Cheryl Perry made partner at a prestigious law firm in Hartford, Connecticut, when she was only thirty-three years old. She is active professionally, holding positions with the city’s bar association and the Connecticut Trial Lawyers’ Association. In addition, Ms. Perry served on the coordinating committee for the Atlanta Olympics. Several of her peers in the legal community have repeatedly urged her to consider running for elective office. But when we interviewed her in the summer of 2003 and asked if she considered herself qualified to run, Ms. Perry replied, “Absolutely not. I’d never run.”Footnote ¹

Kevin Kendall also seems to fit the bill for entering the electoral arena. He lives outside of Seattle, Washington, and began practicing law in 1990. Since then, he has become a partner in his law firm. In addition to working as a full-time litigator, Mr. Kendall is active in several professional associations and nonprofit community organizations in and around Seattle. When we asked him – also in the summer of 2003 – whether he felt qualified to pursue an elective position, Mr. Kendall immediately responded, “I am a quick study. People tell me I should run all the time … I’ve thought about it a lot and, one day, probably will.”

Fast-forward twenty years and our conversations with women and men who seemed as if they’d be excellent candidates sounded eerily similar. Take Barbara Gilmour. She began following politics in high school, became a social studies teacher, stays on top of the news, and regularly attends political meetings about local issues, such as taxes and education. Although she “cares about the community” and considers herself “very bright,” she doubts that she’s qualified to run for office. In addition to noting that she doesn’t have “previous government experience,” Ms. Gilmour told us in the summer of 2023 that she doesn’t have the “thick skin” required for public life.

John Whitten is also a teacher. He can’t remember a time when he hasn’t thought about running for office. Growing up close to Washington, DC, he explained that he “ate, slept, and breathed politics.” He has dabbled in community organizing and political fundraising. Although he’s not sure when he’ll run, or for what office, Mr. Whitten has no doubt that he’s qualified for most local, state, and even national positions. “You bet I’m qualified,” he said when we interviewed him in the summer of 2023. “The foundation of a qualified candidate is honesty, truthfulness, and transparency. I have all those things.”

The sentiments of these four people exemplify the dramatic and enduring gender gap we have uncovered throughout the course of investigating potential candidates’ ambition to seek public office. These four women and men all possess excellent qualifications and credentials to run for office. They are well educated, have risen to the top of their professions, serve as active members in their communities, and express high levels of political interest. Despite these similarities, the two women express little willingness to move into the electoral arena. The two men confidently assert that they could occupy almost any elective position. Although the factors that lead an individual to consider running for office are complex and multifaceted, gender continues to exert one of the strongest influences on who ultimately launches a political candidacy.

As fundamental as political ambition is to understanding gender dynamics in electoral politics, when we began studying it in the early 2000s, very little empirical research focused on gender and the decision to run for office.Footnote ² After all, relatively few women had run for high-level elective office throughout US history, and scholarly inquiries emphasized that reality. It’s not surprising, therefore, that at the time we wrote the first edition of this book, none of the sixteen published academic books that concentrated predominantly on political ambition paid much attention to gender.Footnote ³ A search of scholarly journals in the disciplines of political science, sociology, and psychology revealed a similar pattern.Footnote ⁴

The first two editions of this book went a long way in exploring the role gender plays in the candidate emergence process. And during the last twenty years, numerous political scientists have assessed and contextualized the gender gap in ambition.Footnote ⁵ Some focus on gendered traits and behaviors contributing to women’s election aversion.Footnote ⁶ Others address structural and partisan dynamics.Footnote ⁷ Still others experiment with interventions to identify factors that might increase women’s interest in a candidacy.Footnote ⁸ A growing body of research also offers an intersectional perspective on the gender gap in political ambition.Footnote ⁹ It’s certainly no longer accurate to argue that political scientists have ignored the role gender plays in the candidate emergence process.

