Overly emotional or too cold for office? How gender stereotypes shape the conversation regarding women in politics

Perhaps the clearest recent example of gender stereotyping detrimental to a female political candidate in the United States is demonstrated by the media portrayals and public perception of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election. Hillary Clinton possesses a range of education and experience making her optimally qualified for the position of President of the United States (she possesses qualifications that former successful US Presidents and politicians also carry). However, Clinton was scrutinized to a degree different from male politicians running for the office of President.

On one hand, Hillary Clinton was painted as an “ice queen”- cold, emotionally detached, and unfeminine in her interactions with the public and her own family. On the other end of the spectrum, Clinton was characterized as “overly emotional:” incapable of making the tough decisions the office of president mandates due to her feminine characteristics. Though these phrases hold opposite implications, their characterization revolves around societal ideas about femininity which disadvantages female politicians and is a contributing deterrent in their participation in the political system. 

Stereotypes matter. They shape the conversation. They shape campaigns, and they influence public perception.

My research involves an examination of manifestations of institutionalized sexism and tests for the prevalence of social groups in determining a willingness to voice inadvertent or blatant sexism when evaluating the qualifications of female political candidates. To better understand the perceptive barriers that women face politically, I examine gender stereotypes that shape discussion and qualification perceptions of female political candidates by the public. I accomplished this through an examination of the role gender bias plays in the under-representation of women in politics and how this is manifest in guided group discussions of candidate qualifications.  I adopted an experimental approach consisting of two separate focus groups consisting of Brigham Young University students of different political backgrounds tasked with evaluating political candidates, male and female, through the same non-partisan, generic political speech. The responses to speeches and the rhetoric used to describe male and female qualifications were influenced by the gender of the candidate and gender stereotypes shaped the conversations by the focus groups.

The responses to guided questions by the focus group indicated that gender stereotypes not only shaped the conversation, but that they were prevalent in groups made up of a female majority.

The presence of women in group discussions alone does not mean that gender bias will not come into play when discussing women running for political office.

Here are some quotes that the female-majority group used when discussing the female candidate: 

“Youth outreach is great. I like that she mentions that right off the bat.” 

This quote demonstrates the way we view the qualifications of women running for office may be shaped by the stereotypes we have connecting women to children and youth. In the speech, there were references to a variety of platforms including localizing government and strengthening the local community. However, when discussing the potential strengths of the candidate, it is notable that only youth outreach was discussed when discussing the woman running for office whereas it was not mentioned by the group evaluating the man running for office using the same speech and platforms. 

“I wonder if she has experience in politics or what her qualifications are…” 

This comment by the group evaluating the woman running for political office reveals another aspect of gender bias coming into play. That is, questioning the qualifications of women running for office. Research indicates that women running for political office often hold more qualifications than men running for the same positions. However, the qualifications of the women are discounted or evaluated differently than men. This leads voters to hold women running for office to higher standards than men, perhaps explaining some of the perception barriers that lead to the underrepresentation of women holding political office. A critique regarding the potential qualifications of the candidate running for office was not mentioned by the group evaluating the man running for office. 

So what does all this mean? Men and women are held to different standards and gender stereotypes shape the conversation regarding qualification evaluations. These stereotypes are prevalent in groups made up of a majority of women- meaning many stereotypes are internalized and implicit. However, as society begins to elect more women to political office, the prevalence of stereotyping in voter decisions decreases. A democracy is stronger when elected officials reflect its population demographically, and it is imperative that we, as a public, are aware of the barriers that lead to the underrepresentation of a demographic based on gender.

Transgender Rights & Power Dynamics

The issue is?

Policies and issues surrounding transgender rights have been on the rise in the last few months. Issues both on the state and federal level involving laws surrounding participation in sports and most recently enlisting in the military. On March 31st President Biden overturned Trump-era legislation that limited individuals to enlisting in the military under their “birth-gender.” Additionally, the policy banned anyone from enlisting in the military if they had undergone gender transition surgery. The last day of March was Trans Visibility Day and was a day of celebration for transgender individuals. The current policy also prohibits any type of discrimination based on gender identity. 

        What does power look like? 

