Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:53:20.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Where Are All the Single Ladies? Marital Status and Women's Organizations’ Rule-making Campaigns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 June 2019

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

Abstract

Leading up to the 2016 election, single women were heralded as the “hot” new constituency. With unmarried women posed to comprise approximately half of the population of adult women and 23% of the electorate (Traister 2016), pundits claimed that the rising number of single women could transform American politics. Building on this recent enthusiasm about single women, this study provides one of the first systematic analyses of how contemporary women's organizations represent single women by analyzing 1,021 comments that women's organizations submitted to rule makers between 2007 and 2013. Using automated text analyses and a series of statistical analyses, it shows that despite the rising numbers of American single women, women's organizations only very rarely explicitly refer to single women during their comment writing campaigns, preferring to highlight the experiences of married mothers instead. Moreover, it shows that the political context unexpectedly has little to no effect on the degree to which women's organizations focus on single women, possibly because they so rarely mention them at all. Altogether, the results suggest that for single women to become politically powerful, they will need more than just large numbers; they may also need niche organizations that can help them organize and articulate their broader policy needs.

Keywords

Marital statuswomen's organizationsadvocacy organizationswomen's representationlobbyingrule making
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 581 - 607
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2019

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. Boston, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
Abramovitz, Mimi. 2000. Under Attack, Fighting Back. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Karrin Vasby, and Stewart, Jessie. 2005. “Politics and the Single Woman” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 8 (4): 595–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaszak, Lee Ann. 2010. The Women's Movement: New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Melissa, and Kaufmann, Karen. 2015. “The Electoral Consequence of Marriage and Motherhood.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy 36 (1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Andrea. 2003. How Policies Make Citizens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbone, June, and Cahn, Naomi. 2013. “The Gender/Class Divide: Reproduction, Privilege, and the Workplace.” FIU Law Review 8:287–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Susan. 1999. “The Disempowerment of the Gender Gap.” PS: Political Science & Politics 32 (1): 7–11.Google Scholar
Celis, Karen, Childs, Sarah, Kantola, Johanna, and Krook, Mona Lee. 2014. “Constituting Women's Interests Through Representative Claims.” Politics & Gender 10:149–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CPS (Current Population Survey). 2017a. “Table A1. Marital Status of People 15 Years and Over, by Age, Sex, and Personal Earnings: 2017.” https://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/demo/tables/families/2017/cps-2017/taba1-all.xls (August 8, 2018).Google Scholar
CPS (Current Population Survey). 2017b. “MS-1. Marital Status of the Population 15 Years Old and Over by Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: 1950 to Present.” https://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/demo/tables/families/time-series/marital/ms1.xls.Google Scholar
CPS (Current Population Survey). 2017c. “Table MS-2. Estimated Median Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present.” https://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/demo/tables/families/time-series/marital/ms2.xls.Google Scholar
CPS (Current Population Survey). 2017d. “Table 1. Women's Number of Children Ever Born by Age and Marital Status: June 2016.” https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/fertility/womenfertility.html#par_list_57.Google Scholar
CPS (Current Population Survey). 2017e. “Table 9. Reported Voting and Registration, by Marital Status, Age, and Sex: November 2016.” https://www2.census.gov/programssurveys/cps/tables/p20/580/table09.xls.Google Scholar
CWA (Concerned Women for America). 2018. https://concernedwomen.org/about/.Google Scholar
Deason, Grace, Greenlee, Jill, and Langner, Carrie. 2015. “Mothers on the Campaign Trail.” Politics, Groups, & Identities 3 (1): 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deckman, Melissa. 2016. Tea Party Women. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaulo, Bella. 2006. Singled Out. New York: St. Martin's Press.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, M. and Taylor-Robinson, M., 1–18. New York: Oxford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Anderson, Gosta. 2009. The Incomplete Revolution. Malden, MA: Polity Press.Google Scholar
English, Ashley. 2016. “Rewriting Title IX: The Department of Education's Response to Feminists’ Comments in the Rulemaking Process.” Politics & Gender 12(3): 491–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
English, Ashley. 2018. "She Who Shall Not Be Named: The Women That Women's Organizations Do (and Do Not) Represent in the Rulemaking Process. Politics & Gender https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X18000375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furlong, Scott, and Kerwin, Cornelius. 2005. “Interest Group Participation in Rulemaking.” J-PART 15 (3): 353–70.Google Scholar
Golden, Marissa Martino. 1998. “Interest Groups in the Rulemaking Process.” J-PART 8:245–70.Google Scholar
Gordon, Linda. 1990. “The New Feminist Scholarship on the Welfare State.” In Women, the State, and Welfare, ed. Gordon, Linda, 9–35. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Goss, Kristin. 2013. The Paradox of Gender Equality. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Guttmacher Institute. 2019. “Unintended Pregnancy in the United States.” https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/unintended-pregnancy-united-states.Google Scholar
