐typical (Oliver & Conroy, ). These two studies begin to explore the role of gendered personality rather than simply observing whether women are recruited or not.…”

Running Local: Gender Stereotyping and Female Candidates in Local Elections

“…An alternative approach suggests that any advantage female candidates have at the local level comes from the lack of electoral competition and prestige associated with lower-level political positions (Crowder-Meyer, Gadarian, and Trounstine 2015; Hannagan et al 2015; Smith, Reingold, and Owens 2012). Voters tend to associate masculinity rather than femininity with serving in political leadership roles, including local office (Oliver and Conroy 2017; Rosenwasser and Dean 1989). Previous evidence suggests that voters prefer female candidates with masculine and not feminine qualities in a local context (Huddy and Terkildsen 1993b), although it is not clear whether these effects persist across candidate party.…”

“…Moreover, research on local policymaking reinforces the perception that all levels of leadership require masculine qualities as the most dominant political issues at the local level reflect masculine issue strengths such as job creation and economic development (Craw 2006, 2010; Hajnal and Trounstine 2010; Peterson 1981). Local officeholders reflect the demand for masculinity in local leadership as the vast majority of women and men in local office identify themselves as having more masculine rather than feminine qualities (Oliver and Conroy 2017). Together, the literature on local politics and the literature on gender stereotypes reach two different conclusions about the qualities voters desire in local leadership.…”