Would you change the Constitution to see a woman in the Oval Office? Several Pittsburgh professors think amendments may be essential to political gender equality. Madame Presidenta: Why Not U.S.? – Vamos Meninas explores the election of Brazil’s Dilma Roussef, examines the global influence of her presidency, and offers analysis of social and structural factors keeping women from leadership roles in the United States. The Pennsylvania Center for Women and Politics invited Her Campus Chatham to co-sponsor the on-campus screening. The post-documentary discussion challenged what we know about U.S. elections. Missed it? Read the condensed version here.
The Moderator:
Dana Brown, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Center for Women and Politics at Chatham University
The Panelists:
Dr. George Reid Andrews, UCIS Research Professor and Distinguished Professor of History at the University of Pittsburgh
Dr. David Rossbach, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Chatham University
Dr. Jennie Sweet-Cushman, Assistant Director of the Pennsylvania Center for Women and Politics and Assistant Professor of Political Science at Chatham University
“One of the Hardest Histories to Overcome”
Dr. Andrews kicked off the conversation with context, giving a brief summation of Brazilian cultural and political history. Though Brazil drew up a new constitution in 1988 as the country emerged from a military dictatorship, 70-80% of its population still struggles with poverty.
Despite its challenging history, Brazil changed drastically in the past several decades. Dr. Andrews shared that the “women, labor, black, environmental and gay movements” occurred nearly at once. Though women did not always have excellent political representation, Dilma Roussef rose to power with the guidance of a mentoring politician. Dr. Andrews’ advice for women interested in running for office? “Tie yourself to a good mentor, show yourself to be competent.”
A Run-Off
Dr. Rossbach highlighted one of the major differences between Brazil and the United States: their elections. Both countries have presidents, but Brazil’s system is quite different. If no candidate receives more than 30% of the vote in the first round, the top two go to a second round. Dr. Andrews mentioned that Brazil’s electorate changed since the end of the military dictatorship. For many years, illiteracy barred individuals from voting. When Brazil drafted a new constitution, they removed the rule. Now, all citizens are required to vote and face fines if they don’t.
Dr. Rossbach pointed out that small variations in election systems can mean the difference between a woman and a man taking office. For example, women often get better results when they run in a country with a multi-party system; their results are not as good in a direct election. Could constitutional changes make it more likely for women to be successful? “We don’t need to change the Constitution here in the U.S.,” says Dr. Rossbach, “but I think it might help if we did.”
“Two Paths to the Presidency”
Dr. Sweet-Cushman explained that – for all the buzz around smaller parties – candidates are only likely to be elected president if they’re nominated by the Democrats or the Republicans. As she says, “progressive ambition” is often the key to getting there. The problem is that the pipeline isn’t effective for women. Dr. Sweet-Cushman shared a few disheartening facts: “18% of U.S. mayors are women,” 10% of governors (only 5). Congress is 18.5% women. But she’s not surprised: there “are vastly more potential male candidates.” Women aren’t recognized as frontrunners.
Reasons for Optimism
Despite setbacks, Dr. Sweet-Cushman shared three reasons we can all be optimistic about the chances of women climbing the political ladder.
1. More women than ever are in Congress and state legislatures.
2. “A majority of voters in this country are women.”
3. “When women run for office, on average, they’re just as successful as men are.”
Even if there is no “gender-based voting bias,” Dr. Sweet-Cushman still sees the problem: “Women tend to have lower levels of political ambition.”
“If You Can’t See It, You Can’t Be It”
Ms. Brown shared that quote: when girls aren’t exposed to many female political role models, they may be less likely to have political dreams of their own. PCWP offers programs that can help, but there are tricky challenges to overcome. Women tend to be more successful running for legislative positions than executive. They also do better in multi-member districts, and Pennsylvania is not one of them.
The Constitution
An audience member asked, If changing the Constitution is one path to greater political representation for women, why don’t we just go for it? Dr. Sweet-Cushman said that the Constitution has been changed 27 times over 200 years – often for greater inclusivity – but structurally, not much has changed.
Rosie the Riveter
An audience member asked: If women had been empowered to keep their jobs at the end of World War II instead of (largely) returning to the home, would we have had a female president earlier?
Dr. Sweet-Cushman believes it may have hastened the women’s movement and allowed for greater political engagement. Dr. Rossbach added that while the same structures of oppression would largely have been in place, it may have helped women get a foothold in politics. Dr. Andrews suggested that if women had stayed in the workforce, they may have had a role in the labor movement that would have linked them to the Democratic party and given them greater political influence.
“Saber Rattling”
Another question from the audience: Is there truth to the idea that women leaders are less likely to take military action?
Dr. Rossbach named former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Margaret Thatcher and former Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir as women who did not shy away from military action. He added that a woman’s likelihood to be aggressive in office is often circumstantial. Dr. Sweet-Cushman said that national concerns about “soft women” may not be valid. Ms. Brown commented that sometimes, as a country, we’re likely to rebel against a woman who seems to be taking an aggressive stance (mentioning Hillary Clinton’s often-criticized 3 a.m. presidential campaign commercial as evidence).
A Quota
An audience member brought up that the United States supported a quota for female politicians in Iraq. If the U.S. saw it as a good development for Iraq, could it be good for the United States?
Dr. Sweet-Cushman started by describing how quotas work. In some countries, they’re written into the constitution. In other countries, they’re written into party requirements. In many ways, she says, the system is flawed: a quota often leads to less concern for finding quality candidates since the party or the government is just trying to reach a minimum. She also explained that, from her point of view, it would be an “unnatural” choice for the United States. Why? Constitutional amendments are difficult and often disliked. Plus, there’s a widespread belief that women would like to be elected on their own merits, not on the basis of a quota.
“Dropped the Ball”
One audience member asked what incentive there is for politicians to oppose progressive movements for women. Do we need more women in politics to make change happen, or will we get there naturally?
Dr. Sweet-Cushman said that the women’s movement in the United States lost momentum. As she puts it, “that voice has diminished significantly.” To start creating change, she says, we need men who are willing to call themselves feminist. We also need voices to come from outside an elected body. Dr. Andrews added, “women’s voices are very loud in Brazil.”
Wrapping Up
The last comment of the night came from a visiting professor at the University of Pittsburgh. She’s from Brazil, and she was “impressed by the amount of knowledge” the panelists demonstrated of her country. She shared a bit about the elections, specifically that “Women don’t vote for women and we don’t know why.” But no matter what, she said, Brazilian citizens take their right to vote seriously. “In some small areas they put a suit on to vote because they think it’s important,” she said. “It is the only time they are heard.”