Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:52:25.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

She Who Shall Not Be Named: The Women That Women's Organizations Do (and Do Not) Represent in the Rulemaking Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2018

Ashley English
Ashley English*
Affiliation:
University of North Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Though the concept of intersectionality has been in circulation for nearly 30 years and women's organizations have long been criticized for failing to prioritize the concerns of women of color, poor women, and LGBTQ women, more research is needed to determine precisely why women's organizations do and do not discuss those intersectional identities during policy debates. This study analyzes 1,021 comments that women's organizations submitted to rulemakers to test a series of hypotheses about how women's organizations’ references to women's intersectional identities increase or decrease depending on the organization's primary constituency and ideology, the proposed rule's target population, and other features of the policy-making context. Using automated text analysis and a series of models, it shows that women's organizations do discuss intersectionally marginalized women in their comments. However, not all subgroups of women are equally represented during the process. Women's organizations focus on women's sexual orientations and gender identities more than their races, ethnicities, nationalities, or socioeconomic statuses. Intersectionally marginalized women also tend to receive the most attention when commenters are from organizations that are explicitly focused on representing intersectionally marginalized women and when bureaucrats include references to intersectionally marginalized women in their proposed rules.

Keywords

Intersectionalitywomen's organizationsrulemakingrepresentationtarget populationsbureaucratic politics
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 15 , Special Issue 3: Special Symposium on Michelle Obama , September 2019 , pp. 572 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramovitz, Mimi. 1996. Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy from Colonial Times to the Present. Boston: South End Press.Google Scholar
Cassese, Erin, Barnes, Tiffany, and Branton, Regina. 2015. “Racializing Gender: Public Opinion at the Intersection.” Politics & Gender 11 (1): 1–26.Google Scholar
Celis, Karen, Childs, Sarah, Kantola, Johanna, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2014. “Constituting Women's Interests through Representative Claims.” Politics & Gender 10 (2): 149–74.Google Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). 2018a. “History of Women in the US Congress.” http://cawp.rutgers.edu/history-women-us-congress (accessed July 2, 2018).Google Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). 2018b. “Women Appointed to Presidential Cabinets.” http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/womenapptdtoprescabinets.pdf (accessed July 2, 2018).Google Scholar
Cohen, Cathy. 1999. The Boundaries of Blackness: AIDS and the Breakdown of Black Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Congressional Quarterly (CQ). 2012. Washington Information Directory 2011–12. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1989: 139–67.Google Scholar
Deckman, Melissa. 2016. Tea Party Women: Mama Grizzlies, Grassroots Leaders, and the Changing Face of the American Right. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Dolan, Julie. 2000. “The Senior Executive Service: Gender, Attitudes, and Representative Bureaucracy.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10 (3): 513–29.Google Scholar
Dolan, Julie. 2002. “Representative Bureaucracy in the Federal Executive.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 12 (3): 353–75.Google Scholar
Dolan, Julie. 2004. “Gender Equity: Illusion or Reality for Women in the Federal Executive Service?” Public Administration Review 64 (3): 299–308.Google Scholar
Dovi, Suzanne. 2002. “Preferable Representatives: Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?” American Political Science Review 96 (4): 729–43.Google Scholar
Dziak, John, Coffman, Donna, Lanza, Stephanie, and Li, Runze. 2012. “Sensitivity and Specificity of Information Criteria.” Methodology Center, Pennsylvania State University. https://methodology.psu.edu/media/techreports/12-119.pdf (accessed February 9, 2018).Google Scholar
English, Ashley. 2016. “Rewriting Title IX: The Department of Education's Response to Feminists’ Comments in the Rulemaking Process.” Politics & Gender 12 (2): 491–517.Google Scholar
Escobar-Lemmon, Maria, and Taylor-Robinson, Michelle. 2014. “Dilemmas in the Meaning and Measurement of Representation.” In Representation: The Case of Women, eds. Escobar-Lemmon, Maria and Taylor-Robinson, Michelle. New York: Oxford University Press, 1–18.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Golden, Marissa Martino. 1998. “Interest Groups in the Rule-Making Process.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8 (2): 245–70.Google Scholar
Goss, Kristin A. 2013. The Paradox of Gender Equality: How American Women's Groups Gained and Lost Their Public Voice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2004. The Politics of Disgust: The Public Identity of the Welfare Queen. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2012. “Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act.” Federal Register 77 (55): 16501–8.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2013a. “Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act.” Federal Register 78 (25): 8456–76.Google Scholar
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2013b. “Certain Preventive Services under the Affordable Care Act.” Federal Register 78 (127): 39870–99.Google Scholar
