The Palin Paradox: Women More Likely to be Elected in Male-Dominated Districts

Five Thirty Eight:

Alaska isn't the first place you'd expect to see a woman elected to higher office. With its harsh climate and reliance on traditionally male-dominated industries like fishing, mining, and oil extraction, it has the most male population in the country: 106 men for every 100 women. Things are a bit worse still for the guys on Alaska's single scene -- the ratio of unmarried men (15 years or older) to unmarried women is 114:100. Throughout the rest of the United States, the men have it a bit easier, as the ratio is 86:100 nationally.

And yet, Alaska is one of just five states to have elected a female governor -- the irrepressible Sarah Palin. One of its two Senators, Lisa Murkowski, is also a woman.

Read the whole story: Five Thirty Eight

Comments

[jeremyemilio]

Not a paradox. Women hate women. Period.

Proof? How about these facts: The voting population of the US is about 52% female. Women vote in greater numbers than men. Women have been voting since 1920. And yet there has never yet been even a female candidate for president.­.. despite the fact that a number of qualified women have given a run for the job.

The deciding factor in Clinton vs Obama?

African Americans voted for Obama at a rate of above 80% while women voted for Clinton at a rate just barely above 50% (guess who the large majority of African American women voted for? and then gushed that they could now look their SONS in the eye and tell them the sky's the limit... who cares for one's daughters, after all).

Bottom line: There may never be a women president. Not because men aren't open to the possibility, but because women aren't. Sorry, but facts is facts.

[CardboardBox]

Could we save this comment and look back at it in 2016 as Hillary is giving her acceptance speech? To say Obama won the election because AAs voted for "one of their own" more-so than women voted for "one of their own" is really naive and discounts who the two candidates are as people and their talents.

[jeremyemilio]

I'm still pulling for Hillary in 2016, myself. But I'm not holding my breath for it any more. This is a situation I've witnessed countless times. My wife is an ordained minister. I've gone to conference with her year after year and have watched women fail to be voted into power time and again. But it's not for the reasons you would suspect (because of a traditional and chauvinistic old boy's club). Nope, it's because although the women have the power to vote a woman to the board every year, if they so choose, they never put their voting power to use. It's not enough for them to get a woman (just ONE woman) onto the board of eight; they want the perfect woman. Every year my wife tries to rally the troupes behind female nominees, but to no avail. I've given up on the whole cause.

Like it or not, men vote for men, evangelicals vote for evangelicals, Mormons vote for Mormons, Hispanics vote for Hispanics, and African Americans vote for African Americans, but women will do whatever it takes to show that they are above such "identity politics." Guess who loses?

[alkamm]

As Tupac said, women know that there are bitches. He defined the term as those who wouldn't give him the time of day at a party and then crawled all over themselves once they found out he was rich.

Women know, and they can tell a Palin from a more authentic woman. Hillary wasn't all that popular with women perhaps because she took the low road against Obama. She supported the war before she didn't support the war. She screwed up the chance to get health care reform through her arrogance, top down leadership.

That being said, Hillary could have been a good President and there is no chance outside of hell that Palin could be. Women know how to close ranks when they weigh someone worthy of the solidarity. Although I doubt Hillary will ever win the nomination, if she does, I'd vote for her and hope she's changed for the better. Change is good.

[jeremyemilio]

Hmmm... you've got the 2008 presidential election all figured out. Now what about the 22 elections between 1920 and 2004 when women represented a majority of then voting public and yet failed to elect a woman. Just waiting for the right one, are we? You keep telling yourself that.

[Bretta]

I agree with the sentiment that women hate women. You posit an interesting idea that a woman will not be elected when the majority of voters in an area are women. Hope it changes; sorry that it is so.

It's the crabs in a bucket analogy: Crabs will pull each other down if one attempts to get out; it is exactly how women act.

[jasongrundy]

Good...giv­e women a chance to F-ck up instead of silver-spooned white men

[Ladyrantsalot]

In the Republican party, there are tremendous opportunities for women who oppose women's rights; gays who oppose homosexual rights; and minorities who oppose civil rights. A woman can go far in that party as long as she is not associated with the woman's movement.

[alkamm]

You got that right.

[plzchuteme]

I don't know that I am surprised. I think people are much more critical of people of there own sex when they disagree and more dismissive of the opposite sex when they disagree. I would suspect that if this study was expanded and delved more deeply, you might find that those men supporting a female candidate in their district were not as passionate in their support as they might have been if a male candidate had caught their fancy and vice versa. Personally, I know that I do not have the animosity for female candidates that I do not agree with as much as I do with men I do not agree with. Conversely, I do not have the passion for female candidates that I do support that I might for a man I support. As a man, I get more gut feelings from a man as well as intellectual feelings. That can be good or bad. With a woman, I rely more on the intellectual and less on the gut. All things being equal, it gives a woman a decided advantage in my decision process.

[MAragon]

This just illustrates why the McCain campaign chose her - eye candy for men. Women tend to look at her and see either the high school witches they had to deal with or - and this is worse - identify with her as one of those women who is just so hated for being so much prettier than everyone else, you know, envy. Women with a lick o' sense see the former. Men, including - shockingly enough - my 70 year old uncle who is an independent minded democrat - see the package and somehow don't hear what she says or read the nuances in her behaviour that read as 'trouble' to women.

[swan1]

She plays the gender card from the bottom of the deck. Watch how she calls men "them", when she is in a bind.

[grammy11]

I have news for Palinites. Intelligent, educated women can see right thru her ignorance and stupidity. She will never be president or hold any other federal office. she is an embarrassment to women.

[amaboss52]

Amen to that Grammy, all of my friends and I are college educated and not one of us thinks there is anything appealing about Palin. Her lack of knowledge is breathtaking for someone elected to the Governorhship of a state. McCain thought (wrongly) that the people who supported Hillary would be enticed to the other side by this nit wit. Which in and of itself is a very scary thought.

[tippydog11]

these woman do they care about the good for all Americans and our safety? Or that Palin is just a woman and more like a critic to me...

[ninetwelve]

surprised? i'm not. women keep themselves down on a large degree. sounds sexist, but it's reality. look at the stats, they don't lie.

[DeeW]

I've never voted for or against a woman solely based on the fact that she's a woman. Why do people (who ever these people are) automatically assume that if a woman is running women will simply vote for her? Are women idiots? I vote for who I think is the most qualified regardless of sex or race or culture or sexual orientation or whatever other title you want to put in there. Qualifications. It's not that complicated.