(Page 9 of 22) - A Level Playing for All? Female Political Leadership and Athletics authored by Doherty, Leanne.

than half of that money from women. All eight were Democratic women; both Senate and three of the
House candidates lost,” (Green, Hernsen, Powell, Wilcox, 1999, p.1).

Media coverage of candidates also tends to work against women who run for office. Diane

Bystrom’s study of Elizabeth Dole’s run for president found that the candidate received less media
coverage than her primary male counterparts in Iowa (George W. Bush and Steve Forbes) and that when
she was covered by the media, it was more to describe how she looked or talked, rather than for the
issues that she stood for (Bystrom, 2001).

Witt, Paget, and Matthews (1994) talk of many examples of women being taken out of context,

having their clothes and hairstyles scrutinized, and have to deal with unflattering pictures of themselves
in major newspapers (including former Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Evelyn Murphy was
treated poorly when a picture of her riding a bicycle from behind was described as ‘rotund’). For female
candidates, image seems to be everything. Not only does it discourage certain women from running, it
also creates a perception of female candidates as less qualified. Such media interpretations of female
candidates compound a broader female perception of non-viability: women have been socialized to feel
that are not qualified to run for office and therefore, do not choose to do so.

Each of these factors plays a role in the broader issue of female success in seeking electoral

office, yet they do not fully explain the reasons behind low female candidate turnout and success. In the
next section, we look at what is known as the social eligibility pool.

The Social Eligibility Pool

What makes a qualified candidate for office? Who do voters see as the most able to

represent them? And the larger question, does gender in and of itself have anything to do with these
qualifications? Political scientists over the past thirty years have been trying to create a list of
characteristics that most all victorious candidates for office seem to have. Scholars have come to the
conclusion that indeed there are various distinctive factors that define those who achieve office in the
United States. Unfortunately for those who are concerned with women having more access and success
in achieving public office, women typically lag behind in these characteristics. Although there have
been advances for women in the following list of factors, these social, economic, and occupational
successes have not led to an increase in running for and/or winning public office. The purpose of this
study is not to discuss why this is the case, only to outline the eligibility factors and see if there are
anymore that could be added to the list.

What makes an individual seem eligible for electoral office? The main scholars in the area of

gender and political eligibility (Wewers, 2001; Burrell, 1994; Darcy, Welch, and Clark, 1994;
Constantini, 1990; Diamond, 1977; Fitzpatrick, 1974) agree that level of education stands out as the
primary indicator. The higher you go up the educational ladder, the more likely that people will
perceive you as qualified to run for office. Because of the disparity in the proportion of women who got
advanced degrees prior to the 1970’s, says Diamond, fewer women ran for office.

Yet, as Burrell and Wewers point out, women are achieving advanced degrees in record

numbers. Burrell contends that higher education by itself is not the primary difference, but the type of
advanced degree that women traditionally earned has changed. With the number of women making up