29
much of their cosponsorship activity to women’s issues as do liberal Democratic men in
the 103
rd
Congress and slightly more than liberal Democratic men in the 104
th
Congress.
The same pattern holds with regard to feminist legislation as across both Congresses,
only liberal Democratic women are predicted to dedicate 10% of their cosponsorship
activity to the pursuit of feminist legislation. Moderate Republican women are predicted
to devote as much of their resources to cosponsoring feminist legislation as do liberal
Democratic men and there is no substantial drop in their support for feminist proposals
between the two Congresses as is evident in the sponsorship behavior of these women.
Conclusion
The analysis of the agenda-setting activities of bill sponsorship and cosponsorship
demonstrate that women are acting as legislative entrepreneurs on women’s issues,
devoting a greater amount of their overall legislative agenda and their time and scare
resources to the development of policy proposals regarding women’s issues than do their
male colleagues. These differences in legislative focus are greatest on feminist issues,
those issues with the most direct consequences for women as a group and the issues that
other members will more readily defer to women as having greater moral authority and
expertise based on their experiences as women.
Significantly, by contrasting bill sponsorship and cosponsorship activity on
women’s issues, I demonstrate that the differential impact of electing a descriptive
representative is greatest on legislative activities that require a greater intensity of
preference and a more significant investment of time and resources, increasing the
opportunity costs of the decision. Thus, gender differences in the devotion of legislative
resources to advancing women’s issue proposals were greater in the more resource
draining activity of sponsorship in comparison to cosponsorship. As scholars seek to
Convention