Power is often associated with force and control, but as we break down the concept of power it’s clear that acquiring and holding onto power is much more nuanced. We can look at power in three different dimensions. The first and the second ways in which we look at power are more obvious, controlled by force and indicating clear winners and losers. The third dimension of power is less about physical or verbal force or control and has more to do with ideology and socialization. In more detail, the first dimension of power is what comes to mind when we hear the term power.  With the first view of power there are objective interests and the group wanting power is usually in open conflict with another, or multiple other groups. The conflict results in clear winners and losers. The winners have control over the losers and have the power to force the losing group to do what they want. 

The second view of power is more nuanced, but again still has clear winners and losers, as in the first view of power. The second view of power focuses on how the decisions being made or the issues being talked about allow the group or person in power to maintain control over others. Power is maintained by constraining the decisions that can be made. The group or person in power also has control over non-decision making. A non-decision is a decision that results in the suppression of an issue that challenges the value of the decision-maker, thus giving the power to decide what’s talked about and what is not talked about to the people in power. Power is maintained through controlling what the agenda is. The third view of power is the most nuanced and least straightforward to understand. The first two views of power had to do with a conflict of interests, however the third view of power has more to do with the interests themselves. The third view of power shapes to influence the ideology of other groups for the dominating group to maintain power. This third view means that the group in power avoids the conflict of interests completely, and do not have to deal with suppressing decisions they disagree with because they have control over what the issues are in the first place. The modeling of ideologies and interests usually results from different forms of socialization over time. These three views of power are reflected in many parts of our society and are particularly evident in different levels of government. 

        Transgender Power? 

Although the actual turnover of the policy that prohibits transgender men or women from enlisting the military is not directly related to the views of power, how the decision came to be is. President Joe Biden’s cabinet is composed of twenty three different members. The group is made up of a diverse group of leaders from a variety of different backgrounds, genders, races and ethnicities.  However, there is no place in agenda setting for transgender individuals, so they’re not even apart of the decision making process. Although the policy that was overturned caused celebration for the transgender community, there still exist difficult power dynamics that influenced how the decision was made. There is no one at the table who has life experience as a transgender individual, thus limiting the issues that are brought to the table to those with only cisgender perspectives. Control over agenda setting is reflective of the second view of power. 

However, it seems that issues surrounding transgender rights seem to stem more from the third view of power. Our society has been socialized to believe in the gender binary, there only exist two types of genders: women and men. Additionally, socialization has taught us that whatever biological sex organs we have at birth determine how our gender should be performed. If you are a female at birth you act like a woman, if you are a male at birth you should act like a man. These socialized concepts mean that females acting like women and males acting like men is the norm and the expected behavior of individuals. Media, advertising, marketing, product design, it is all geared towards gender binary and cisgender individuals. Creating a norm isolates those who decide to make choices that differ from the norm. This results in policies being made in an ideological context that assumes a norm, and in the case of policies surrounding gender that ideology is a gender binary and cisgender category. The third view of power is at play as socialization took a strong role in shaping an ideology that leaves out individuals and certain life experiences. Although challenging power dynamics are always at play, the democratic system attempts to combat them so that all voices will be heard and listened to, emphasis on attempts.

 

Reviving the #MeToo Movement: Masculinity and Sexual Misconduct

As of March 30, 2021, more than 10,000 young people in Britain have contributed stories to a blog called “Everyone’s Invited” to share their experiences of inappropriate sexist comments and even instances of sexual assault. The host of the blog, Soma Sara, created the public forum in an effort to begin a conversation about the pervasive rape culture that she saw in her own social circles at a prestigious London boarding school. Scrolling through the myriad of stories and experiences of young adults that have been sexually assaulted or treated inappropriately due to their sex begs the question: Where did our societies go wrong?

In response to this question, Sara claimed that there is a type of behavior being normalized in our societies, “like groping at a Christmas party, or non-consensual sharing of intimate photos.” The normalization of this kind of behavior opens a gateway for more serious and even criminal acts such as sexual assault and rape. Indeed, those types of stories have made their way onto “Everyone’s Invited,” and London’s Metropolitan Police, deeply concerned by what they learned was happening, have encouraged victims to report the potential crimes.

A senior police officer in London’s Metropolitan Police Force put a name to the movement that is occurring in Britain. A #MeToo movement has begun sweeping through schools, reminiscent of the 2017 movement which gained great momentum after victims broke the silence of incidents where powerful politicians, celebrities, and corporate executives were accused of committing acts of sexual harassment, assault, and rape.