So why take up the question once again? Because a lot has changed since we published the first book. During the first two decades of the twenty-first century, the toxicity of the electoral environment skyrocketed, party polarization reached new heights, money pouring into national elections more than quadrupled, and social media facilitated the spread of misinformation, personal attacks, and an even greater loss of privacy for candidates. In fact, more than 40 percent of the people we surveyed for this book believe that even local elections are nasty affairs. Thirty percent think local elected officials regularly receive death threats. Asking whether someone is interested in running for office today likely conjures up different images, costs, and benefits than it did in the early 2000s.

Moreover, although US political institutions remain far from gender-balanced, women’s numeric representation has improved markedly in recent decades. Even amid the increasingly toxic and combative electoral environment, women’s presence in state legislatures has increased by almost 50 percent since 2001; in Congress, it has doubled. Several viable female presidential candidates have emerged. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016. Voters elected Kamala Harris the first female vice president in 2020. And in 2024, Nikki Haley was the last candidate standing to challenge Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, and Democrats quickly coalesced behind Kamala Harris as their nominee when Joe Biden decided not to seek reelection. The political climate – at least in terms of the numbers – seems far more inclusive of women than was the case a generation ago.

We may be tempted to assume, then, that the gender gap in political ambition has begun to close. This book demonstrates otherwise. Among thousands of potential candidates – women and men who work in the professions from which candidates are most likely to emerge – the gender gap in political ambition in 2021 was just as large as it was ten and twenty years earlier (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1 The unchanging gender gap in political ambition

Notes: Bars represent the percentages of potential candidates who reported that they had ever considered running for office, as well as the gender gap (in percentage points) at each point in time. The sample includes women and men who work in law, business, education, and politics. The gender gap is significant at p < 0.05 in all comparisons.

Relying on the newest wave of the Citizen Political Ambition Study – our national surveys and interviews with thousands of potential candidates – this book documents the deeply entrenched gender gap in political ambition. We examine the factors that lead women and men to make the move from politically engaged citizen to candidate for public office. We shed light on why accomplished, professional women like Cheryl Perry and Barbara Gilmour view themselves as unsuited for holding elective office, while men like Kevin Kendall and John Whitten voice no such hesitation. At its core, this book is about political ambition: why so many men have it, and why so many women don’t.

But the book does more than identify a large gender gap in political ambition. It also documents the intractable nature of the gap and assesses why it seems impervious to change. This static gap, after all, contravenes many scholars and analysts’ expectations that gender differences in political ambition would recede as more women ran for and served in public office. In fact, it’s the reason we added “more” to the book’s title. In 2005, when we published our first book on political ambition, the title – It Takes a Candidate – conveyed the idea that if more women ran for office, more women would win, women’s numeric representation would improve, and the United States would be on the path to gender parity in politics. (The same remained true in 2010, when we updated the book and published It Still Takes a Candidate.)

Twenty years later, that’s only part of the story. The number of women seeking and winning public office has increased markedly, but the gender gap in political ambition has not closed. It turns out that it’s possible to improve women’s numeric representation without making progress when it comes to creating a culture in which women are as likely as men to view themselves, and be viewed by others, as political leaders. It takes a candidate to achieve gender parity in elective office. It takes more than a candidate to transform society so that running for office isn’t a more elusive endeavor for women than men. Until then, women’s full political inclusion will remain nothing but a distant goal.

Traditional Gender Socialization in the Context of US Politics

The original edition of this book provided the first broad-based empirical documentation that women are less politically ambitious than men to seek elective office. Though today we know much more about gender and political ambition than we did then, our central argument endures: The gender gap in political ambition results from long-standing patterns of traditional socialization that persist in US culture. According to gender politics scholars Pamela Conover and Virginia Gray, we can think about traditional gender socialization as a “division of activities into the public extra-familial jobs done by the male and the private intra-familial ones performed by the female.”Footnote ¹⁰

These different roles and social expectations for women and men have permeated the landscape of human civilization throughout time. Historian Gerda Lerner persuasively links the origins of the gendered division of labor to tribal hunter-gatherer societies.Footnote ¹¹ She explains that the division was necessary because women had to produce enough children (many of whom died in infancy) to maintain the very existence of the tribe. Political theorist Jean Bethke Elshtain attributes the first enunciation of separate spheres for men and women to Aristotle, who delineated between the public world of the polis and the nonpublic world of the oikos.Footnote ¹²

