[T]he percentage of Americans saying they would vote for a qualified woman for president had been going up and up -- from more than 80 percent in the 1980s to almost 95 percent by the late '90s. But, according to [Jennifer Lawless'] data, gathered a year after September 11, it plummeted to 65 percent. When Lawless investigated further, she found the reason: As people turned their attention to terrorism and war, they prioritized characteristics (self-confidence, assertiveness, aggressiveness) that they associated with men and devalued those (compassion, sensitivity, compromise) that they associated with women ...Fascinating. This doesn't account for women's poor performance in state-level races in '06, but it does suggest that it may not do female candidates much good to try to be too hawkish, as even overcompensating martial rhetoric may not be enough to overcome the bias against women during more belligerent times.The more aggressive a person's foreign policy views, Lawless noted, the more likely he or she was to support men. A subsequent study by Johns Hopkins University's Erika Falk and the University of Arizona's Kate Kenski reached the same conclusion, finding that people who backed the Iraq war were 30 points more likely to prefer a generic male presidential candidate, while those who opposed it were seven points more likely to favor a woman ...
Had Clinton been running for president against John McCain in 2002 or 2004, in other words, she would have faced a serious gender disadvantage. But what Lawless couldn't foresee was how radically the nation's mood would shift. Today, national security remains a dominant issue, but only because President Bush won't heed the public's desire to get out of Iraq. In growing numbers, Americans have not only turned against the war, they have turned against hawkishness in general ...
Not coincidentally, the percentage of Americans who say they will vote for a female presidential candidate has returned to roughly 90 percent. And the approval ratings for John McCain -- the contender most associated with an aggressive, ultra-tough foreign policy -- have crashed. A February 2006 poll found that, when asked whether a man or a woman would do a better job as commander-in-chief, respondents were evenly split. And, when asked who would do a better job on foreign policy, the hypothetical female candidate led by eight points.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