A day prior to the publication of the article about Sara’s public forum, a score of Springville High students in Springville, UT staged a walkout to bring attention to the allegations against a teacher. Several students have complained that the teacher has made inappropriate comments and has had inappropriate contact with students. The problem is rampant; “It’s everywhere,” claimed the senior officer investigating the allegations in London.

Sexual Misconduct and Gender

A common trend seen in allegations of sexual assault across colleges and universities is that sexual misconduct is most often committed by males against females. In the United States, 90 percent of sexual violence against women is perpetrated by men. A survey of 33 of the largest universities in the US estimated that 1 in 4 undergraduate women have experienced sexual assault while they were students. This is not to say that sexual harassment, assault, and abuse has not occurred in boy-on-boy, girl-on-girl, and girl-on-boy situations, but the gender inequality in reported incidents represents a severe societal malady. Why are females often the target of such misconduct?

There is damning evidence that a culture of misogyny is to blame for the gender inequality in incidents of sexual misconduct. With most perpetrators of sexual misconduct being men and most victims being women, one must examine the effects that masculinity has on the allegations of sexual misconduct. Indeed, cries of “toxic masculinity” in our culture have encouraged classrooms and workplaces all over the United Stated to reevaluate what it means to be masculine. While values of strength and dominance are not toxic in and of themselves, they can become toxic when applied to a context where a man feels that it is normal to exercise that kind of strength and dominance over a woman.

The idea of masculinity, or the ideals of being a man, have taught men to see themselves as part of a group with a specific kind of culture. While there are many men who do not ever engage in sexual misconduct towards a female or anyone else, there are many others who commit heinous acts like sexual assault and rape because it is an aspect of the typical male expectation to be controlling and, often, violent. There exists a stigma in our societies and cultures that acting with care and gentleness toward women is seen as weakness in a male. Social pressure for men to conform to the ideals of masculinity like strength and dominance has consequently led to the expression of violence and aggression toward females who are often construed as the secondary sex.

Correcting Sexual Misconduct

The first step to correcting the sexual conduct rampant in our societies is by speaking out. The 2017 #MeToo movement and the exploding “Everyone’s Invited” blog have created a space where victims of sexual misconduct can share experiences and offer support. The existence of these spaces and the increasing movements are serving to eliminate hermeneutical injustice, or the lack of interpretation that socially powerless groups are faced with. In this case, the hermeneutically marginalized are female victims of sexual assault, and through these platforms, they are finding ways to understand and explain their own experiences with sexual assault by being able to share that same experience with others. The value in women being able to share the concept of sexual assault with other women can help to empower, educate, and comfort others who have undergone these traumatic experiences. By defining sexual assault and realizing that it is a much more common incident among young people today, we can—as a society—identify sexual misconduct when it occurs and seek to stop it from happening. This will ultimately come by supporting victims and trying to change the culture of masculinity that has normalized sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior.

2021 Israeli Election

On March 24, 2021 Israel held its fourth election in the past two years. The Israeli political system is a proportional representation. This means that individuals are not voted for, but parties. A party must receive a certain percentage of votes to receive representation.

The house of representatives in Israel is called the Knesset. This body is made up of 120 seats. A party receives a certain number of seats based on the percent of the vote they receive.

Prime Minster Netanyahu’s party is a right-wing party called the Likud. They received the most votes of any other party. Naftali Bennet used to be a part of the Likud but split off and formed his own party, the Yamina Party, opposing Netanyahu.

Bennet’s party is one of a few new parties that met the threshold. Thirteen parties met the threshold: the most since 2003.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has been prime minister for the past fourteen years. The election appeared to be a referendum on Prime Minster Netanyahu. In the recent past, he has been accused of corruption and an investigation is ongoing. This made this election even more important to the people of Israel.

President Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition received 52 seats in the election. This means they fell short of the majority threshold of 61 seats in order to be the majority coalition. The opposition coalition received 57 seats, which also falls short of the majority threshold.

The election ended in a stalemate. This makes Prime Minister Netanyahu a caretaker prime minister. Essentially, he is a lame duck president unless he can form a coalition with some of the other parties in government.

There are two parties that are not committed to either coalition at this point in time. The Yamina party and the United Arab List. The Pro Netanyahu group has said that they will not work with the United Arab List.

The Yamina party split off from the Likud party but now has a big sway in if Netanyahu stays in power. Even if with their support, they would not reach the 61-seat threshold necessary to gain a majority.  

This election has specific ramifications for the Israeli government and the Israeli people. President Netanyahu has come under investigation for corruption charges. Had he been able to win a majority, he would have been able to stop the investigation.

Interestingly enough, the voter turnout was at 67.4%. This is a lower percent than most Israeli elections. This could be a sign that the people are getting tired of elections.

The opposition party wants badly to keep the investigation going. If the investigation found the corruption charges to be true, President Netanyahu would be forced to resign. This would bring major changes to the face of Israeli politics.

Both sides have been racing to make a majority coalition. Creating a majority coalition will be hard due to religious differences Religious Zionist party and the United Arab List. Specialists fear that the coalitions would be unstable and likely fall apart.

While President Netanyahu’s party did lose seven seats, the opposition did not gain enough seats to oust him. The next few days and weeks will be crucial in determining the future of Israeli politics.

Some have predicted that a fifth election might be necessary to determine a majority coalition. As for now, it appears that the people of Israel have not had enough of President Netanyahu.

Biden’s Cabinet: What Representation Reflects

    In the past, the members of an administration’s cabinet have often been nominated and confirmed to their position without general public’s awareness, and then proceeded to fulfill their duties without much amateur attention. Even Americans with political proclivities are most likely drawn to the more dramatic displays of partisan in-fighting and above-the-fold current events. Notwithstanding a lack of acute observation from their constiuency, the cabinet assignments result in many a movement within the inner machinations of American policy and procedure, and have potential to greatly effect the residual outcomes of a presidency. President Joe Biden’s final cabinet member was confirmed just last week, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh. With the collision of the unparalleled diversity of the cabinet and a global pandemic that has caused unceasing economic and personal suffering in the country, President Biden’s picks are under unique scrutiny. While all of his cabinet members are notable individuals of impressive experience and often intellectual prestige, several seem poised to make particular impact. It is this pairing of rare representation and critical need that not only distinguishes this cabinet from past administrations’ but demands a certain attention to how the members influence the country through descriptive, substantive, and symbolic representation.

    These three categories of representation are helpful in understanding the impact of a minority in a formal position of leadership. According to political scientist Mona Lena Krook of Rutgers University, descriptive representation is “the characteristics of individuals elected to political office,” substantive representation is “the articulation of policy concerns by specific office-holders” and symbolic representation is “the broader meanings and effects that the presence of different kinds of elected officials have for the public at large.” Biden’s cabinet is a would-be case study on these kinds of representation. 

   We see in nearly each of his appointees the power of these forms of representation. The new Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Marcia Fudge was the first female and Black representative of her Cleveland district now directing her attention to the challenges of urban development across the nation. Her experience in the House, as an attorney, and as a woman of color give her a set of learned skills that equip her in ways different than a counterpart of a different background would possess. As per the concept of descriptive representation, her presence as a black woman in the proceedings of the executive branch of the United States (home to many black women of urban communities) adds to the credibility of those processes. Similarly, Avril Haines is the first woman to be Director of National Intelligence. While deputy CIA director and deputy national security advisor, Haines has spent much of her career understanding and creating policy surrounding torture and drone strikes. With her expertise in the field and the identity of her gender, she represents not one but two demographics that are necessary for complete representation at this particular White House table. 

    Substantive representation is illustrated in the work we hope to see wrought by Miguel Cardona. Until becoming Secretary of Education, he was an education professional in the state of Connecticut, where he worked as an elementary teacher, principal, and assistant superintendent. He has earned his stripes as an educator and is consequently armed with the experience necessary to lead in the safe reopening of schools as the country seeks to regain normalcy. His decisions will be informed with practical knowledge and from first-hand accounts of success in the classroom. The Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra is Latino like Cardona, serving in the position after 25 years on the House Ways and Means Committee and as a member of one of the populations hardest hit by the pandemic. One of his primary roles will be to manage Covid-19 relief, and decisions that one hopes will be positively influenced by his awareness of fellow Latinx Americans, as he did when he helped pass the Affordable Care Act through Congress. 

