Meredith Conroy – författare

To explain women’s underrepresentation in American politics, researchers have directed their attention to differences between men and women, especially during the candidate emergence process, which includes recruitment, perception of qualifications, and political ambition. Although these previous analyses have shown that consistent dissimilarities likely explain why men outnumber women in government, they have overlooked a more explicit role for gender (masculinity and femininity) in explanations of candidate emergence variation. Meredith Conroy and Sarah Oliver focus on the candidate emergence process (recruitment, perceived qualifications, and ambition), and investigate the affects of individuals’ gender personality on these variables to improve theories of women’s underrepresentation in government. They argue that since politics and masculinity are congruent, we should observe more precise variation in the candidate emergence process along gender differences, than along sex differences in isolation. Individuals who are more masculine will be more likely to be recruited, perceive of themselves as qualified, and express political ambition, than less masculine individuals. This differs from studies that look at sex differences, because it accepts that some women defy gender norms and break into politics. By including a measure of gender personality we can more fully grapple with women’s progress in American politics, and consider whether this progress rests on masculine behaviors and attributes. Who Runs? The Masculine Advantage in Candidate Emergence explores this possibility and the potential ramifications.

To explain women’s underrepresentation in American politics, researchers have directed their attention to differences between men and women, especially during the candidate emergence process, which includes recruitment, perception of qualifications, and political ambition. Although these previous analyses have shown that consistent dissimilarities likely explain why men outnumber women in government, they have overlooked a more explicit role for gender (masculinity and femininity) in explanations of candidate emergence variation.Meredith Conroy and Sarah Oliver focus on the candidate emergence process (recruitment, perceived qualifications, and ambition), and investigate the affects of individuals’ gender personality on these variables to improve theories of women’s underrepresentation in government. They argue that since politics and masculinity are congruent, we should observe more precise variation in the candidate emergence process along gender differences, than along sex differences in isolation. Individuals who are more masculine will be more likely to be recruited, perceive of themselves as qualified, and express political ambition, than less masculine individuals. This differs from studies that look at sex differences, because it accepts that some women defy gender norms and break into politics. By including a measure of gender personality we can more fully grapple with women’s progress in American politics, and consider whether this progress rests on masculine behaviors and attributes. Who Runs? The Masculine Advantage in Candidate Emergence explores this possibility and the potential ramifications.

This book analyzes the way media describe presidential candidates' character and the degree to which this discourse maintains a preference for masculinity in our politics, using content analysis of major print new media outlets.

This book analyzes the way media describe presidential candidates' character and the degree to which this discourse maintains a preference for masculinity in our politics, using content analysis of major print new media outlets.

In order to understand the motivations for and implications of Hillary Clinton's historic run for the White House— and her subsequent defeat—the authors explore sexism and gender bias in U.S. political and social culture.While there is some indication that overt sexism toward women in politics is declining, whether this is true for women who run for the highest office in American politics remains relatively unknown. Hillary Clinton's historic run as the 2016 Democratic nominee, however, allows scholars and journalists to contextualize decades of scholarship on sex, gender, and the American presidency.In Sex and Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election, the authors, all experts on gender in politics, analyze the nature of gender in public opinion, media coverage, social media, and culture during the 2016 presidential election. They assess whether conventional expectations and theories hold up in today's sociopolitical climate. Moreover, they consider how Clinton's foray into relatively uncharted territory might redirect the political field—and its implications for women with political ambitions—going forward.

In order to understand the motivations for and implications of Hillary Clinton''s historic run for the White House- and her subsequent defeat-the authors explore sexism and gender bias in U.S. political and social culture.While there is some indication that overt sexism toward women in politics is declining, whether this is true for women who run for the highest office in American politics remains relatively unknown. Hillary Clinton''s historic run as the 2016 Democratic nominee, however, allows scholars and journalists to contextualize decades of scholarship on sex, gender, and the American presidency.In Sex and Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election, the authors, all experts on gender in politics, analyze the nature of gender in public opinion, media coverage, social media, and culture during the 2016 presidential election. They assess whether conventional expectations and theories hold up in today''s sociopolitical climate. Moreover, they consider how Clinton''s foray into relatively uncharted territory might redirect the political field-and its implications for women with political ambitions-going forward.

In order to understand the motivations for and implications of Hillary Clinton''s historic run for the White House- and her subsequent defeat-the authors explore sexism and gender bias in U.S. political and social culture.While there is some indication that overt sexism toward women in politics is declining, whether this is true for women who run for the highest office in American politics remains relatively unknown. Hillary Clinton''s historic run as the 2016 Democratic nominee, however, allows scholars and journalists to contextualize decades of scholarship on sex, gender, and the American presidency.In Sex and Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election, the authors, all experts on gender in politics, analyze the nature of gender in public opinion, media coverage, social media, and culture during the 2016 presidential election. They assess whether conventional expectations and theories hold up in today''s sociopolitical climate. Moreover, they consider how Clinton''s foray into relatively uncharted territory might redirect the political field-and its implications for women with political ambitions-going forward.