Running Head: FINAL PAPER 1

Social Conflict in the United States and the Role of Women

Meg Rasmussen

Utah State University

FINAL PAPER 2

An unprecedented number of women ran for office during the 2018 midterm elections,

which in turn created the most diverse Congress yet to be seen in the history of the United States

(Jordan, 2018). Though the United States is still steps behind other countries who have achieved

more equal gender representation in their government, many believe the midterms have created a

momentum that will continue to advance the representation of women in the U.S.

This turnout of female candidates is the result of years of history based upon the United

States’ hegemonic transition and the social conflict that as arisen as a result. From here came the

current political atmosphere in which the U.S. resides. More women in office, specifically in

Congress, creates the potential for the United States to change the rhetoric it uses surrounding

issues such as government spending, health care, and the value of constituents’ voice. This

relates to the three silences of feminist geopolitics which raises the question of whether or not

these female candidates are more likely than their male peers to acknowledge these silences.

Using the political speeches of opposing candidates can give insight into this question regarding

the rhetoric which female candidates use.

It was following World War II that the United States began on the path to giving women

the voice that they have today. When women don’t see other women involved, they themselves

are not as engaged, but World War II changed this (Atkeson, 2003, 1039). At this time, there

began a transition of women from the private sphere to the public sphere as many were

encouraged to enter the workforce while their husbands were in war. It was at this same time

that women began getting more involved in politics. They started, “…surpassing men in voter

turnout and equaling men’s level of activity in attending political rallies, wearing buttons,

working in campaigns, and canvassing and attending protests.” (Atkeson, 2003, 1040). Using

Giovanni Arrighi and Beverly Silver’s (1999) concept of hegemonic transition and social
FINAL PAPER 3

conflict, this can be seen as the “emergence of new social strata/classes/group.” The old way of

life was being questioned as women began to more actively participate in the making of

decisions in the U.S. This began a snowball effect that built up to be the feminist movement.

It was with the feminist movement of the 1960’s, sometimes referred to as second-wave

feminism, that connects to an, “intensification of social conflict” that had women vocalizing their

opinions more freely than ever (Arrighi & Silver, 1999). The feminist movement became

important to the political sphere as feminists, “…redirected attention from elite agents to the

structures and processes that create marginality and the ways in which they are necessary to the

operations of the political system.” (Staeheli & Kofman, 2004, 5). This redirection of attention

occurred in tandem with the Civil Rights movement. During this time period people were

beginning to look at those marginalized groups such as women and people of color. The lack of

these individuals in leadership positions was apparent and continued to plague the United States

for years thought people were suddenly more aware of it and vying for change.

Social conflict such as the feminist movement creates a foundation for that eventual

social change. Conflict brings peoples’ awareness to the various issues around them, it also is a

good carrier of information that was previously ignored or kept hidden. In the case of the

feminist movement, this information was that the people who ran the country were not

representative of its population. It also provided a voice for women who previously felt they had

no power to influence.

These voices added a new dimension to the issues being discussed and resulted in a,

“…broader range of theoretical perspectives…” These new perspectives rested on the idea that

the voice of the people holds power and that “…these theories pointed to new sites or arenas of

politics that moved outside the state and formal institutions, thereby changing the ways in which
FINAL PAPER 4

politics could be conceptualized and spatialized.” (Staeheli & Kofman, 2004, 3). There is no

one central mode of thought regarding politics, though this is how it seemed previously as those

governing were of a very homogenous group, mainly white men. This lack of diversity

displayed itself in the way that politics was conceptualized.

One of such changes in conceptualization was the various scales at which issues could be

considered. Movements such as feminism displayed that politics is not just about the actions of

the state but is instead about the actions of those individuals within the state. Once it was

acknowledged that this marginality was being created and exacerbated by the political systems in

place, there began a “disintegration of [the] old hegemonic social bloc.” (Arrighi & Silver,

1999). This was a process that took decades, beginning with the feminist movement and leading

to the present day. It took dozens of trailblazing women to make important firsts like “first

woman elected to Congress” to result in over 20% of Congress being made up of women today

(Clayton & Zetterberg, 2018). The term “disintegration” suggests the slow dying away of old

ideals and values. This relates to the dying away of traditional gender roles which previously

kept women defined to the home and in the positions there that were assigned to them by society.