Junn, Jane. 2017. “The Trump Majority: White Womanhood and the Making of Female Voters in the U.S.” Politics, Groups and Identities 5 (2): 343–52.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 1998. Faithful and Fearless: Moving Feminist Protest Inside the Church and Military. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Karen M., and Petrocik, John R.. 1999. “The Changing Politics of American Men.” American Journal of Political Science 43 (3): 864–87.Google Scholar
Keiser, Lael R., Wilkins, Vicky M., Meier, Kenneth J., and Holland, Catherine A.. 2002. “Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review 96 (3): 553–64.Google Scholar
Kenney, Sally J. 2003. “Where Is Gender in Agenda Setting?” Women & Politics 25 (1–2): 179–207.Google Scholar
Kerwin, Cornelius M., and Furlong, Scott R.. 2011. Rulemaking: How Government Agencies Write Law and Make Policy. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Long, Scott J., and Freese, Jeremy. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J. 1999. “Drugs, Sex, Rock, and Roll: A Theory of Morality Politics.” Policy Studies Journal 27 (4): 681–95.Google Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 1998. Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Mink, Gwendolyn. 2001. “Violating Women: Rights Abuses in the Welfare Police State.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 577: 79–93.Google Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 1999. “The Politics of Morality Policy: Symposium Editor's Introduction.” Policy Studies Journal 27 (4): 675–80.Google Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z. 2001. “The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy.” In The Public Clash of Private Values: The Politics of Morality Policy, ed. Mooney, Christopher Z.. New York: Seven Bridges, 3–20.Google Scholar
National Council of Women's Organizations. 2014. http://www.womensorganizations.org/index.php?option=com_azcontentlist&Itemid=3 (accessed August 18, 2014).Google Scholar
New York Times. 2017. “Room for Debate: Women and Their March on Washington.” https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2017/01/09/women-and-their-march-on-washington (accessed June 29, 2018).Google Scholar
Riccucci, Norma M., and Meyers, Marcia K.. 2004. “Linking Passive and Active Representation: The Case of Frontline Workers in Welfare Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 14 (4): 585–97.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2004. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women's Place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne, and Ingram, Helen. 1993. “Social Constructions of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87 (2): 334–47.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting Feminism: Conservative Women and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Politics Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 2015. “The Affordable Care Act Is Improving Access to Preventive Services for Millions of Americans.” May 14. https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/139221/The%20Affordable%20Care%20Act%20is%20Improving%20Access%20to%20Preventive%20Services%20for%20Millions%20of%20Americans.pdf (accessed July 5, 2017).Google Scholar
U.S. Office of Personnel and Management (OPM). 2014. “Senior Executive Service: Facts and Figures.” https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/senior-executive-service/facts-figures/#url=Demographics (accessed July 5, 2017).Google Scholar
Voteview. 2016. “The Polarization of the Congressional Parties.” http://www.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm (accessed March 15, 2017).Google Scholar
Weldon, Laurel. 2011. When Protest Makes Policy: How Social Movements Represent Disadvantaged Groups. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
West, William F. 2004. “Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policy Making: An Institutional Policy Analysis.” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 66–80.Google Scholar
West, William F. 2009. “Inside the Black Box: The Development of Proposed Rules and the Limits of Procedural Controls.” Administration & Society 41 (5): 576–99.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Vicky M. 2006. “Exploring the Causal Story: Gender, Active Representation, and Bureaucratic Politics.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 17 (1): 77–94.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Vicky M., and Keiser, Lael R.. 2006. “Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender: The Case of Child Support Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 87–100.Google Scholar
Wilson, Paul. 2015. “The Misuse of the Vuong Test for Non-Nested Models to Test for Zero-Inflation.” Economics Letters 127: 51–53.Google Scholar
Women of Color Resource Center. 1998. Women of Color Organizations and Projects: A National Directory. Berkeley, CA: Women of Color Resource Center.Google Scholar
Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “Sweet-Talking the Fourth Branch: The Influence of Interest Group Comments on Federal Agency Rulemaking.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (1): 103–24.Google Scholar
Yackee, Jason Webb, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “A Bias towards Business? Assessing Interest Group Influence on the US Bureaucracy.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 128–39.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. “Representation and Social Perspective.” In Inclusion and Democracy, ed. Young, Iris Marion. New York: Oxford University Press, 121–53.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

English supplementary material

Online Appendices

Download English supplementary material(File)
File 103.2 KB