Catherine's essay - Cardiff University

Where Are The Women?
Are women systematically excluded from the political process?
The relationship between feminism and the political process is one that is intricate, multifaceted
and often fraught (Squires, 2006). Despite sharing similar preoccupations – that of
rights, of representation and of participation – feminist scholars maintain that access to
participatory, liberal democracy remains restricted for large percentages of the population
(Phillips, 1991). Although the degree to which this is true varies, it is acknowledged that
globally, women do not participate politically to the same extent as men (Kittilson and
Schwindt-Bayer, 2012). Whilst the breadth of this discourse is too large to include within one
essay, it is possible to identify a trend from the deconstruction of this phenomenon. This
trend is deftly summed up by feminist theorists Susan Bourque and Jean Grossholtz:
“The politics is a man’s world is a familiar adage; that political science as a discipline
tends to keep it that way is less well accepted, but perhaps closer to the truth.”
(Bourque and Grossholtz, 1974, cited by Phillips 2001, pp. 225)
This essay will examine the validity of the claim that women are misrepresented within
political theory and, as a result, marginalised in the political process.
That politics is primarily regarded as a ‘male’ pursuit is widely recognised within academic
literature. Heather Savigny and Lee Marsden (2011) explain that certain traits are valued by
Western political culture: rationality, calculation, aggression, autonomy and leadership. In
order to participate in political leadership, one must display these qualities regardless of
whether one is male or female. However, they emphasise that the characteristics synonymous
with political leadership are also those that are regarded as ‘male.’ Traits such as dominance,
decisiveness and shrewdness stand diametrically opposed to the more ‘female’ traits such as
passivity, sensitivity and nurturing.
This construction of masculinity and femininity is a crucial point. Judith Butler (1990) neatly
describes this in her book Gender Trouble, explaining that whilst one’s sex has certain fixed
characteristics, the construction of one’s gender – how ‘male’ one is or how ‘female’ one is –
is a social construct that is independent of biological constraint. The wider ramifications of
this are also impossible to contain within one essay. They are included here as a means by
which to frame Savigny and Marsden’s explanation of political behaviour. In order to
participate in political leadership, women must cast off their constructed femininity and adopt
a more masculine persona. Douglas Ponton (2010) considers the case of Margaret Thatcher.

He argues that she adopted strategies to accentuate her physical femininity, such as her
hairstyle. However, her manner, her persona and even her speaking voice were carefully
constructed to take on a more ‘masculine’ identity.
The propagation of gendered behaviour traits is a keystone for Simone de Beauvoir’s theories
regarding power and gender identity. In The Second Sex (1949), Beauvoir describes how
women have been systematically constructed as secondary to male dominance – the ‘Other’
as she describes it. By virtue of biology and historical materialism and aided by contributions
from the arts, literature, science and politics, Beauvoir argues that being ‘male’ has been
established as the norm, and as the ideal. As a logical progression, ‘female’ can only exist in
relation to this and is therefore secondary. This is an assumption that can be traced back to
the political philosophy of Aristotle, widely regarded as the foundation of Western political
culture (Green, 1993).
The consequences of this are explained by Gayle Leatherby (2003). This construction of the
female as ‘the Other’ is exacerbated by a society built on a posteriori knowledge acquired by
men, leading to a patriarchy, by which we mean the assumption that masculinity is more
suited to the task than femininity, within all academic areas of the arts, media, literature,
science and social sciences. Rosi Braidotti (2003) claims that in exposing the construction of
women as ‘the Other,’ Beauvoir has exposed the fallacy that the accepted philosophical
thinking is universal. She demonstrates that what is considered the norm is in fact patriarchal.
Beauvoir was not the first to examine this form of patriarchy. In his work The Subjection of
Women (1896), John Stuart Mill not only acknowledges the presence of patriarchal structures,
but describes them as a legal subordination that is reprehensible. Mill posits that equilibrium
between men and women exists in theory alone. It has never been put into practice. Since
patriarchal society remains uncontested, it logically follows that patriarchy as the ideal is
nothing but a theory and is not based on reasoned debate or argument. He asserts that
patriarchy is the natural result of the law of force, in which physical strength equates to
power. Mill argues that, if this is so, it is not only an assault on reason but as distasteful as
slavery and as racism. The assumption that certain people cannot do certain things is one that
is fallible and “if we accept this, we ought to act as if we believe it” (p.225).
Feminism and politics remain separate, if interlinking, disciplines. Kristie McLure (1992)
acknowledges that feminism has failed to produce a proliferation of opportunities for women

