Essay: It Still Takes A Candidate – book review and commentary

It Still Takes A Candidate is an updated version of the book, It Takes A Candidate. This book is based on a study that reveal the way in which gender affects political ambition. The data was taken from the Citizen Political Ambition Panel Study in which sixty-eight hundred eligible women and men took a survey by mail. The eligible or potential candidates were men and women who served as active members in their communities, expressed high levels of political interest, and worked in the most prestigious careers: law, business, education, and politics. The study was conducted using a two-wave survey. The survey asked respondents about their sociodemographic backgrounds, familial arrangements, political activism, political outlook, political experience, and willingness to run for office. The “first wave” was first conducted in 2001 but due to not being able to substantiate the information that was given, the survey needed to be repeated. Even though the first wave had to be repeated, the gender gap in political ambition was still established during that time but there was still a lot more that needed to be included in the study, such as how gender interacts with political recruitment and self-assessed qualifications. The  “second wave” or the second survey consisted of over two thousand of the same individuals from the 2001 survey. There were challenges while conducting this study because it was very difficult to find and/or reach eighteen percent of the respondents from the first wave. The authors conducted the study to show the gender gap in political ambition and why women don’t think they are qualified or capable to run for electoral positions. Lawless and Fox wanted to uncover the true reason(s) behind the shortage of women in politics. The authors conducted this study to show why there are so few women in politics and why women don’t feel qualified to run for elective office. The study was conducted to specifically try to uncover the gender gap in political ambition. The three possible categories of explanation for the patterns that were found in the data were traditional family role orientations, masculinized ethos, and the gendered psyche. Traditional family role orientation resonates with me more than the other two explanations because I think it’s over rated. There are still so many men and few women who still believe that 2015 women belong in the kitchen and at home doing household duties rather than in the White House or running an office somewhere. In a lot of cases a woman who is interested in running for office will be equipped to serve from the beginning all the way to the end. Which means she is more than capable of taking care of her obligations both at home and in the office. I am a woman and it pains me when I hear a lot of women devalue and underestimate their skills and abilities regarding politics simply because they don’t think they’re qualified or they feel more comfortable being behind the scenes and not out front. Women’s underrepresentation in elected political office occurs when women fail to believe the role gender plays in the process by which individuals emerge as candidates for public office. The authors indicated that what’s missing from the gender and political ambition is an understanding of the gender dynamics underlying the process by which individuals move from the eligibility pool into elective office. The rational choice paradigm for potential candidates for office conceptualizes political ambition as primarily a strategic response to a political opportunity structure. This paradigm is limited in the extent to which they shed light on the gender dynamics of the candidate emergence process. The first limitation to this paradigm is that it tends to take ambition as given. The second limitation to this paradigm is that it does not indulge the notion that the candidate emergence process might differ for women and men, both when considering a candidacy and when facing the decision to enter an actual political contest. The two stages of the candidate emergence process are considering a candidacy and deciding to enter an actual race.
There’s been a net loss of women from Congress, what does this spell for the future?
It’s a setback that spells less women’s views being represented. It is clear evidence that the problem of women’s under-representation will not solve itself.  Women now have the career paths and credentials we tend to look for in candidates, but they’re still less likely to turn those qualifications into candidacies. Without active recruitment, nothing will change.
Summary by Susan Majek
It’s a man’s world and it will continue to be if women don’t step up and run for office. To cause change, one often must have the power and influence to effect that desired change, and being an elected political official is a position of power where one can do so.
Though women are already underserved, we often don’t do much about it by not running for office. We know there are many factors hindering women from running including the fear factor of running against the ‘big boys’ in their territory with their ‘boys club’ solidly behind them, but we women must still endeavor to find places for ourselves in politics and other leadership positions where we can make a difference. Whether it is by overcoming our fears and taking a leap of faith or just believing the opportunity is available to us, women must begin to run for office. Then people will come out in our support. When both Hilary Clinton and Barak Obama were seeking the Democratic ticket to run for President, an African American woman expressed her joy by saying, ‘I don’t know what to do with myself and who I’m going to vote for with two minorities running for president.’
Another challenge is that we women often put ourselves down and down play our accomplishments. We can be very self depreciating, which isn’t a good trait in any sphere, and least of all in politics where exuding confidence and optimism is a requirement.. ext in here…