Not surprisingly, the gendered division of labor has historically resulted in men’s entry into, and dominance of, the public world of politics, and women’s almost total exclusion from the political sphere. By harkening back to tribal societies and age-old philosophical concepts, we don’t mean to diminish dramatic social and cultural change, especially during the last fifty years in the US. But centuries – or even millennia – of socialized norms die hard. It wasn’t until 1975, for instance, that the US Supreme Court discarded state laws that excused women from jury service on the grounds that it would interfere with their domestic duties.Footnote ¹³

Throughout this book, we employ the term “traditional gender socialization” within the context of US politics as a theoretical framework that embodies the greater complexities of women’s lives, both in terms of how society perceives them, and how they perceive themselves, as potential candidates. More specifically, we articulate three ways that traditional gender socialization contributes to the gender gap in political ambition.

Traditional Family Role Orientations – Gender-specific family roles and responsibilities serve as perhaps the most obvious manifestation of traditional gender socialization. Up through the mid twentieth century, the notion of women serving in positions of high political power was anathema, in large part because of the expectation that women should prioritize housework and childcare. By the 1960s, though, the social construction of gendered public and private spheres began to crumble, and private sphere issues, such as childcare and domestic abuse, became part of public sphere policy debates. Moreover, women began to seize professional opportunities previously reserved for men.

Yet the promise of egalitarian household and parenting dynamics never fully materialized. A 1995 United Nations study of two career families in developed countries, for example, found that women continued to perform almost three times as much of the unpaid household labor as men.Footnote ¹⁴ Even in the current era, the primary institutions of social and cultural life in the United States continue to impress upon many women and men that traditional gender roles constitute a “normal,” “appropriate,” and desirable set of life circumstances. As recently as 2023, data confirmed that even when women are the primary breadwinners, they still spend more time on household tasks and childcare than their male partners.Footnote ¹⁵

Not only do women continue to bear more family responsibilities, but they also face a more complicated balancing of these responsibilities with their professional lives than men do. For some women, this means “opting out” of their careers to fulfill traditional gender roles.Footnote ¹⁶ Debates about whether women can and/or should attempt to balance their careers with their families, as well as the steps workplaces can take to facilitate women’s professional success amid these circumstances, will likely continue into the foreseeable future.Footnote ¹⁷ Indeed, many women who “opted out” have since come to express regret; reentering the workforce was harder than they expected.Footnote ¹⁸ But in the meantime, women’s dual roles carry important implications for their involvement in politics. The traditional division of household labor and family responsibilities means that, for many women, a political career would be a “third job.” Because men tend not to be equal partners on the home front, entering politics does not interfere as directly with their ability to fulfill their personal and professional obligations.

Masculinized Ethos – When individuals consider running for office and launching successful campaigns, they must rely on the support of numerous political institutions. Most of these institutions are dominated by men and ultimately embody a perpetually ingrained ethos of masculinity. Political theorist Cynthia Enloe explains:

Analyses of the United States’ central political institutions confirm Enloe’s claim. Scholars have identified, to varying degrees, a type of masculinized ethos within the various components of the government – from examples of sexism on Capitol Hill, to an Oval Office that has never seen a female occupant, to a Supreme Court shrouded in secrecy that until 2023 did not have a code of conduct. Only three women have served as chair or cochair of the two national party organizations in the last fifty years combined. And when we turn to television media, national survey data on news viewing habits reveal that just two women (Rachel Maddow and Laura Ingraham) make the top ten list of journalists and political pundits people pay most attention to in the United States.Footnote ²⁰

Even if the vast majority of men who occupy positions in these institutions no longer exhibit overt signs of gender bias, years of traditional conceptions about candidate quality, electability, and background persist.Footnote ²¹ Political scientist Monika McDermott observes that politics at all levels is imbued with masculinity, and that the values of “toughness” and “competitiveness” often create the perception that people with masculine personalities should occupy most high-level elected positions.Footnote ²² As a result, women and men often have different experiences and develop different impressions when thinking about various aspects of the political process. Whereas political institutions overtly and subtly facilitate and encourage men’s emergence into politics, they often suppress women’s willingness to launch political careers.