in male-dominated areas. She explains this by stating that, within the discipline of political
science, ‘feminism’ indicates an interest in the divergence between the accepted genders. It
does not, in itself, point to a singular struggle or acknowledge the wide array of perspectives
that have since opened up. Jane Sawicki (1991) explains that it is insufficient to ask “What do
women want?” as this question encapsulates a diverse set of intersections between race, class,
age and culture. As Valerie Bryson (1992) puts it, whilst alienation is experienced on all
political levels, it is unsatisfactory to compare the alienation experienced by liberated, white
American women with the alienation experienced by disenfranchised black American
women. This is a level of inequality that is not necessarily included in political research.
Bourque and Grossholtz (1974) frame the argument thusly: that the undertaking of data
analysis by predominantly white, affluent males has resulted in political activity consequently
taking on a persona that reflects a Western social construction of masculinity. This is turn has
grouped all other marginalised persons together and concludes that they are politically
disempowered of their own volition. They examine three studies regarded as seminal and
quoted widely (These being The American Voter, Angus Campbell et al; The Civic Culture,
Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba; and Political Life, Robert Lane.) These were contrasted
with research articles authored by female researchers that were found to have a different
perspective. Incidentally, the female researchers were found to have greater realist or
normative perceptions. This is, however, incidental, and the conclusion is drawn that the
political scientist cannot help but allow their world view to influence the conclusions that
they draw. Elizabeth Meehan (1986) acknowledges that the discipline is dependent upon the
knowledge that we have acquired. However, for it to be truly useful, it must inclusive.
The same findings were affirmed by Sue Tolleson-Rhinehart and Susan Carroll (2006), who
found that not only does political science support the gendering of political attitudes, but that
this has a detrimental effect upon the research conducted. In a historical overview of the
emergence of political science as a discipline, they found that assumptions such as ‘men are
political and women are not’ prevailed, and that this in turn left political science ill-equipped
to deal with emerging issues, gender parity being one of them.
Feminist theorist Carole Pateman claims that this assumption that men are political and
women are not is linked to the exercising of power in both public and the private spheres. She
posits that the Western social construction of gender roles has meant that masculinity is
largely played out in the public sphere whereas femininity is more confined to the private

arena (Pateman, 1976; Pateman and Mills, 1988; Pateman and Mills, 2007). As politics is
also conducted in the public arena, it is a natural conclusion that politics is perceived as a
masculine pursuit, with women represented by their association with men. Furthermore, in
maintaining this public/private dichotomy, politics intrinsically excludes the interests of
women (Pateman and Mills, 1988). Amy Caiazza (1997) discusses this in depth and
concludes that if feminism is ignored as political theory, then politics cannot be truly
understood. For Savigny and Marsden (2011) this issue of gendering holds the key for
explaining the divide between political science and feminism. They claim that feminism
rejects traditional constructs of gender on many levels whether this is a post-colonial
rejection of ‘female’ as a non-classed, non-racial asexualised group or the challenges issued
by post-modernists and constructivists to traditional notions of gender roles (Savigny and
Marsden, 2011).
The execution of power is perhaps worth exploring at this juncture. The concept of power as
a hierarchical structure was reconceptualised by Michel Foucault, who theorised that power is
displayed and executed in all relationships (Foucault, cited by Lynch 2011). Lynch explains
that for Foucault, power must be understood as a force born of struggles, confrontations and
transformations. It is upheld by support systems and the schema in which they take effect. In
his work Panopticisim, Foucault hypothesised that political power is exercised by each
individual through the very smallest of actions, all of which work together to create
discourse. So, for Foucault, the male-gendering of political research is a result of a power
struggle that renders women inadequate for politics. Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz
(1962) develop this concept to hypothesise that the hierarchies and power exercised within
social sciences are cyclical, that they feed into one another and thereby political science
remains largely separate to developments made in feminism.
This is not to say however that it remains so. Raewyn Connell (2006) acknowledges that,
whilst feminism’s initial complaint that social science was gender-ignorant was valid,
sufficient progress has been made for the state of patriarchy to be re-valued. Sharon Krause
(2011) concurs, stating that the field of social science has diversified greatly as a result of
feminisms and that this has led to an expansion of our understanding. Lynne Segal (1999)
advises that, just as feminism has diversified, we should allow this diversification to filter
into all fields of social sciences. There is certainly some evidence to suggest that, whilst

