Today, most of the explicit barriers to female participation in the workforce have fallen. But in many fields, women continue to be significantly underrepresented. One such field is politics. In her 1992 article titled “Crashing the Locker Room,” lawyer and essayist Wendy Kaminer took a considered look at the shortage of women in Congress.
The exclusion of women from Congress is not exactly news; it’s history. Only fourteen women have ever served in the U.S. Senate, and the majority of them inherited their husbands’ seats or were appointed for limited terms by governors with whom they had political or personal connections…. Out of 11,230 people who have served in Congress, only one percent have been women. Today there are two women in the Senate and twenty-eight women in the House (out of 435 members). In other words, women constitute 5.6 percent of Congress, an increase of only about three percentage points since 1971.
Kaminer spoke with a number of female politicians from both parties who discussed what they saw as some of the barriers to female political success. They cited a variety of factors—from voters’ perceptions of women as less tough and competent than men, to the fact that most women lack powerful political connections. Many also lamented the inordinate amount of attention paid by the media to female politicians’ physical appearance and marital status. As Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland put it, “If you’re married, you’re neglecting the guy; if you’re divorced, you couldn’t keep him; if you’re a widow, you killed him; if you’re single, you couldn’t get a man.”
Kaminer noted that many of those women who do make it in politics have done so by deliberately capitalizing on feminine stereotypes. A number of women, she noted, have won campaigns by playing up their femininity and making the case that they are somehow congenitally best suited to look after the needy, safeguard the welfare of children, govern by agreeable compromise instead of confrontation, and generally keep government running smoothly, as though they were keeping house. But while such tactics can be successful in the short term, Kaminer warned, the longer-term results may be damaging:
The dangers of using stereotypes like these should be clear to generations of women who have had to prove their unfeminine ability and had to fight for the right to exercise power overtly outside the home, as well as covertly within it. By claiming “feminine” virtues, women may effectively deprive themselves of “masculine” strengths. Whether women candidates can exploit feminine stereotypes without ultimately being defeated by them is an unasked question at the heart of many women’s campaigns.
Other Atlantic writers, however, have taken issue with the idea that women ought to assert their “masculine” strengths in every arena. In a June 1980 article titled "Annie, Don’t Get Your Gun," Mary Jo Salter reacted negatively to a proposal by President Jimmy Carter that women should be subjected to the draft. Carter professed to have put forth the proposal on feminist grounds, on the theory that men and women should be treated equally across the board. But Salter objected, pointing out that women are physically less robust than men and temperamentally less bellicose. Laying claim to equal rights, she argued, should not have to mean pretending to be the same:
To be man’s equal, must we share his wardrobe of three-piece suits and military uniforms? It may be understandable, but is certainly regrettable, that “equality” in so many cases means conformity to the male habit. To earn the right to speak our minds, must we agree that we’ve always been “highly combative,” or that we ought to let them teach us how to be? Too often we’ve been told that to be dedicated professionals, we must eagerly sacrifice all for our jobs and neglect our children (if our offices allow us time to give birth at all). Now, to be dedicated citizens—and feminists—we must accept the male notion of citizenship as including compulsory military service. We are not nearly assertive enough, I think. If we were, we would balk at the all-encompassing view that equality means identicality—and that identicality, to return to the clothing metaphor, means that both sexes wear pants, not skirts.
A decade later, military sociologist Charles Moskos likewise took up the question of equal opportunity in the military. For his article “Army Women” (August 1990), he spoke with a number of female soldiers and learned that from carving out privacy within mixed-gender tents during field maneuvers, to coming to terms with the generally much lower cleanliness standards of their male compatriots, women in the Army face an unusual set of challenges. Many, he discovered, find themselves in the lonely position of avoiding closeness both with their male peers (for fear of being accused of improper conduct) and with their female peers (for fear of being suspected of homosexuality). Perhaps most frustrating of all, he learned, was that, according to Army rules, a woman often has “to be removed from an assignment she has been trained for simply because there is danger.” He quoted one female helicopter pilot who was not allowed to fly with her peers during the invasion of Panama: “I was insane with anger,” she told him. “After nine years of training they left me out. It was the ultimate slam.”
But there will always be those who doubt women’s claims that they are being discriminated against in a systematic way. In a September 1986 article “Women in the Work Force,” George Guilder suggested that women have in fact have come farther in their quest for equal opportunity and control over their careers than the statistics superficially seem to show. True, he conceded, there are far fewer women in the workforce than men, and overall they make less money. But a more nuanced analysis of the data, he argued, reveals that highly educated women who are unmarried and work full time do earn about the same amount as their male counterparts. It is the highly educated, affluent women who are married, he suggested, that scale back on their work, skewing the statistics to show a lower level of female participation at lower pay.
So are women as a group being discriminated against? Guilder, for one, thought not. “Let us at least consider the possibility,” he wrote, “that many women, deliberately rejecting the values of male careerists, are discriminating against the job ‘rat race’ and in favor of their families.”