Standing for Women? Which Women? The Substantive Representation of Women's Interests and the Research Imperative of Intersectionality | Politics & Gender | Cambridge Core (original) (raw)

Extract

In conducting interviews with female African American state legislators, I found that the great debates among women and politics scholars over the meaning of women's issues have not captured a major issue that surfaced time and again in the interviews. The African American women I interviewed affirmed that “women's issues” constituted a top priority on their legislative agendas and understood themselves as representatives of women's interests. But when they began to discuss the issues they championed on behalf of women, these issues were not the “usual suspects.” They often mentioned proposed legislation that I would have coded as a “children's issue” or, at times, a “race issue.” These legislators articulated a political agenda reflecting crosscutting issues that were not easily codified along a single issue axis. Instead, the legislators articulated their legislative priorities as complex and multifaceted. They saw their legislative priorities affecting constituents across their districts, but they also keenly expressed the impact of these issues on the lives and well-being of women in particular.

Type

Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics

References

Beckwith, Karen, and Cowell-Meyers, Kimberly. 2007. “Sheer Numbers: Critical Representation Thresholds and Women's Political Representation.” Perspectives on Politics 5 (3): 555–67.CrossRef Google Scholar

Caiazza, Amy. 2004. “Does Women's Representation in Electoral Office lead to Women-Friendly Policy? Analysis of State-Level Data.” Women & Politics 26 (1): 35–70.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cohen, Cathy. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Goldberg, Suzanne B. 2008. “Intersectionality in Theory and Practice.” In Intersectionality and Beyond: Law, Power and the Politics of Location, ed. Grabham, Emily, Cooper, Davina, Krishnadas, Jane, and Herman, Didi. Cavendish: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar

Hancock, Ange Marie. 2004. The Politics of Disgust: The Public Identity of the Welfare Queen. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender: Towards a Theory of Race-Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 529–50.CrossRef Google Scholar

MacDonald, Jason A., and O'Brien, Erin E.. 2010. “Quasi-Experimental Design, Constituency, and Advancing Women's Interests: ‘Critically’ Reexamining the Influence of Gender on Substantive Representation. Political Research Quarterly 64 (2): 472–486.Google Scholar

Mazur, Amy. 2002. Theorizing Feminist Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mink, Gwendolyn. 1998. Welfare's End. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar

Palmer, Barbara, and Simon, Dennis. 2008. Breaking the Glass Ceiling. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Smooth, Wendy. 2006. “Intersectionality in Electoral Politics: A Mess Worth Making.” Politics & Gender 2 (September): 400–14.Google Scholar

Smooth, Wendy.. 2010. “Intersectionalities of Race and Gender and Leadership.” In Gender and Women's Leadership: A Reference Handbook, ed. O'Conner, Karen. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar

Strolovich, Dara. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Swers, Michelle. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Valentine, Gill. 2007. “Theorizing and Researching Intersectionality: A Challenge to Feminist Geography” The Professional Geographer 59: 1, 10–21.CrossRef Google Scholar

Weldon, S. Laurel. 2006. “The Structure of Intersectionality: A Comparative Politics of Gender.” Politics & Gender 2 (June): 235–48.Google Scholar