    Symbolic representation has been the topic of much conversation surrounding newly-confirmed Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland. She is the first Native American to serve in the position, which oversees Bureau of Indian Affairs, natural resources, and national parks. While her policy positions push her farther to the political left as compared to the other members of the cabinet and the president himself, Secretary Haaland’s historical and meaningful position is an inflection of the Biden administration’s attempt to create a diversified national leadership and consequently embody the entirety of the population. Her presence in this specific role is a step towards righting the wrongs and straightening the crookedness of the room in which the country has dwelt for too long. Our Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas joins the ranks of symbolic leadership as a Cuban American. During Obama’s tenure he was influential in the implementation of DACA and served as a director of Customs and Immigration, after being nominated as a US attorney in California (a notably immigration-heavy state). His familiarity with immigration policy and procedure in addition to his personal experience combines to demonstrate a purer form of representation in yet another area of government that has been afflicted by the coronavirus. 

    Because Biden’s picks reflect the diversity of our country while maintaining the prowess and competency these positions demand, the current cabinet appointments are the best kind of display of political theory: representation of all kinds. With symbolic representation in Secretary Haaland’s efforts to protect her ancestors’ lands, substantive representation in an elementary educator’s efforts that will impact every grade school in the country, and descriptive representation from Secretaries Fudge, Haines, Haaland, and several other women, we are poised to have an improved simulacrum of these United States. While it remains to be seen if their work will meet the high expectations of both political opponents and allies, it is a powerful image to see such diversity fill the seats of this preeminent decision-making body. 

(image courtesy of https://www.politico.com/interactives/2021/joe-biden-cabinet-members-confirmations-list/)

Women in, and out of, a pandemic workforce

 

The economic turmoil caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the lives of countless Americans. Unfortunately, the economic consequences of the pandemic have not been felt equally across all demographic groups. According to the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ employment report, women accounted for 100% of the job loss that occurred in December of 2020. As of February 1, 2021, women had lost approximately 5.4 million jobs due to the pandemic, 1 million more lost jobs than men. Inequities caused by the pandemic continue among those fortunate enough to still be employed. According to a survey conducted by McKinsey & Company, women with children under the age of ten were ten percentage points more likely to consider dropping out of the workforce in comparison to men. Mothers, senior-level women, and black women were also more likely to express feeling exhausted, burned out, and pressured to work more at work throughout the course of the pandemic. Additionally, women reported having a harder time paying bills and mortgages than men while also reporting a larger income decrease than men. The economic recession caused by COVID-19 has only exacerbated the existing gender gap between men and women in the workforce, generating greater inequality at every level. 

Arguably the main reason women have experienced greater job loss than men during the pandemic is due to different career types between men and women. Of the jobs lost due to economic closures, the majority have been low-wage, part-time, service, sales, and self-employed occupations. 

An opinion piece from The Wall Street Journal finds that in 2007, men accounted for 55% of the workforce that clocked more than 35 hours a week, and researchers Judy Dey and Catherine Hill find that ten years after graduation, only 61% of women work full-time compared to 81% of men. These statistics illustrate that women are significantly more likely to be employed in part-time work, a type of work hit hardest by the pandemic. One reason women may be steered towards this type of work is because of their additional role in the “invisible workforce” or “care economy” within the home. In “When Mom and Dad Share It All”, Lisa Belkin writes that in the average household, women work an average of 31 hours per week on household responsibilities compared to men’s mere 14 hours per week. The two-to-one housework difference expands to a five-to-one childcare difference. The pressure to act as the primary homemaker has extended from the earliest years of American history to the present-day. Though women have made significant strides in terms of the division of labor, the pandemic has halted this progress. Nearly 60 millionchildren and teens have experienced some sort of school closure or partial closure in the last year. Thus, many households had no choice but to have a parent leave the workforce in order to care for the children now constantly at home. 

A recent KFF survey finds that 51% of women with young children who quit a job during the pandemic did so because their child’s daycare or school closed. Additionally, 70% of part-time working mothers reported taking unpaid sick leave because their child’s daycare or school closed. Twelve percent of women have also reported taking on new caregiving responsibilities due to the pandemic. These results may help to explain why many women are experiencing heightened stress and exhaustion from their work in both the visible and invisible economies. Societal pressures towards homemaking can encourage women to choose part-time over full-time work, thus leading them to experience some of the highest consequences in a pandemic economy. 