This disintegration can be seen in a number of ways, many of which led up to the influx

of women running for office during the 2018 midterms. Part of this comes back to women

finding their voice, a process which began back with the “emergence of new social

strata/classes/and groups” in World War II. In the last five years alone, women have been more

vocal than every about accountability and representation.

Following the election of President Donald Trump, it was women who held a march,

showing what Melissa Deckman (2018) of The Washington Post calls a, “…steady and active

opposition of American women to his presidency.” This came on the coattails of a campaign
FINAL PAPER 5

riddled with negative rhetoric regarding women. Again, as in the days of the feminist

movement, women found a voice that was once denied to them.

On a separate stage, but with similar sentiments, there began the #MeToo movement.

This movement spread across the world as women began speaking up regarding their

experiences of sexual assault. While these women might have previously remained silent, the

movement offered a voice to all and the grounds to share and support one another. The scale of

the #MeToo movement and the sharing of such stories extended into politics in September when

Judge Brent Kavanaugh underwent a hearing during which Doctor Christine Blasey-Ford

detailed her sexual assault allegations against him. It created a snowball effect similar to that of

the feminist movement in which women found a voice in a way that was unprecedented. A

central theme of this voice was holding powerful men accountable for their words and actions.

From here, and from the actions and development of women as their own social group

since World War II, came a call for greater representation in the nation’s political sphere. As

campaigns began for the 2018 midterm elections, it became clear than women wanted a voice

more than ever. Deckman (2018) explained that as “…a result of activism in response to the

Trump administration, the #MeToo movement, and efforts to recruit more women to run,

observers have pointed to the possibility of a “pink wave” that may bring big changes to

American politics.”

This theory of a “pink wave” was supported by figures showing that women were

contributing more money than ever (mainly to Democratic women) and that they were “more

enthusiastic” about voting than ever (Bump, 2018). In addition to this, Deckman (2018)

theorized that, “…there’s never been a better time for women to run for office,” as public

opinion regarding women in leadership positions is at an all-time high. These things rang true as
FINAL PAPER 6

women did end up succeeding in increasing their representation in Congress, the Senate, and

through more local races.

More women in Congress and other offices means that there could likely be further

change in the United States’ political atmosphere as a result. This idea was explored by Lonna

Raw Atkeson (2003) in her article, “Not all cues are created equal: the conditional impact of

female candidates on political engagement.” Atkeson (2003) discussed “viable cueing theory”

which involves how female candidates increase female political participation, especially when

the contests are competitive. This in turn results in different messages and topics to dominate

political campaigns than if there was less female political participation (p. 1045). Greater female

participation would result in more females being elected, which was seen during the 2018

midterms.

From here, women who are elected have a different impact than men within the position

that they hold. One aspect of this is an impact on government spending. Though this has yet to

be greatly explored within the United States, the idea has been tested on other countries which

have implemented quota systems with the goal of increasing female representation. In some

countries, once these quotas were implemented women’s representation doubled (Clayton &

Zetterberg, 2018). Using these countries, Amanda Clayton and Par Zetterberg (2018) compared

government spending previous to the quotas and after with the purpose of noticing any changes

which could have come as a result of more women in office. What they found is that in these

countries spending on public health increased while spending on the military decreased (Clayton

& Zetterberg 2018). This supports the idea that the voice of women differs from that in men in

what they see as a priority. Women speaking up regarding health care is not uncommon and was

a central theme during the 2018 midterms (Jordan, 2018).

