Since the election of President Trump and the dawning of the #MeToo movement, gender-salient issues have had a primary place in recent American politics. This was particularly evident in 2018 in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings amid accusations that he has sexually assaulted a classmate. Previous research suggests that women should be more concerned about issues like sexual harassment and mobilized to participate in elections in which these issues are prominent. Yet, American politics has become more polarized in the last 25 years, requiring us to re-examine the impact of gender-salient issues on women’s electoral behavior. Employing data from a 2018 ANES pilot study, we examine the relative impact of gender and party on attitudes toward sexual harassment, Brett Kavanaugh, and participation in the 2018 elections. We find that, while gender plays some role in 2018, partisanship is still the dominant influence in these elections.
BroockmanD. E. (2014). Do female politicians empower women to vote or run for office? A regression discontinuity approach. Electoral Studies, 34, 190–204.
5.
BrooksD. J. (2013). He runs, she runs: Why gender stereotypes do not harm women candidates. Princeton University Press.
6.
CarseyT. M.LaymanG. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477.
7.
CasseseE. C.BarnesT. D. (2019). Reconciling sexism and women’s support for republican candidates: A look at gender, class, and whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 presidential paces. Political Behavior, 41, 677–700.
8.
CasseseE. C.BarnesT. D. (2018). Intersectional motherhood: Investigating public support for child care subsidies. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(4), 775–793. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1441035
9.
CasseseE. C.BarnesT. D.BrantonR. P. (2015). Racializing gender: Public opinion at the intersection. Politics & Gender, 11(1), 1–26.
10.
CasseseE. C.HolmanM. R. (2019). Playing the woman card: Ambivalent sexism in the 2016 U.S. presidential race. Political Psychology, 40(1), 55–74.
11.
CasseseE. C.HolmanM. R. (2017). Religion, gendered authority, and identity in American politics. Politics and Religion, 10(1), 31–56.
12.
CasseseE. C.HolmanM. R. (2016). Religious beliefs, gender consciousness, and women’s political participation. Sex Roles, 75, 514–527.
13.
CottrillJ. B.PerettiT. J. (2013). The partisan dynamics of supreme court confirmation voting. The Justice System Journal, 34(1), 15–37.
14.
DeckmanM. (2016). Tea party women: Mama grizzlies, grassroots leaders, and the changing face of the American right. New York University Press.
15.
DolanK. (2014). When does gender matter? Women candidates, gender stereotypes, and American elections. Oxford University Press.
16.
DolanK. (2006). Symbolic mobilization? The impact of candidate sex in American elections. American Politics Research, 34(6), 687–704.
17.
DolanK. (2004). Voting for women: How the public evaluates women candidates. Westview Press.
18.
DolanK. (1998). Voting for women in the ‘Year of the Woman.’American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 272–293.
19.
DolanK.HansenM. (2018). Blaming women or blaming the system? Public perceptions of women’s underrepresentation in elected office. Political Research Quarterly, 71(3), 668–680.
20.
HansenS. B. (1997). Talking about politics: Gender and contextual effects on political proselytizing. Journal of Politics, 59(1), 73–103.
21.
HayesD. (2011). When gender and party collide: Stereotyping in candidate trait attribution. Politics & Gender, 7(2), 133–165.
22.
HayesD.LawlessJ. L. (2016). Women on the run: Gender, media, and political campaigns in a polarized era. Cambridge University Press.
23.
HuddyL. (2003). From group identity to political cohesion and commitment. In SearsD. OHuddyL.JervisR. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford University Press.
24.
HuddyL.CapelosT. (2002). Gender stereotyping and candidate evaluation: Good news and bad news for women politicians. In OttatiV.TindaleR.EdwardsJ.BryantF.HeathL.O’ConnellD.Suarez-BalcazarY.PosavacE. (Eds.), The social psychology of politics: Research, policy, theory, practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
25.
JacksonR. A.NewmanM. A. (2004). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace Revisited: Influences on sexual harassment by gender. Public Administration Review, 64(6), 705–717.
26.
JacobsonG. C. (2013). Partisan polarization in American politics: A background paper. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 43(4), 688–708.
27.
LaymanG.CarseyT. (2002). Party polarization and party structuring of policy attitudes: A comparison of three NES panel studies. Political Behavior, 24, 199–236.
28.
LizotteM.-K. (2015). The abortion attitudes paradox: Model specification and gender differences. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy, 36(1), 22–42.
29.
ManzaJ.BrooksC. (1998). The gender gap in U.S. presidential elections: When? why? implications?American Journal of Sociology, 103(5), 1235–1266.
30.
MasonL. (2015). “I disrepectfully agree’: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128–145.
31.
MillerP. R.ConoverP. J. (2015). Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 225–239.
MurrellA.Dietz-UhlerB. (1993). Gender identity and adversarial sexual beliefs as predictors of attitudes toward sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17(2), 169–175.
34.
PaolinoP. (1995). Group-salient issues and group representation: Support for women candidates in the 1992 senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 294–313.
35.
RotundoM.NguyenD.-H.SackettP. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 914–922.
36.
RussellB.TriggT. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50, 565–573.
37.
SapiroV.ConoverP. (1997). The variable gender bias of electoral politics: Gender and context in the 1992 election. British Journal of Political Science, 27, 497–523.
38.
SchaffnerB. (2005). Priming gender: Campaigning on women’s issues in U.S. senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 803–817.
39.
SeltzerR.NewmanJ.LeightonM. (1997). Sex as a political variable: Women as candidates and voters in U.S. elections. Lynne Rienner.
40.
ShipanC. (2008). Partisanship, ideology, and senate voting on Supreme Court nominees. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 5(1), 55–76.
41.
StrolovitchD. (1998). Playing favorites: Public attitudes toward race- and gender-targeted anti-discrimination policy. NWSA Journal, 10, 27–53.
42.
SwersM. (2002). The difference women make. University of Chicago Press.
43.
UggenC.BlackstoneA. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 64–92.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