Gendered Psyche – The presence of traditional gender role expectations and the dominance of a masculinized ethos sustain the gendered psyche, a deeply embedded imprint that propels men into politics, but relegates women to the electoral arena’s periphery. Cynthia Enloe’s discussion of patriarchy suggests that part of the reason traditional systems endure is because they lead women to overlook their own marginalization from the public sphere and its institutions.Footnote ²³ The most dramatic political consequence of the gendered psyche, therefore, is that politics seems like a reasonable career possibility for many men but doesn’t even appear on the radar screen for many women.

The gendered psyche’s imprint can also be more subtle. When women operate outside of their traditional and “appropriate” realms, they tend to express less comfort than men. Contemporary studies that assess psychological development uncover gender differences in confidence, self-promotion, and the desire for achievement. Salary negotiations serve as a good example. Several studies find that when negotiating for a starting salary or a raise, women downplay their achievements and men prop up theirs. As a result, women often wind up with significantly lower salaries than equally credentialed men.Footnote ²⁴

Similar dynamics apply to politics. Whereas men are often taught to be confident, assertive, and self-promoting, cultural attitudes toward women as political leaders continue to leave an imprint suggesting to women – if even only indirectly – that it is inappropriate or undesirable to possess these characteristics. In some cases, women conclude that they do not possess, or will be penalized for exhibiting, the qualities the electoral arena demands of candidates.Footnote ²⁵ In others, they believe they must be better than men to succeed.Footnote ²⁶ Perhaps that’s why female members of Congress, at least on some dimensions, perform more effectively than their male colleagues.Footnote ²⁷

These sociocultural, institutional, and psychological manifestations of traditional gender socialization culminate in a substantial gender gap in political ambition. It is essential to recognize, however, that while traditional gender socialization makes it difficult for many women to envision themselves as candidates for public office, the broader dimensions of electoral politics in the United States perpetuate and reinforce women’s perceptions and reluctance. After all, women have made significant gains entering the formerly male-dominated professions of law, business, and medicine. Yet politics continues to lag far behind. Why does politics remain such a difficult arena for women to enter? Why do patterns of traditional gender socialization exert so powerful an impact on political ambition and candidate emergence? At least part of the answer lies in the structural barriers and electoral rules that define the US political system.

Electoral competition in the United States is unique because it is dominated by candidates, as opposed to political parties. A weak party system exerts little control over who is nominated to run for office and provides only a fraction of the financial and logistical support to candidates for most elective positions. Candidates, therefore, must be entrepreneurs. To compete for almost all top offices, candidates must raise money, build coalitions of support, create campaign organizations, and develop campaign strategies. In most cases, they must engage in these endeavors twice – in the primary and the general election. It’s up to candidates to develop relationships with political party organizations and other support and donor networks. This system of competition, because of patterns of traditional gender socialization, makes running for public office a much more remote possibility for women than men.

Why This Book Matters and How It’s Organized

Scholars who studied women and electoral politics in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s fought to convince the political science community to take the study of women and politics seriously.Footnote ²⁸ Nearly all the research that addressed gender and US politics, therefore, began with a justification for studying women and elections. Most readers today, fortunately, no longer need convincing that understanding gender dynamics in the electoral arena is a worthwhile endeavor. Still, we offer a brief reminder about why the relationship between gender and political ambition merits continued attention.

Perhaps most importantly, the gender gap in political ambition is a critical barometer for gauging gender equity in US politics. Full political inclusion in a democracy demands that women are not systematically less likely than men to envision themselves as elected leaders.Footnote ²⁹ Despite women’s entrance and ascension into formerly male fields, women continue to exist in a society that leads them to undervalue their credentials and qualifications, receive less encouragement to run for office, and have trouble seeing themselves as political candidates. The move toward gender parity in elective office is (slowly) underway, but much work remains if the goal is a society where women don’t have to worry about being taken seriously as candidates and are just as comfortable and interested as men in seeking the reins of political power.