women still fail to hold the highest positions available within academia, more women are
publishing academic articles (Evans and Bucy, 2010).
The theory that diversification is required for effective research has led to a field of study
known as ‘intersectionality.’ Cho et al (2013) explain that Intersectionality Studies examines
the dynamics of difference. It emerged as a response to the criticisms of feminist and antiracist
scholars, as a method to counter the singular thinking that has prevailed within social
scientific research. Walby et al (2012) give a detailed history of its emergence as a field of
study, citing key theorists such as Kimberlé Crenshaw, Leslie McCall and Ange-Marie
Hancock. For example, Crenshaw argued that not only is it inadequate to assume that the
concerns of a white American male are comparable to those of a black American female, but
that the experiences of those women can be negated by the inaction of anti-racism and
feminism. For Crenshaw, then, considering all people to be of race, class, gender, sexuality
and history is part of the ethical considerations of any effective social scientific researcher.
Of course, this approach is not without limitation. McCall (2005, cited by Walby et al 2012)
warns that the preference for fluidity over rigid categories makes data analysis difficult and
threatens to destabilize the quality of the research. Indeed, inclusivity presents a great deal of
problems, to both the research design and the structure of analysis (Walby, et al 2012).
However, these problems are not insurmountable. Elizabeth Cole (2009) reminds us that
translating the theory of intersectionality into practice does not require a new set of methods,
but rather a restructuring of the methods already in use so that they can incorporate
inclusivity in order to improve research. Intersectionality allowed Deborah Schultz (2012) to
examine the Romani-Gadže Feminist Alliance activity in its multi-cultural entirety and learn
some valuable lessons on the manner in which feminists in the Balkan states are combatting
issues such as ethnic hatred, violence against women and extreme social exclusion. Similarly,
it has allowed Gina Miranda Samuels and Fariyal Ross-Sheriff (2008) to study the
internalised notions of femininity as shaped by societal attitudes, by studying the political
empowerment of Afghan women at home in Afghanistan as compared to Afghan women as
refugees in Pakistan. These are two examples of a stable research design that demonstrate the
fluidity that an intersectional approach allows.
In conclusion, the gender identities currently accepted within our societies are social
constructs that dictate the way we are expected to conduct ourselves. We have introduced the
theory that politics has also been constructed as a ‘male’ pursuit and not suitable to a ‘female’

temperament. We also briefly examined the idea that the researcher is inherently affected by
their personal experiences and that this, in turn, affects the quality of the research. However,
the advances made by feminism have done little to improve the ratio of men and women
working in political research. This is supposed to be a result of the fact that feminism has
thrown wide the net of diversity and that the methods currently in use must be adapted in
order to be inclusive. If we fail to recognise each research subject as a racial, gendered,
classed and sexual being, we invalidate our research and ultimately propagate assumptions of
gender bias, sexism, racism and class conflict.

