With the increasing number of women in politics and in the public eye in the context of positions of power, it is becoming clear that there is still a divide between how we tend to view women and men and the state of gender equality in professional context. To further an understanding of this divide and its specific nuances, two articles will be analyzed.

The first will be a presentation of the argument in the analysis of “Socialization to Power: Questions about Women and Politics” by Iva Ellen Deutchman and an analysis of the article by Sue Tolleson Rineheart entitled, “Toward Women’s Political Resocialization: Patterns of Predisposition in the Learning of Feminist Attidudes” If any overarching generalization can be made about the state (and future of) gender equality, especially in terms of women’s equal participation in the political sphere, it is that the base and fundamental equality already exists—women and men are not inherently or even genetically predisposed to one reaction to power or politics than the other—the only barrier is public and social perception of gender. This can be remedied by the processes leading up to feminist awareness, including making all children aware of equality and its importance and validity so that they grow up, men and women both, understanding that any of us, no matter our gender, can pursue any course we wish—political or otherwise.

In the article by Iva Ellen Deutchman, “Socialization to Power: Questions about Women and Politics” the author uses empirical evidence to suggest that because of their associations and orientations with power, men and women have a different understanding and level of participation with politics. In short, power is the main factor in the equation and even though there were not significant differences in some areas, “power orientations and gender produced interactive effects on political behavior” (Deutchman 79) and there were different levels of power some men and women felt, making them high or low-power individuals. Aside from having a lower number of representatives in the political sphere, women are socialized to think of power and politics in a different way than men. Socialization and other factors demonstrate that women have a different understanding of power than men and thus “Power is particularly important in understanding women’s political participation because of women’s alleged ambivalence about holding or exercising power” (Deutchman 79). As the article and this analysis of “Socialization to Power: Questions about Women and Politics” recognizes, making such statements about the complex relationships between gender, power, and politics is difficult because of the tendency to make generalizations as well as the lack of concrete data about any of these issues surrounding gender and power. As a result, Deutchman’s study attempts to narrow down a few different aspects of the subject, including socialization in general, the way power is experienced (the level of satisfaction or distaste, for example) as well as power style and how it is exercised. For the research, mostly white middle-class respondents were used, all of whom agreed to take part, which was part of the reason they were selected.

In terms of the methodology behind the findings for power orientations, “Power anxiety, or worry and conflict about power, and its converse, power enjoyment, were measured” by a procedure invented by the article’s author as were a number of other factors mentioned above. This part of the study yielded the result that there were no gender-based differences in the way they associated themselves with power. Other aspects such as political involvement were put to the same sort of test, which determined that women are not, as stereotypically thought of, to be disinterested in politics—quite the opposite, in fact. Despite old data that suggested women were less involved, this study stated that there was equality among the sexes. Interestingly, however, “power orientations do not seem to strongly determine nonformal political participation. The exception is power drive, which is positively related to non-formal political participation but again, only for women” (Deutchman 88).

In the article by Sue Tolleson Rineheart entitled, “Toward Women’s Political Resocialization: Patterns of Predisposition in the Learning of Feminist Attidudes” the author suggests the role of socialization as one of the primary motivating factors in the way gender and politics are perceived and carried out. Looking back at old data and research, Tolleson-Rinheart suggests that before the women’s movement, women’s role in politics was not an issue because that was not their place in the middle-class white paradigm that had been the standard for so many years. The author suggests that “the impact of the Women’s Movement on the political culture and the use made of it by adult women offer ample opportunity to asses the meaning of women’s evolving participation” (Tolleson-Rinheart 12). In short according to Tolleson-Rinheart in “Toward Women’s Political Resocialization: Patterns of Predisposition in the Learning of Feminist Attidudes”, the socialization patterns were changing as a result of this movement and thus the paradigm that existed before it was no longer a valid resource for examining the role of gender and political participation or interest. “feminist consciousness brings about the empowerment of women by providing three critical aspects of politicization” which include political ideology stressing equality, group identification, and political apprenticeships that foster the use of politics to advance change for equality. Resocialization then, is the combination of these force to reshape the old paradigm of women’s involvement, political function and prominence. As one of a few ways, one way this occurs is through reinforcement. As the author states in “Toward Women’s Political Resocialization: Patterns of Predisposition in the Learning of Feminist Attidudes”, “The feminist path in the reinforcement trend begins with counter-socialization early in life. Such counter-socialization prompts acceptance of non-traditional gender role divisions and less restricted view of women’s place” (Tolleson-Rinehart 14). This event is one of the main ways the process of resocialization occurs and changes the sphere of politics in terms of femininity. In short, this article posits the idea that through this pattern of thinking differently about women’s role in politics and, on a much larger scale, the integration of feminism into the everyday consciousness, changes in women’s involvement and perceived participation and ability to be in politics are all the result of this new pattern of socialization.

There are two related pieces of great news for gender equality in both articles. First of all, as made apparent by Tolleson-Rinehart’s article, greater strides toward better equality for women have been made in the past several years as the women’s movement and a more publicly conceived and understood notion of equality and women’s abilities is seeping into all levels of society. In short, what her article is espousing is the fact that there is has already been a rather large paradigm shift as women are more politically-associated because of a new, more equal understanding of women’s expanded roles and their capacity to be equal to men. In short, because of wide-scale movements such as the Women’s Movement and the subsequent change in the way some women were raised to think about gender and equality, more women began to see themselves as more capable and equal. This process of resocialization is still taking place and if it continues, offer a very exciting future for women and politics and more generally, life and opportunities.

The second bit of good news in terms of gender equality, this time made most apparent by Deutchman’s article is that there are no set-in-stone differences (to speak of) that completely divide men and women in terms of their understanding and practice of power. While there are high power men and high-power women, this is something that is apparent on both sides. Unlike the stereotypical conception of women as simply being less politically inclined, able, or fit, the exact opposite is true—men and women both have a more or less equal political inclination—there is not something inherent to one or the other gender’s capacity for “handling” politics. In short, the good news from these articles is that it is a matter of “simple” socialization, which is something that can be changed with enough time and effort. For example, consider the idea that “Structural barriers that prevent participation, e.g., sexism and sex role socialization (which result in unequal opportunities) have psychological effects as well… In other words, the public realim is measured as less interesting to women because women, reading the ‘men only’ signs’ sense that they cannot participate” (Deutchman 89). What Deutchman (and to an almost equal degree, Tolleson-Rinhart) states by this is that the biggest barrier is perception. Women are simply perceived to be less capable or inclined when in fact, there is no inherent difference. The best news then is that there is no insurmountable hurdle that must be leaped over to reach equality—it is a matter of how our society perceives and thus conditions women and men.

The overall conclusion about gender equality is…quite simply that there is equality when equality is separated from cultural/social perception. Women and men have equal capacities, interest levels, reactions to the use, practice, and involvement with power (for the most part) and thus, with this data, are just the same as men. Men and women desire the same outcomes for power politically-speaking and are often on the same page. The only negative overall conclusion is that there is the rather complex problem of socialization. However, this is by no means a lost cause. As both articles make clear, particularly Tolleson-Rinehart’s in her discussion of how attitudes and women’s equality awareness, it is perfectly possible for men and women to achieve a perceived equality as more people are resocialized to understand that men and women really are equals.

Related Articles

Women, Science and Professional Limitations