Women’s openness to seeking political office also bears directly on issues of substantive and symbolic representation.Footnote ³⁰ To be sure, partisanship is a much more powerful force in shaping policy than whether a legislator is a woman or a man.Footnote ³¹ But gender does interact with the policymaking process. Studies have found, for example, that women in Congress deliver more federal spending to their districts and sponsor more legislation than their male colleagues.Footnote ³² They outperform men in providing constituency service to women in their districts.Footnote ³³ They prioritize earmark requests pertaining to “women’s” issues.Footnote ³⁴ They have greater success keeping their sponsored bills alive longer in the legislative process.Footnote ³⁵ And they are more likely than men to participate in the activities and traditions that contribute to the social fabric of Congress.Footnote ³⁶

Finally, women’s presence in politics can affect citizens’ political attitudes and engagement, in positive ways.Footnote ³⁷ Experimental evidence suggests, for example, that when women have an equal presence in political decision-making bodies, citizens’ trust in the institution increases.Footnote ³⁸ Observational data reveal that women who live in districts with female congressional candidates are more willing to discuss politics.Footnote ³⁹ As the percentage of female legislators increases, so do female citizens’ sense that government is responsive.Footnote ⁴⁰ Female voters are more likely to be familiar with the records of their senators when they are represented by women.Footnote ⁴¹ And some research suggests that high-profile and visible female politicians can spur women’s political engagement.Footnote ⁴²

With clear evidence that women in politics enhance the governing process and democratic legitimacy, the question remains: Why are women less likely than men to consider running for office? The pages that follow answer this question by reporting and analyzing the results of the latest wave of the Citizen Political Ambition Study, our nationwide survey of more than 5,000 potential candidates in 2021. Throughout the book, we also draw on data from earlier waves of the study, dating back to 2001. We augment the data analysis with more than 300 in-depth interviews with our respondents.

Before turning to the data analysis, we establish the theoretical and historical underpinnings of our investigation of the initial decision to run for office. Chapter 2 develops our theory of political ambition and our argument for why it is essential to focus on the earliest stages of the candidate emergence process. It also includes a description of our research design and sample.

Our empirical investigation begins in Chapter 3, where we document the enduring gender gap in political ambition. Despite similar levels of political engagement, women are dramatically less likely than men to consider running for office, and that hasn’t changed since 2001. We also uncover substantial gender gaps in the levels of office in which women and men express interest as well as whether they’ve ever taken any of the steps that typically precede a political campaign.

The next three chapters assess the impact traditional gender socialization exerts on political ambition. More specifically, Chapter 4 explores how family dynamics influence interest in running for office; Chapter 5 provides evidence that the masculinized ethos of the political recruitment process works against women’s political inclusion; and Chapter 6 delves into how the gendered psyche leads women to doubt that they have the skills and traits necessary to succeed in electoral politics. In each of these chapters, we demonstrate that most of these dynamics have remained steady since 2001.

Chapter 7, our final empirical chapter, focuses on the nearly 300 respondents who actually decided to throw their hats into the political arena and seek elective office. Our results indicate that the gender gap in political ambition is reduced by this stage of the candidate emergence process, but far fewer women than men reach this stage. Even here, though, women remain more likely than men to doubt their qualifications to run for office. When we turn to future interest in office-holding, we find that men feel a greater sense of freedom than women do to pursue a political candidacy. The gap in future interest, moreover, appears to be growing larger over time.

In Chapter 8, we focus on the finding that the gender gap in political ambition is virtually unchanged compared to twenty years earlier. The chapter attempts to reconcile the intractable nature of the gender gap in political ambition with women’s slow but steady increases in numeric representation. All told, we temper the optimism that often surrounds broad assessments of prospects for gender equity in US politics and underscore how deep-seated patterns of traditional gender socialization remain an impediment to women’s full political inclusion today.