Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:54:48.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Let’s Talk about Sex: Examining the Factors Influencing Congressional Response to #MeToo on Twitter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2019

Jennifer Hayes Clark  and
Heather K. Evans Open the ORCID record for Heather K. Evans [Opens in a new window]
Jennifer Hayes Clark*
Affiliation:
University of Houston
Heather K. Evans*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia’s College at Wise
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the factors that influence whether members of Congress tweet about the #MeToo movement. Whereas social-identity theory suggests that congresswomen would be more likely to tweet about #MeToo, congressional research argues that increased polarization has resulted in congresswomen bucking gender stereotypes and embracing more partisan behavior than might otherwise be expected (Pearson and Dancey 2011). We examine how gender, partisanship, and ideology shape the Twitter activity of members of Congress surrounding the #MeToo movement using an original dataset of their tweets since October 2017 when the #MeToo movement gained prominence on Twitter. Our findings show that gender and ideology are the strongest predictors of whether Congress members tweet about the #MeToo movement. Liberals—particularly liberal women—are leading the charge in bringing prominence to the #MeToo movement on Twitter.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , January 2020 , pp. 51 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexander, Deborah, and Andersen, Kristi. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 527–45.10.1177/106591299304600305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Nichole M., Yong, Laurel Harbridge, and Krupnikov, Yanna. 2017. “Who Is Punished? Conditions Affecting Voter Evaluations of Legislators Who Do Not Compromise.” Political Behavior 39 (2): 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., DeBoef, Suzanna, and Lin, Tse-Min. 2004. “The Dynamics of the Partisan Gender Gap.” American Political Science Review 98 (3): 515–28.10.1017/S0003055404001315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Jennifer Hayes, and Caro, Veronica. 2013. “Multimember Districts and the Substantive Representation of Women: An Analysis of Legislative Co-Sponsorship Networks.” Politics and Gender 9 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
DeSouza, Eros R., and Solberg, Joseph. 2004. “Women’s and Men’s Reactions to Man-to-Man Sexual Harassment: Does the Sexual Orientation of the Victim Matter?” Sex Roles 50 (9–10): 623–39.10.1023/B:SERS.0000027566.79507.96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ditonto, Tessa, and Andersen, David J.. 2018. “Two’s a Crowd: Women Candidates in Concurrent Elections.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 39 (2): 257–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Heather K. 2016. “Do Women Only Talk about Female Issues? Gender and Issue Discussion on Twitter.” Online Information Review 40 (5): 660–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Heather K., and Clark, Jennifer Hayes. 2016. “You Tweet Like a Girl!: Gender and Campaign Communication on Twitter.” American Politics Research 44 (2): 325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Heather K., Ovalle, Joycelyn, and Green, Stephen. 2016. “Rockin’ Robins: Do Congresswomen Rule the Roost of the Twittersphere?” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67 (2): 268–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridkin, Kim L., and Kenney, Patrick J.. 2009. “The Role of Gender Stereotypes in US Senate Campaigns.” Politics & Gender 5 (3): 301–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrity, Jessica C., Osborn, Tracy L., and Mendez, Jeanette M.. 2007. “Women and Representation: A Different View of the District?” Politics and Gender 3 (2): 179–200.Google Scholar
Harbridge, Laurel, Malhotra, Neil, and Harrison, Brian F.. 2014. “Public Preference for Bipartisanship in the Policy-Making Process.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 39 (3): 372–55.10.1111/lsq.12048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Michael A., and Terry, Deborah J.. 2001. Social-Identity Processes in Organizational Contexts. New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, and Terkildsen, Nayda. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Stephanie G. 2001. “Running as Women? A Comparison of Female and Male Pennsylvania Assembly Candidates’ Brochures.” Women and Politics 22 (2): 107–24.10.1300/J014v22n02_04CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn, and Dancey, Logan. 2011. “Elevating Women’s Voices in Congress: Speech Participation in the House of Representatives.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (4): 910–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Mahajan, Harpreet. 1986. “Gender Differences in Policy Preferences: A Summary of Trends from the 1960s to the 1980s.” Public Opinion Quarterly 50 (1): 42–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogan, Colleen J. 2002. “Speaking Out: An Analysis of Democratic and Republican Woman-Invoked Rhetoric in the 105th Congress.” Women & Politics 23: 129–46.Google Scholar
Swers, Michelle. 2002. The Difference Women Make. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Swers, Michelle. 2016. “Women & Legislative Leadership in the US Congress: Representing Women’s Interests in Partisan Times.” Daedalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences (Summer) 145 (3): 44–56.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1974. “Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour.” Social Science Information 13 (2): 65–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2002. “Enlarging Representation: Women Bringing Marginalized Perspectives to Floor Debate in the House of Representatives.” In Women Transforming Congress, ed. Rosenthal, Cindy Simon, 370–98. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Kyle P., Bauer, Lisa M., and Martinez, Tomas E.. 2012. “The Influence of Sex, Gender, and Dress Style on Attitudes Towards Sexual Harassment.” Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research 17 (3): 106–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witt, Linda, Paget, Karen M., and Matthews, Glenna. 1994. Running as a Woman. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar