Who supports gender quotas in Ireland?

Keenan, Lisa; McElroy, Gail

doi:10.1080/07907184.2016.1255200

Cited by 27 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, the scholarship shows that ideology and prejudice towards the targeted group are the primary factors driving opinions about affirmative action (Federico & Sidanius, ; Jackman & Muha, ; Kinder & Sanders, ; Sniderman, Brody, & Kuklinski, ). Regarding electoral gender quotas, a type of affirmative action that seeks to address the underrepresentation of women in political office (Dahlerup & Freidenvall, , p. 27), recent public opinion studies find similar patterns (Barnes & Córdova, ; Beauregard, ; Keenan & McElroy, ; Smith, Warming, & Hennings, ).…”

Section: Public Opinion and Gender Quotasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, they show that those views tend to be more strongly correlated in countries with higher levels of governance quality. Outside of Latin America, Keenan and McElroy () survey candidates, professionals, and the public in Ireland to show that gender attitudes are associated with support for gender quotas. Beauregard () also finds that partisanship, ideology, and gender attitudes are related to support for gender quotas in Australia.…”

Section: Public Opinion and Gender Quotasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Gender Attitudes and Public Opinion Towards Electoral Gender Quotas in Brazil

Pereira

Porto

2020

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on public opinion towards affirmative action shows that citizens often support the principle of equality while simultaneously rejecting policies that promote it in a pattern described as the “principle‐policy puzzle.” The scholarship also shows that ideology and prejudice towards the targeted group explain the puzzle with respect to racial affirmative action. In this article, we use unique survey questions included in the 2014 round of the AmericasBarometer in Brazil to show that citizens tend to support electoral gender quotas while rejecting gender‐based egalitarianism in a reversed version of the “principle‐policy puzzle.” We argue that a different type of gender attitudes, namely benevolent sexism, shapes support for gender quotas as well as for the principle of equality. While benevolent sexists tend to reject gender equality based on views about gender complementarity and stereotypes about women's purity, they also support quotas as policies to foster such values. Our findings suggest that even though the political and scholarly debates can provide sound normative reasons for the adoption of quotas across different contexts, public support for them often relies on paternalistic views and expectations about the role of women in politics.

show abstract

Section: Public Opinion and Gender Quotasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Public Opinion and Gender Quotasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Attitudes and Public Opinion Towards Electoral Gender Quotas in Brazil

Pereira

Porto

2020

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Yet, the main literature on citizen support for gender quotas, and more broadly women in politics, do not explore whether citizens might support gender quotas for patronizing, or potentially sexist, reasons (but see Pereira & Porto, 2020). Previous investigations emphasize attitudes toward gender equality (Beauregard, 2018; Gidengil, 1996; Keenan & McElroy, 2017), support for government involvement (Barnes & Córdova, 2016), partisanship and ideology (Dubrow, 2011), elite cues (Morgan & Buice, 2013), or a desire for descriptive and substantive representation (Allen & Cutts, 2016; Bolzendahl & Coffé, 2020) as explanations for quota support. We further explore a crucial set of explanations for understanding gender‐quotas support that nuances the previous understanding that greater commitment toward gender equality should be linked with greater support.…”

Section: Ambivalent Sexism and Affirmative Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The research on support for gender quotas in politics is a small but growing field, mirroring their adoption in democracies around the world. Research has mostly focused on explaining support for legislative quotas (Barnes & Córdova, 2016; Beauregard, 2018; Dubrow, 2011; Gidengil, 1996; Keenan & McElroy, 2017; Pereira & Porto, 2020)—that is, policies promoting constitutional or legislative change to mandate and require political parties to designate a certain percentage of women candidates for election (Krook et al, 2009). Respondents appear more likely to support these policies if they themselves are a potential beneficiary (Bolzendahl & Coffé, 2020), if they have a preexisting commitment to equality (Gidengil, 1996), if they believe that government should be involved to decrease inequalities (Barnes & Córdova, 2016), if they agree that the presence of women provide symbolic benefits (Bolzendahl & Coffé, 2020), or if they want women to have greater substantive representation (Allen & Cutts, 2016).…”

Section: Ambivalent Sexism and Affirmative Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antiwomen But Proquota: Disaggregating Sexism and Support for Gender Quota Policies

Beauregard

Sheppard

2020

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research on support for gender quotas focuses on attitudes toward gender equality and government intervention as explanations. We argue the role of attitudes toward women in understanding support for policies aiming to increase the presence of women in politics is ambivalent—both hostile and benevolent forms of sexism contribute in understanding support, albeit in different ways. Using original data from a survey conducted on a probability‐based sample of Australian respondents, our findings demonstrate that hostile sexists are more likely to oppose increasing of women's presence in politics through the adoption of gender quotas. Benevolent sexists, on the other hand, are more likely to support these policies than respondents exhibiting low levels of benevolent sexism. We argue this is because benevolent sexism holds that women are pure and need protection; they do not have what it takes to succeed in politics without the assistance of quotas. Finally, we show that while women are more likely to support quotas, ambivalent sexism has the same relationship with support among both women and men. These findings suggest that aggregate levels of public support for gender quotas do not necessarily represent greater acceptance of gender equality generally.

show abstract

“…Much of the research in this vein has focused on support for increasing women's representation through various types of quotas. Despite the growing use of gender quotas around the world and evidence of their effectiveness for increasing women's representation (Krook 2006; Paxton, Hughes, and Painter 2010; Xydias 2007), public support for gender quotas is quite mixed across nations (Barnes and Córdova 2016; Gidengil 1996; Keenan and McElroy 2017; Vowles, Coffé, and Curtain 2017; Zetterberg 2009). A lack of enthusiasm for formal measures, may, however, not mean an overall lack of support for increasing diversity.…”

Section: Crafting Support For Greater Formal and Informal Equality Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public Support for Increasing Women and Minority MPs

Bolzendahl

Coffé

2019

Pol & Gen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most democracies fail to provide equal representation and tend to have an overrepresentation of men from the upper class and the majority racial or ethnic group. We investigate public support for increasing the number of women and indigenous Māori members of parliament (MPs) in the New Zealand Parliament, both in general and through specific mechanisms such as quotas and reserved seats. We offer three explanations: descriptive (group identity), substantive (issue alignment), and symbolic (socioeconomic and political equity concerns). Using data from the 2014 New Zealand Election Study, we found that shared identity (descriptive) matters for all measures of increased representation, but especially for Māori respondent support of increased Māori MPs. Support for increasing the proportion of Māori MPs is also strongly driven by substantive concerns, as measured by support for keeping the Treaty of Waitangi in law. Support for increasing the number of women MPs is driven most strongly by symbolic concerns (measured as increased government social spending and efforts to reduce income differences). Overall, respondents favor retaining the current number of reserved seats for Māori MP representation, whereas informal efforts (rather than quotas) are strongly preferred for increasing the number of women MPs.

show abstract

Who supports gender quotas in Ireland?

Cited by 27 publications

References 39 publications

Gender Attitudes and Public Opinion Towards Electoral Gender Quotas in Brazil

Gender Attitudes and Public Opinion Towards Electoral Gender Quotas in Brazil

Antiwomen But Proquota: Disaggregating Sexism and Support for Gender Quota Policies

Public Support for Increasing Women and Minority MPs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About