FINAL PAPER 7

In addition to changes in government spending, it’s been suggested that women better

represent the people in their district when compared with their male peers (Hayes, 2018). This

comes from the idea of “gendered vulnerability” which has been discussed in great detail by

Jeffrey Lazarus and Amy Steigerwalt in their book, “Gendered vulnerability: How women work

harder to stay in office.” They discussed this book with writer Danny Hayes (2018) who

published the interview under the title, “Do women in Congress work harder than their male

colleagues.”

Lazarus and Steigerwalt’s central claim is that women see themselves to be vulnerable

when it comes to positions of power because of their gender and certain expectations which are

placed upon them. This also connects to the idea that women face a more difficult electoral

environment in which they encounter gender stereotypes and biased media coverage. This,

alongside socialization processes which cause women to work harder in an attempt to prove

themselves, means that women who are elected generally focus on their constituents more. This

focus translates to more openly communicating with voters, staffing their district offices better,

and being more likely to vote in line with constituents’ interests. These “more” statements are

all in comparison with male elected officials (Hayes, 2018).

Alongside greater focus on constituents, more women in office would mean a shift in

focus when it comes to policy. This can first be seen by looking at the issues for which they

campaign. Traditionally, women are likely to campaign on things like, “...education,

environment, health care, children’s and senior issues, social welfare, and women’s rights…”

(Atkeson, 2003, 1043). The majority of these issues are of particular importance to women as

they can trace back to women and family’s well-being. With these issues being at the forefront
FINAL PAPER 8

of many women’s campaigns, it can be predicted that more women elected into office would

mean that these issues would be more likely to be addressed through policy change.

With this in mind, it could also be considered whether or not women are more likely to

reference these topics than men who are campaigning. One system of analysis is the three

silences of feminist geopolitics which considers the different ways in which certain subjects and

people are silenced. This non-discussion, or silencing, results in a lack of perspective that female

candidates might be able to provide.

The first of the three silences is in regard to “persistent differences.” This refers to the

way that people put each other in boxes. Gender, race, and sexuality are some of such boxes.

Categorizing people this way takes away from individual differences. It goes back to the idea of

scale. Looking at people as a whole rather than as individual beings can be beneficial in some

cases, but can also fail to, “…emphasize the persistence of difference in power and wealth”

between individuals (Flint & Taylor, 2017, 24). Not everyone has the same wealth or

opportunity. This is something that’s vitally important to the way the United States functions

and counting it out in discussions regarding the current political atmosphere leaves a massive gap

in the understanding of why people act the way they do.

In the case of female candidates, considering persistence differences and how they might

have been used to categorize women as a whole, it can be seen why the influx of women running

for office in 2018 might not have happened sooner. When women have always been categorized

in one way, leaving little room for individuality, there was a lack of female leadership. Atkeson

(2003) said that, “…viable women candidates lead women to feel more connected to and a part

of the political system in a way that they do not when they around and see only men.” (p. 1043).
FINAL PAPER 9

In the past, putting women in a box kept people from being as willing to change the disparities in

opportunity that could be seen between them and men.

The second of the three silences is when people have too much of an “elite focus” (Flint

& Taylor, 2018, 24). This connects back to scale and how people fail to focus on the smaller

scale of everyday life. The “everyday” is more important than people tend to talk about as it is

more likely to include the experiences of marginalized people (Flint & Taylor, 2018, 24). This

scale of everyday is crucial when talking about women as they have historically been confined to

the private sphere. While the state is a vitally important actor, the state is also usually just a

collection of white men. This creates a very one-sided portrait of history which leaves out the

equally important stories of countless others.

This connects to the third of the silences which is how gendered geopolitics is. This

means looking at who is in charge and acknowledging that there are disparities in who holds

power and is represented. Mary Gilmartin and Eleonore Kofman (2004) of “Critically Feminist

Geopolitics” said that, “Strategic thinking, it appears, remains the preserve of the (male) political

elite, and there is little room for women in that process.” (p. 122). Here we see a real lack of

representation when it comes to the voice of women and other marginalized people. It again

connects to scale and a need to shift whose voice is considered important.

