He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women Candidates

The conventional wisdom, as understood by campaign strategists and the media, is that being a woman is a liability in electoral politics. Female candidates face an impossible task—they must convey the toughness, competence, and confidence of a politician, while simultaneously conveying the warmth and modesty of a lady. Consequently, it is much more difficult for women to successfully navigate a political campaign. Anecdotal evidence supporting this conventional wisdom is easy to find. However, systematic evidence is scarce. Is it possible that the conventional wisdom is just plain wrong? Deborah Jordan Brooks contends that it is. In a series of experiments using a representative sample of 3,000 U.S. adults, she finds that voters are remarkably even-handed in judging male and female candidates and politicians. Brooks randomly assigns respondents to read one of eight scenarios involving either “Karen” or “Kevin Bailey.” These scenarios include an evaluation of Karen/Kevin's fitness for office when s/he has extensive experience and when s/he has minimal experience. There are no significant differences in how Karen and Kevin are evaluated in the first, and Karen may be slightly advantaged in the second. The next group of scenarios presents fictitious news reports of “Representative Karen/Kevin Bailey” crying, displaying anger, exhibiting toughness, showing a lack of empathy to constituents, and getting caught in a knowledge gaffe. Again, across a wide variety of outcome measures, respondents penalize or reward Karen and Kevin similarly.