Francis 1

Annotated Bibliography

How have female politicians begun to overcome gender stereotypes in the political arena?

Jessica Francis
Professor Malcolm Campbell
UWRT 1103
9 March 2015

Francis 2

Annotated Bibliography
Lawless, Jennifer L. "Sexism and Gender Bias in Election 2008: A More Complex Path for
Women in Politics." Politics and Gender 5.1 (2009): 70-80 Mar. 2009. Web. 03 Mar.
2015.
This article, Sexism and Gender Bias in Election 2008 is published in the Politics and
Gender online scholarly journal by the Cambridge University Press. Written by Jennifer
L. Lawless, this article discusses three potential explanations for the increased difficulty
women candidates like Hillary Clinton faced in the 2008 primary elections that male
counterparts were entitled to overlook. The first barrier to political equity Lawless
believes women have to overcome is functioning within a sexist environment. During the
2008 primary election, Clinton gave a speech in New Hampshire and two men chanted
Iron my shirt while she spoke. She responded with the comment, Ah, the remnants of
sexism - alive and well. Clinton was bombarded with similar comments about her sex
and how it would detract from leading the country if she won. The second barrier that
Lawless discusses is that women candidates must contend with this gender bias. Lawless
gives the statistic that 51% of respondents in a representative national sample believe that
Americans are not ready to elect a woman into high office. The inherent bias women
feel in the political arena affects their perception of their ability to raise money for their
campaign, to gain supporters, and to disprove the medias harsh portrayal of their
campaign. In the third barrier Lawless discusses the greater challenge women face than
man to blindly support fellow female candidates or risk being labeled a betrayer. When
women of power voiced their endorsement of then Democratic primary candidate Barack
Obama, they had to make sure that they apologized to Clinton for not formally endorsing
her, and had to ensure the media that Clinton was still able and qualified to run the
country. Men felt no need to make the same safe statements when they announced their
endorsements. While this article appears on the Cambridge University Press journal, it
possesses some shortcomings. The article barely touches on the opposition to any of the
argument it presents. Strong arguments are considered strong because they take into
account the opposing side and use it to promote their own findings, which did not take
place in this article. The article uses multiple sources as concrete evidence for each case
it brings up in the story which means Lawless spent a good amount of time researching
this topic. It is neatly organized into the three topics the author talks about and that
makes it easier on readers to identify the main ideas of the article. When read
thoroughly, the author of the article does not have a bias one way or the other. Lawless
simply presents the information and lets the reader decide on choosing sides, although
with the lack of opposing evidence, the case could be made that she leans more toward

Comment [JM1]: This is all great

information, especially for your topic! And
Malcolm said the length of yours was perfectly
fine, but I was just wondering if this is all in
that article? Or if you were starting to talk
about things you want to include in your
research paper. This is a wonderful summary
but I feel like it is possibly similar to the length
of the article lol
Comment [JM2]: Maybe since youre
starting to talk about the evaluation of the
source you could start a new paragraph
Comment [JM3]: *Grammar police* you
said when read thouroughly, the author I
believe that shows that the author is being
read? Maybe restructure the sentence to
simply say the author does not show bias in
this article

