Studies of press coverage afforded women running for public office indicate that historically, women tend to garner less coverage overall and that the coverage they do receive tends to focus disproportionately on their appearance, personality, and family status at the expense of their qualifications and issue positions. This study examines newspaper coverage of U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. Notably, Clinton did not allege that she was receiving too little coverage or coverage that focused disproportionately on her clothing or appearance. Rather, she charged that she was being treated negatively relative to her chief rival, U.S. Senator Barack Obama. More than 6,000 articles from 25 leading newspapers from across the country were content-coded from Labor Day through Super Tuesday in order to assess Clinton's coverage on two dimensions: traditional and tonal. On a range of traditional indicators of bias, such as coverage amount and mentions of candidate appearance, Clinton's coverage clearly broke established patterns typically afforded women presidential candidates. However, the tone of Clinton's coverage was decidedly negative relative to her male competitors. Normative implications of this mixed bag of fairness and bias are discussed.

With critical mass theory increasingly rejected as an explanatory theory of women's substantive representation, new conceptual approaches and methods are being suggested that look toward the role of multiple actors and multiple sites of representation, and which point to the importance of critical actors. Within them, there is particular concern with what constitutes the substantive representation of women (SRW). At the same time, the constitutive representation of gender (CRG) has been advanced as a complementary facet of representation. This article offers the first case study of both the SRW and the CRG in the parliamentary setting. It does so through an over-time analysis of the British Conservative Party. By examining general election manifestos (1992–2005), it considers how the Conservative Party constitutes women's concerns, the relations between the sexes, and the pledges the party makes “for women”. The research, furthermore, suggests that in studying the SRW and the CRG, scholars should both look at changes in the representative claims and pledges that are made by individual political actors, such as political parties, and explore the relationship between the two facets of representation.

Our analysis investigates the ideological differences in the voting records of male and female members of the U.S. House of Representatives using a relatively novel natural-experiment research design to account for variations in district-level factors. We ask whether it makes a difference when a woman succeeds a man or a man succeeds a woman in a given congressional district. To answer this question, we created a database consisting of predecessor-successor pairs in all elections to the House between 1937 and 2008. In the case of intraparty change, we find that there is no significant difference in the voting scores of female and male members of the House; the roll call scores of female Democrats who replace male Democrats are virtually identical, as are the scores of male Democrats who replace female Democrats. The same results hold for Republicans. We also demonstrate that when interparty change occurs in a district, there is no evidence that the resulting ideological change is greater when the successor or predecessor is a woman. In other words, the voting records of consecutive members of Congress that come from a particular district are virtually the same regardless of their gender.

When policymakers invoke liberal democratic tropes while endorsing welfare reform, and, in particular, “paternafare”—the mandatory child support and paternity identification requirement—are they contradicting themselves? Can paternafare be defended in liberal democratic terms? In this article, I propose to set aside, for the sake of argument, my own radical egalitarian commitments and to speak directly to the liberal feminist in her own terms. Because the capabilities approach of Martha Nussbaum is one of the less demanding liberal democratic theories of justice, insofar as it permits a relatively large degree of inequality, it provides a particularly helpful framework for this feminist dialogue. I construct a hypothetical world in which the needy single mother has an entitlement to a basic income under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, and I draw up my own version of an undue burden test on the basis of Nussbaum's theory. I explore whether the paternafare rule within this hypothetical world would pass the capabilities-oriented undue burden test. Finally, I argue that Nussbaum's nonfungibility principle can yield surprisingly robust redistributive results within specific historical conditions.

Households are an enduring feature of human history. They are the building blocks of social formations in every era and at all scales: from small communities to the global economy. Like families, they “order” social relations in particular ways. But households differ from families by allowing for nonkinship members and by not presuming shared group residence. The emphasis lies, rather, in the pooling of diverse (material and nonmaterial) resources with the purpose of ensuring the continuity of the collective unit. Michael Douglass (2006, 423) deploys the term householding to underscore how “creating and sustaining a household is a continuous process of social reproduction that covers all life-cycle stages and extends beyond the family.” Global householding references the many ways in which these processes increasingly occur across national boundaries, for example, through transborder marriages, overseas education, labor migration, and war displacements. The psychological, sociocultural, economic, and political implications of these processes are extraordinarily complex and arguably involve as much as one-quarter of the world's population.

That issues related to migration and global householding are finally being taken seriously by mainstream development institutions is clear from the focus of the United Nation's 2009 Human Development Report. Subtitled Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development, it is the first major intergovernmental organization publication to view transnational mobility as integral to human development. The report makes a strong case for recognizing that the impact of migration in relation to development aims is significant for both sending and receiving countries. As the report states repeatedly, the old nation-centered growth and antipoverty frameworks and policies no longer fit when migrants work in one country yet send remittances that reduce poverty and promote human development in another country. Similarly, global householding—the reconfiguration of household and family arrangements as people move across national boundaries—necessitates new frameworks for understanding human livelihood strategies at the micro level. In addition to making the case for taking transnational mobility seriously in development policy, the report offers a set of recommendations that are centered on migration management, regularization, and liberalization policies, such as bilateral temporary workers' agreements that allow nations to enhance growth and competitiveness while simultaneously securing their borders.

Global householding encompasses a variety of (re)configurations of family and household arrangements due to people on the move across national boundaries (Douglass 2006). My essay focuses on global householding associated with educational migration, and in particular, the flow of students and scholars from Asia to the United States.

In emails from the besieged town of Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip during Israel's December 2008/January 2009 war on Gaza, Majeda Al Saqqa (2009a), a long-time community and women's activist, describes to friends the shrinkage of her life into the domestic space. She explains the endless strategizing to protect children physically and psychologically and her fears not only for family but for friends all over Gaza, sometimes reachable by mobile phone, sometimes, most terribly, not. In her war diary, there is no mention of Palestinian leaders or governments, neither the Hamas-led de facto government in Gaza nor the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. She offers only bitter asides about the international community. Apart from family, neighbors, and friends, the only agents that offer a modicum of sanity and security are local: the Palestinian health workers risking their lives for the wounded and local radio broadcasters who stay on the air with news, warnings, and encouragement.