        A significant number of women have lost their main source of income due to the pandemic. Some researchers have found that this job loss, reduction of hours, and unpaid time off have widened the already existing raw gender pay gap. Prior to the pandemic, women made approximately 82 cents for every dollar made by a man. New research finds that women laid off during the pandemic made approximately 79 cents for every dollar made by a man and now have lost this source of income. Women who experienced a pay cut rather than a layoff experienced larger pay gaps, making just 80 cents for every dollar made by a man. Data from the Pew Research Center finds that women were five percentage points more likely than men to struggle to pay bills, two percentage points more likely to struggle to pay rent or their mortgage, and three percentage points more likely to struggle to pay for medical care during the pandemic. Women were also ten percentage points more likely to receive government assistance during the last year. The existing raw gender pay gap has harmed the finances of men and women unequally during the pandemic. The pandemic has widened the raw gender pay gap for some working women. Other women lack the resources to stay afloat during an economic recession due to the intersection of unequal and gendered pay and job selection as discussed above. 

Already treated unequally in the workforce, women, and especially mothers and part-time workers, have disproportionately felt and dealt with the effects of the recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. By understanding the invisible workforce and gender pay inequities, we can better understand why women have been hit the hardest. By gaining this understanding, we can hopefully move to address the gendered issues in the workforce in order to create a more fair and equitable society. 

Biden's Cabinet of Role Models

Women's representation in the political arena has long been subpar. Women are consistently in the minority in both elected and appointed positions. The lack of women in office has multiple causes, such as bad recruitment methods and gender bias against women campaigning, but the recent election of President Biden and Vice President Harris may succeed in addressing one cause, namely the lack of role models for young women.    

President Biden made many promises while campaigning in 2020, one of which was to have a very diverse cabinet, one that ‘looks like America’. Biden's nominations for his cabinet have so far proven to be both more diverse and have more overall experienced than either of his two predecessor's picks. President Biden has also made several historical firsts when it comes to his cabinet including the first openly gay secretary (Pete Buttigie), the first female secretary of the treasury (Janet Yellen), and the first ever Native American secretary (Deb Haaland). 

President Biden's cabinet breakdown compared to that of President Obama and President Trump according to NPR:

When recent events demonstrated the need for more protection and representation for Asian American women Senator Tammy Duckworth called out the lack of nominees of Asian American descent, and the Biden administration was quick to reassure the Senator. In the response the White House stated that President Biden would elevate Asian American voices, appoint an Asian American senior White House official "to represent the community," and secure confirmation for Asian American nominees. Demonstrating the administration's commitment to increasing the number of minorities in politics to act as role models, not just for women but for many traditionally underrepresented communities.  

The Role Model Effect

President Biden's cabinet choices are feeding into the role model effect in that the number of firsts he has created increased the level of attention that the media gives to the appointed female politicians. The more the media talks about women in politics the more likely young women are to have discussions at home about politics as a possible career path. It has been shown that when conversations in the home revolve around politics young women show an increased anticipation for political involvement.

Normally, to have a positive effect on young women's interest in politics female candidates have to prove their viability, women who have no chance of winning have less positive media coverage, and less news coverage overall. In the case of presidential appointments, the struggle to be a viable candidate is removed. The appointed women do not have to publicly face as many obstacles as women who run for office. Obstacles such as the double bind, where women are punished politically if they can not balance the aggression required to run with the need to appear traditionally feminine, that other women face while campaigning can discourage young women from becoming involved in politics. 

When women run for office, especially if it is a position not normally held by a woman there is likely to be an increase in news coverage, but to fully achieve the role model effect the success of the role model must seem attainable for others. The good thing about presidential appointments acting as role models is that the women in these appointed positions come from a diverse set of backgrounds that shows the next generation of female leaders that their interests can help them become successful in politics. Appointees like Avril Haines who has history in the intelligence community, Jennifer Granholm who has experience in the auto industry, and Deb Haaland who has history in earth-friendly business practices demonstrate that women can make it far in politics by combining their interests with public service without having to campaign or become lifelong politicians. 

It is impossible to tell what the effects of so many women in positions of power in the federal government will be. It is possible that some of these women will be replaced or will not perform well in their office. However, there has already been a lot of media coverage of the nomination and senate approval of President Biden's cabinet, and the high offices combined with the medias fascination with the breaking of glass ceilings means that there will be a lot of political conversations in the next few years that could convince many teenaged girls to pursue politics in the near future.