REFERENCES
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1962) Two Faces of Power. The American Political Science
Review 56(7) pp.947 - 952
Bourque, S. C. and Grossholtz, J. (1974) Politics an Unnatural Practice: Political Science
Looks at Female Participation. Politics and Society 4(2) pp. 225 – 266
Braidotti, R. (2003) Feminist Philosophies. In: Eagelton, M. (ed.) (2003) A Concise
Companion to Feminist Theory. Oxford: Blackwell
Bryson, V. (1992) Feminist Political Theory: An Introduction. Hampshire: Macmillan
Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble. In: Gould, C. (1997) Key Concepts in Critical Theory:
Gender. New York: Humanity Books
Caiazza, A. (1997) Inclusion and Exclusion: Feminism’s Relationship with Political Science.
Southeastern Political Review 25(4) pp. 659 – 683)
Cho, S., Williams – Crenshaw, K., McCall, L. (2013) Toward a Field of Intersectionality
Studies: Theory, Applications and Praxis. Signs 38(4) pp. 785 – 810
Cole, E.R. (2009) Intersectionality and Research in Psychology. American Psychologist 64(3)
pp. 170 - 180
Connell, R. W. (2006) Gender and the State. In: Nash, K. and Scott, A. (eds.) (2006) The
Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell
Evans, H. K. and Bucy, E. P. (2010) The Representation of Women in Publication: An
Analysis of Political Communication and the International Journal of Press/Politics. Political
Science and Politics 43(2) pp. 295 - 301
Green, P. (1993) Hellenistic Theory and Culture. California: University of California Press
Kittilson, M. C. and Schwindt-Bayer, L.A. (2012) The Gendered Effects of Electoral
Insititutions: Political Engagement and Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Krause, S. R. (2011) Contested Questions, Current Trajectories: Feminism in Political Theory
Today. Politics and Gender 7(1) pp. 105 - 111
Leatherby, G. (2003) Feminist Research in Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University
Press
McLure, K. (1992) The Issue of Foundations: Scientized Politics, Politicised Science and
Feminist Critical Practice. In: Butler, J. and Scott, J.W. (eds.) Feminists Theorize the
Political. London: Routledge

Lynch, R. A. Foucault’s Theory of Power. In: Taylor, D. (ed.) Michel Foucault: Key
Concepts (2011) Durham: Acumen
Meehan, E. (1986) Women’s Studies and Political Studies. In: Evans, J. et al (Eds.) (1986)
Feminism and Political Theory. London; California; New Delhi: SAGE
Mill, J. S. (1869) The Subjection of Women. New York: Prometheus Books
Pateman, C. (1976) Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Pateman, C. and Mills, C. (1988) The Sexual Contract. California: Stanford University Press
Pateman, C. and Mills, C. (2007) Contract and Domination. Cambridge: Polity Press
Phillips, A. (1991) Engendering Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press
Ponton, D. M. (2010) The Female Political Leader: A Study of Gender Identity in the case of
Margaret Thatcher. Journal of Language and Power. 9(2) pp. 195 – 218
Samuels, G. M. and Ross-Sheriff, F. (2008) Identity, Oppression and Power: Feminisms and
Intersectionality Theory. Journal of Women and Social Work 23(1) pp. 5 - 9
Sawicki, J. (1991) Foucault and Feminism: Towards a Politics of difference. In: Shenley,
M.L. and Pateman, C. (eds.) Feminist Interpretations and Political Theory. Cambridge:
Polity Press
Savigny, H. and Marsden, L. (2011) Doing Political Science and International Relations.
Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan
Schultz, D. L. (2012) Translating Intersectionality Theory into Practice: A Tale of Romani-
Gadže Feminist Alliance. Signs 38(1) pp. 37- 43
Segal, L. (1999) Why Feminism? Oxford: Polity Press
Squires, J. (2006) Feminism and Democracy. In: Nash, K. and Scott, A. (2006) The Blackwell
Companion to Political Sociology. Oxford: Blackwell
Tolleson-Rhinehart, S and Carroll, S.J. (2006) “Far From Ideal:” The Gender Politics of
Political Science. The American Political Science Review 100(4) pp. 507 – 513

Walby, S., Armstrong, J. and Strid, S. (2012) Intersectionality: Multiple Inequalities in Social
Theory. Sociology 46(2) 224 - 240