Francis 3

sympathizing with female candidates. Even though this article dates back to 2009, there
is quality information that I can use in my EIP. I can use the case Lawless made for
female candidates and the increased struggle they face and a propeller for how candidates
have overcome the gendered biases.
Draper, Robert. "Can Wendy Davis Have It All?" The New York Times. The New York
Times, 15 Feb. 2014. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
This online article found on the popular news source The New York Times discusses the
personal and professional life of Wendy Davis, former Texas senator. Draper begins the
article by explaining that Davis candidacy for governor in 2014 was not propelled by her
famous filibuster of 2013 but rather by playing on her touching life story: that of a
teenage, trailer-dwelling single mother, who, while raising two daughters, bootstrapped
her way into Harvard Law School and soon, possibly, the governorship. Draper details
the hardships Davis faced during her filibuster and how she managed to push through
until the end. The article contains a lot of information about Davis personal life
including her children, ex-husbands, education, and the intertwining of them all.
According to Draper, Davis made false claims of divorcing her first husband at 21 instead
of 19, and using her second husbands money to finance her Harvard education instead of
paying it all herself as she claimed. The author focused intensely on the misinformation
given by Davis and used it to sway the readers to rethink Davis honorability. The
mention of the misinformation occurs in more than one part of the story which seems
redundant when the professional story of Wendy Davis far exceeds a couple of spoken
blunders in past interviews. The author identifies himself as a native Texan, but also
writes that Texans have a complex with their duality of Texas pride and Texas insecurity.
The author puts himself into a corner by saying these two comments, because he goes on
to say, Davis will have to point out the states shortcomings while being careful not to
offend its tender sensibilities. By identifying as a native Texan, Draper formally makes
his case that he finds Davis mission to appease the entirety of the Texan people
improbable and farfetched. Furthermore, there are many examples littered throughout the
article that prove Drapers bias against Wendy Davis as a strong, female politician. He
began the second paragraph by saying, Davis was wearing a fitted black dress and high
heels and an omnipresent half-smile that could be interpreted as both drowsy and sly.
This statement diminishes Davis legitimacy as a serious politician to whoever reads this
because now readers will picture legs and a cheeky smile rather than focus on her
professional story. The argument could be made that this article forces readers to see
Wendy Davis from more than one angle. Perhaps the author uses the inaccurate
information to demonstrate even the most seemingly noble have flaws. Jennifer

Comment [JM4]: *thumbs up* answered

the evaluation questions and showed that this
will be useful for your project

Comment [JM5]: P.s. dont forget to double

space the whole thing before you turn it in

Comment [JM6]: Wondering if hes just an

opinionated writer? Or if he is a politician who
is trying to sway peoples opinions for
someone elses benefit?

Francis 4

Granholm described Davis as a modern day Joan of Arc, standing up there for women
all across the country after the filibuster, but Draper quickly points out that Davis did
not volunteer to filibuster the bill, nor did she want to be the Democratic Partys
sacrificial lamb. Overall, I could use this piece of writing as an alternative point of
view for my argument in my EIP. While much of what the author says is biased, it brings
a fresh perspective to the subject.
"Center for American Women in Politics. Eagleton Institute of Politics. Rutgers, n.d. Web. 5
Mar. 2015
This reliable website comes from the Eagleton Institute of Politics, as part of Rutgers
State University of New Jersey. The site has an About the Center for Women in
American Politics or CAWP page that gives the history and purpose of the program.
The Facts subheading breaks down the current numbers of women in each level of
office, follows upcoming electoral candidates, gives information about voter turnout and
the gender gap, discusses the relationship of women of color and politics, and includes
other resources as well. Because it is affiliated with a university, the Center for Women
in American Politics has a section for scholarships, education, and training. The Center
for Women in American Politics created a program called Ready to Run, which is a
national network of candidate recruitment and training programs committed to electing
more women to public office (CAWP). This webpage gives all of the details of Ready to
Run, the scholarships, and so much more educationally related. On the homepage of the
website is an interactive map of the 50 states and is color coded with a key. For example,
clicking on the state of North Carolina brings up the following information: the total
members of North Carolina US representatives are 13, but the total number of female
members is only three, and the percentage of women in the state legislature is 22.9%
(CAWP). The map also includes Colorado as the highest ranking state in terms of
women in state legislature at 42 percent and the lowest ranking state of Louisiana at 12.5
percent (CAWP). This entire website provides facts, stats, charts, articles, and extra
resources for any type of research needed on American women and politics. Because it
comes from a university, the source satisfies a certain level of required neutrality. Unless
included in an opinion piece, personal biases are neither permitted nor visible on much of
the websites materials. One could argue that because the webpage solely focuses on
women and politics that it is an extremely one-sided argument. However, most other
political charts and resources rarely include information about gender gaps and women of
color and politics, so the fresh perspective on the American political system should be a
welcomed change. The source promotes organizations and speakers in or around the
New Jersey area which is unfortunate for the rest of the population who cannot make the

Comment [JM7]: Smart to use an

alternative opinion! Couldnt correct anything
with this second source, I even double
checked the citation, everything looks great.

