Critical Mass Claims and Ideological Divides Among Women in the U.S. House of Representatives

• Author: Katherine Tate,Mary Arend
• Published date: 01 July 2022
• Date: 01 July 2022
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221077931
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

American Politics Research

2022, Vol. 50(4) 479–487

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X221077931

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Critical Mass Claims and Ideological Divides

Among Women in the U.S. House of

Representatives

Katherine Tate

1

and Mary Arend

2

Abstract

Critical mass theories predict that women in government will sponsor and vote for more women and feminist bills as their

numbers increase. Using Voteview.com data of roll-call votes measuring left–right ideology from 1977 to 2019 this paper shows

that ideological divides among women in the U.S. House of Representatives have deepened rather than veered in a liberal

direction. Republican women have moved rightward over time and more conservative ones are winning elections. Belonging to

a politicized generation, older Silent Generation and Boomer women are more ideologically extreme than younger women.

Parties are also elevating their more ideological female members. As their numbers increase, female House members are

expected to remain ideologically diverse in a polarized legislative environment. Critical mass theories are deficient in failing to

place female political actors in a dynamic workplace.

Keywords

congress, critical mass, incorporation, political party, women

In this article, we are interested in the political socialization of

women in Congress and the way that the institution affects

their legislative behavior. Women are socialized to be more

caring than men, and this also influences their political be-

havior, it is argued. Women enter government having a liberal

perspective based on gender experiences that pushes them to

advocate for women’s issues (Dittmar et al., 2018;Swers,

2002). These two facts, gender socialization and gendered

experiences, explain women’s liberal legislative record.

However, will each generation of political women enter

government with a strong gender identity that promotes

liberal politics? It is assumed that women’s political liber-

alism intensifies as the proportion of women increases in

Washington. The logic is taken from Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s

(1977) study of women in corporations. When women reach a

“critical mass”in government their politics will be visibly

more pro-women rights and liberal. Women, already self-

conscious of their gender, see each other as potential alli es,

and strategically group together under a critical mass sce-

nario. Women in larger numbers also become strong enough

to influence the legislative culture making it more receptive to

women-friendly bills (Childs & Krook, 2008;Dahlerup,

2006).

Scholars argue that there needed to be a critical mass of

women for women lawmakers, perhaps around 12–15% of

the legislative body, before they are willing to speak out

forcefully on women’s rights (Thomas, 1994). Women

represented over 12% in 1997 and over 15% of the U.S.

House by 2005. In general, however, no threshold number has

been established as necessary for women to attain greater

substantive representation (Beckwith & Cowell-Meyers,

2007;Grey, 2006).

Evidence for a critical mass theory is mixed. In state

governments where the proportion of women are high,

women’s issues were most evident (Thomas, 1994). Female

judges serving with other female judges in their cities ad-

judicated in a more liberal direction than men presumably

because of their interaction with each other (Collins et al.,

2010; see also Scheurer, 2014). However, a study of female

judges in Canada found no critical mass effect on their

decision-making (Johnson et al., 2011). Other work exam-

ining the legislative politics of the New Hampshire state

Senate, which in 2009, became the first chamber to have a

female majority found that women were no more likely to

pursue a women’s agenda with that majority than in other

sessions (Schilling & Osborn, 2020). These women

1

Department of Political Science, Brown University, Irvine, CA, USA

2

Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

Corresponding Author:

Katherine Tate, Department of Political Science, Brown University, 3151

Social Science Plaza, Irvine, CA 92697-5100, USA.

Email: katherine_tate@brown.edu