OCR Text |
Show THE UTAH STATE SENATE: EFFECTS OF TOKENISM AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE GENDER PARITY Ashley E. DiAna emotional and single minded. She cried during debates and floor speeches. The male members of the caucus then used her as an example of how to become "ineffective" because she acted too stereotypically weak. They appeared to want the female members of their caucuses to be publicly articulate and not too emotional. The second role entrapment type is that of the seductress, where the woman is a sexual object, a scarce commodity, and an opportunity for displays of male protection and sexual prowess. There was no evidence of this role in any of the conversations with the female senators. This does not mean that it doesn't occur within the Senate, but it may not occur with the female senators. I speculate that if it is a reality, it may happen with female staff, interns, or possibly another subordinate group. To determine whether it is a reality, observation of a legislative session and interviews with these women would be necessary. The third role entrapment type is that of the pet; where the woman is a cute cheerleader for the overall group, a symbolic mascot for male accomplishment. There were traces of this role, but to really determine whether it is a reality, substantial observation would be necessary. When I interned, I remember cases of women cheering for or loudly gaining extra attention for group accomplishment. I also remember female members bringing in treats on special days for male senators. When discussing these activities, none of the female senators seemed to see themselves or feel that this perception was placed upon them. I once again wonder if this role is played to some degree by the staff and interns, or if the female senators are not conscious of this role. The last role is that of the iron maiden (the bitch), where the woman asserts full participatory rights and refuses to play the other roles presented. I think all of the women I interviewed felt that the other roles do not fit them and that they demand equal respect from their male colleagues. Yet, none of them would consider themselves iron maidens. They all stressed that they needed to get along with the other senators in order to propel their own agendas. This is where observation of the session and interviews with their male colleagues is necessary to fully answer whether this role is a reality. Claiming the mother role or even the pet role is fairly safe because it is non-threatening to the hierarchy or established norms. The seductress, if played by a subordinate, frees the female senators from dealing with sexual objectification. The iron maiden/bitch role is powerful in that it is intimidating to the general populace, but it is ultimately the most isolating and disempowering in an elected body. Elected officials need to create and maintain a power base within and outside of the body in order to be effective leaders. When placed in the bitch category, a female official challenges the norms by which everyone else in the body has risen to power and maintained position. She asserts that a different way is needed and proper, thereby making the current structure seem flawed. Making one's colleagues seem flawed and part of a discriminatory system does not curry favor or build working coalitions. Role entrapment is a reality, to a degree, in the Utah State Senate. Each of the female senators has directly confronted issues of forced one-dimensional perception by other senators, lobbyists, and staff. The degree to which this is limiting the senators is complicated by a host of other factors, including the female senators' personalities and expertise, their districts, and the perceptional limitations of their male colleagues and others. It is clear, though, that the female senators have hurdles to overcome in order to gain ground with those involved in legislative politics. These roles are far easier to project on the senators than viewing them as individuals. Their male colleagues, on the other hand, generally have the opportunity to be individuals and more easily create success based on their qualifications because they are not saddled with the same stagnant stereotypes. The underlying assumption appears to be that being a senator is naturally male, so the female senators are exceptions to this cultural rule. Ranter's proposed solution to tokenism is to increase the number of the token group to the point where the stereotypes disintegrate in the face of three-dimensional reality. The five senators interviewed agreed that more women were needed to balance the power dynamic in the Utah State Senate. They each said that women's perspectives were needed to more fully represent the general community. They also stressed that the fraternal nature of the body took time to get over, meaning the first session was often the hardest because of the newness of position and the hurdles to overcome in fulfilling the position. They believed that the more women elected to the body, the less intimidation and difficulty would be present for new female senators. A greater development of gender consciousness among the senators is another component necessary to creating a more egalitarian legislative body. The fact that every one of these officials experienced one or more of the aspects of tokenism within their legislative experience leads one to conclude that a heightened level of sharing their struggles is essential to creating the environment where they can dismantle the stereotypes they all face and support each other in the pursuit of a more egalitarian body and politic. SUMMARY AND LIMITATIONS In summary, there was evidence of all major aspects of tokenism in this study, though to varying degrees. Five of five senators interviewed clearly identified manifestations of surplus visibility. Four of five believed they worked harder than their male colleagues. Evidence of the second aspect of tokenism, polarization, was not as strong as surplus visibility, but it was convincing. There was specific discussion of loyalty tests, interruptions to the groups process, and boundaries between the "in" and "out" groups. Evidence of the third 28 |