Institute for Women's Policy Research [IWPR]. 2019. “Pay Equity and Discrimination.” <https://iwpr.org/issue/employment-education-economic-change/pay-equity-discrimination/> (April 25, 2019). (April 25, 2019).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Institute+for+Women's+Policy+Research+[IWPR].+2019.+“Pay+Equity+and+Discrimination.”++(April+25,+2019).>Google Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2004. The Politics of Disgust. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, Heidi and English, Ashley. 2009. “Women's Retirement Security: A Primer.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 30(2/3): 109–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Mary. 1998. Faithful and Fearless: Moving Feminist Protest Inside the Church and the Military. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Karen, and Petrocik, John. 1999. “The Changing Politics of American Men.” American Journal of Political Science 864–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, Sally. 2003. “Where is Gender in Agenda Setting?” Women & Politics 25(1/2): 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerwin, Cornelis, and Furlong, Scott. 2011. Rulemaking. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Klinenberg, Eric. 2012. Going Solo. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Long, Scott J., and Freese, Jeremy. 2006. Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata. College Station, TX: StataCorp Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth. 1999. “Drugs, Sex, Rock, and Roll” Policy Studies Journal 27 (4): 681–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 1998. Dividing Citizens. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne, and Soss, Joe. 2004. “The Consequences of Public Policy for Democratic Citizenship.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (1): 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mink, Gwendolyn. 2001. “Violating Women.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 577:79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher. 1999. “The Politics of Morality Policy.” Policy Studies Journal 27 (4): 675–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, Christopher. 2001. “The Public Clash of Private Values.” In The Public Clash of Private Values, ed. Mooney, C., 3–20. New York: Seven Bridges.Google Scholar
Moran, Rachel F. 2004. “How Second-Wave Feminism Forgot the Single Woman.” Hofstra Law Review 33 (1): 223–98.Google Scholar
NOW (National Organization for Women). 1966. “Statement of Purpose.” https://now.org/about/history/statement-of-purpose/.Google Scholar
O'Connor, Julia, Orloff, Anna Shola, and Shaver, Sheila. 1999. States, Markets, and Families. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of the Federal Register. 2011. “A Guide to the Rulemaking Process.” https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf.Google Scholar
Orloff, Ann Shola. 1996. “Gender in the Welfare State.” Annual Review of Sociology 22:51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carol. 1988. “The Patriarchal Welfare State.” In Democracy and the Welfare State, ed. Amy Gutman, 231–60. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 1993. “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change.” World Politics 45 (4): 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Ruth. 2006. The World Split Open. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Sainsbury, Diane. 1994. “Women and Men's Social Rights.” In Gendering Welfare States. ed. Sainsbury, Diane. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2004. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women's Place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1990. “The Gender Bias of American Social Policy.” In Women, the State and Welfare. ed. Gordon, Linda. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, Ronnee. 2008. Righting Feminism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Social Security Administration. 2018. “Benefits for Your Spouse.” https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/applying6.html.Google Scholar
Stalsburg, Brittany. 2010. “Voting for Mom: The Political Consequences of Being a Parent for Male and Female Candidates.” Politics & Gender 6:373–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara Z. 2007. Affirmative Advocacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traister, Rebecca. 2016. “The Single American Woman.” https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/political-power-single-women-c-v-r.html.Google Scholar
US Census. 2016 and 2017a. “Families and People in Poverty by Type of Family” https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/p60/263/pov_table4.xls.Google Scholar
US Census. 2016 and 2017b. “People in Poverty by Selected Characteristics.” https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/p60/263/pov_table3.xls.Google Scholar
US Census. 2017. “Reported Voting and Registration, by Sex and Single Years of Age” https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/p20/580/table01.xlsx.Google Scholar
US Government Accountability Office. 2017. “Congressional Review Act.” <http://www.gao.gov/legal/congressional-review-act/overview?rows=10&now_sort=docdate+desc&page_name=fed_rules&q=&report=&agency=All&path=Legal%3AOther+Legal+Function%3AFederal+Rule%3AMajor&priority=All&begin_date=01%2F20%2F2009&end_date=01%2F19%2F2017&begin_eff_date=mm%2Fdd%2Fyyyy&end_eff_date=12%2F31%2F2018&begin_gao_date=mm%2Fdd%2Fyyyy&end_gao_date=03%2F13%2F2017&Submit=Search#fedRulesForm> (March 15, 2017).+(March+15,+2017).>Google Scholar
US Department of Labor. 2018. “Family and Medical Leave Act.” https://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/.Google Scholar
Valenti, Jessica. 2014. “Nick-naming Women Beyoncé Voters is Exactly Why We Don't Vote Republican.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/03/beyonce-voters-republicansingle-ladies.Google Scholar
Voter Participation Center, The. 2018. “Unmarried Women.” https://www.voterparticipation.org/our-mission/the-rising-americanelectorate/unmarried-women/.Google Scholar
Watters, Jesse. 2014. “Fox News on Beyonce Voters.” YouTube. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBcMW2q_pQg&feature=youtu.be> (April 25, 2019).+(April+25,+2019).>Google Scholar
West, William. 2004. “Formal Procedures, Informal Processes, Accountability, and Responsiveness in Bureaucratic Policymaking.” Public Administration Review 64 (1): 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weldon, Laurel. 2011. When Protest Makes Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Paul. 2015. “The Misuse of the Vuong Test for Non-Nested Models to Test for ZeroInflation.” Economics Letters 127:51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yackee, Jason Webb, and Yackee, Susan Webb. 2006. “A Bias Towards Business?” Journal of Politics 68:128–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

English supplementary material

English supplementary material
Download English supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 73.1 KB