Francis 5

commute, but again this is due to the affiliation with the university. I recognize that I
have not evaluated a single article or piece of writing but rather evaluated an entire
website. I do this because during my research process, I could not narrow down my
findings on this page to a single result. However I choose to use information on this
website, I feel confident that it holds academic substance.
Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer Lawless. "Voters Dont Care How Women in Politics
Look." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 23 June 2013. Web. 08 Mar. 2015.
This article written on the popular news source, The Washington Post, is an opposing
perspective to my argument that women in politics face more gender discrimination than
men and must overcome more obstacles in order to reach the same level of success as
men. Authors Hayes and Lawless conducted a study that finds that women dont pay a
higher price than men for coverage of their appearance (Hayes). Their argument is not
that unflattering coverage will not hurt a candidate, but rather men and women will both
feel the loss of supporters equally. The study Hayes and Lawless developed had two
hypothetical congressional candidates, one male and one female. Each candidate had 4
stories written identically about them with the only changes lying in the gender
identification. For each of the candidates four stories, one made no mention to physical
appearance, one had neutral descriptors, one spoke positively about the candidates
appearance, and the final one spoke negatively about the candidates appearance. Hayes
and Lawless found that candidate sex has no bearing on voters evaluations (Hayes).
This study was in response to the Name It. Change. It. study. Hayes and Lawless
identified three key differences between the two studies: the Name. It. Change. It.
study did not compare female appearance coverage to male appearance coverage; there
were more controlled variables in Hayes and Lawless study than the Name. It. Change.
It study; and Hayes and Lawless descriptions of the candidates were more subtle than
the descriptions in the other study. This article ends by saying, The real barriers that
women face are formidable. But while women are surmounting them, our research
suggests that they wont have to worry about what theyre wearing (Hayes). From the
basic reading and research I have conducted in my womens studies classes I have
learned that this is simply not the case. The amount of times in which women in
powerful political positions are judged based on their appearance more often than not
outweighs the amount of times men are judged. Any feminist literature can provide hard
facts that would dismantle this studys premise. Stories written about political candidates
comprise one aspect of the media. The majority of the media is controlled by patriarchal
benefactors who will do everything they can to keep the patriarchy in power. Also, the
amount of people selected in the sample for Hayes and Lawless study does not indicate a

Comment [JM8]: I would take this out

because he requires us to evaluate/summarize
an entire website that has to do with our
topic. So youre fine! I dont think he would
take points off, but when I read this I thought
it sounded silly hehe
Comment [JM9]: Good job completing the
four correct sources

Comment [JM10]: Total suggestion, not

necessary at all, maybe Im just dumb. I was
confused at first, I read the highlighted section
a couple times before I fully understood (also
Im sleep deprived but oh well) I was just
thinking you might want to reorganize this. I
dont think you should say it is an opposing
perspective until you state their perspective.
You start with this article so say what it is;
then say it is opposing to your argument and
then state your argument.

Comment [JM11]: This isnt summarizing

the source, but is something you will include
in your research paper. If you want to leave it
all, I would put it at the very end, and before
you say it, say something like This article will
help me argue against their opinions because I
have done a lot of research that goes against
what they are saying. Then it would flow
better that just putting your opinion and
research in the summary/evaluation
Comment [JM12]: To add a little extra to
the actual evaluation of credibility to the
source, I would briefly mention who the
authors are. That might show why they are
biased or writing this article to begin with.

Francis 6

representative sample. 961 adults out over 300 million American citizens do not give a
study proper or substantial result. While I do not agree with the argument that male and
female politicians face the same amount of gender stereotyping from the media, I can
certainly use this article to provide an alternate perspective to my argument. Good
arguments can take the other side and use the information to get their own point across,
and I can do that with this article.