Shifts towards acknowledging these three silences have been occurring alongside the

United States’ hegemonic transition and social conflict before manifesting itself in the rhetoric of

the 2018 midterms. More women campaigning means more opportunities to consider the ways

in which these women might be using their voice to shift the scales at which people think.
FINAL PAPER 10

The easiest way to consider how women reference the three silences is to compare their

political speeches to those of their male competitors. Campaign speeches are incredibly

important as they show what candidates most want their constituents to know about them. It puts

very specific issues at the forefront of peoples’ minds as being those which, if elected, the

individual will work to resolve. In this way, competitors often end up speaking about the same

issues as each other in order to show how they are different from their peers in ways that might

appeal to voters. Two people may speak about health care but would say very different things.

While these things can fall along party lines, there is also a connection to gender.

Different issues affect men and women differently, leading them to have opposing, or at least

varying, viewpoints. This goes back to what Atkeson (2003) has said about how, “…women

candidates are more likely to campaign on traditional women and family related issues.” (p.

1043). This means that though two candidates may discuss the same issues, the female candidate

might use different rhetoric or focus on different actors or specific aspects of issues in

comparison to a male competitor.

A specific case study of this can be seen through analyzing the speeches of Mitt Romney

and Jenny Wilson who were both running to replace Senator Orrin Hatch as one of Utah’s

senators. During their campaigns, both gave a number of speeches and took part in political

debates against each other. One of such speeches was given by both to the station “KUED 7”

through their “Free speech messages” series which offered, “ballot-qualified candidates in select

races the opportunity to speak to Utah voters.” (KUED 7). The speeches made by both Romney

and Wilson were under three minutes and thus showcased the issues which they most wanted

Utah voters to hear their stance on.

FINAL PAPER 11

Unsurprisingly, Romney and Wilson both spoke about similar issues, but used rhetoric

that was noticeably different from one another. The first issue that they both spoke on was debt,

specifically the federal debt. Both expressed an interest in handling this debt and preventing its

future growth. Romney mentioned a need to stop deficit spending and described this debt as,

“…a threat to our economy, to our future, and to our children.” (Romney, 2018).

Wilson, on the other hand, took a more specific approach regarding the debt by referring

to how Congress spends tax dollars by saying, “Utah families deserves a Congress that spends

our tax dollars wisely and guarantees that tax reform is focused on working families, not

corporations and the wealthiest among us.” (Wilson, 2018).

In both cases, families were mentioned in some way. Romney referenced “our children”

while Wilson referred to “working families.” The difference between the two lies in Wilson’s

acknowledgement in wealth disparities. This references the first of the three silences which calls

to notice disparities in wealth and opportunity. While Romney, mentions the family, he does so

more to appeal to Utah’s traditional values than to comment on the impact of government

spending on family units.

In addition to discussing debt, Wilson and Romney both referenced healthcare. This is

one of those issues which women have traditionally focused on greatly and was of significant

importance during the 2018 midterms specifically (Jordan, 2018).

When speaking about this issue, Romney was succinct and simple in his words by saying,

“I want to make healthcare more affordable,” while later clarifying with the words, “I want every

Utahn to have affordable, quality health insurance and health care.” (Romney, 2018). While

these provide a clear stance on healthcare in general, it is still lacking in specifics. He talks
FINAL PAPER 12

about the individual Utahn as being the primary receiver of these healthcare benefits which he

wishes to promote.

On the same subject, Wilson stated that, “Utah families deserve quality and affordable

health care so that no family is on the verge of a financial crisis due to a pre-existing

condition…” (Wilson, 2018). In contrast to Romney’s words regarding the matter, Wilson uses

the Utah family as her focus. Her focus on the family again switches the scale of the

conversation. The family unit is one which includes men, women, and children. She also

references pre-existing conditions which brings a level of specificity.

Immigration was the third topic which both candidates discussed in their speeches. Due

to the current debate surrounding immigration, this was another issue, alongside health care, that

many candidates across the United States lent their voice to. In following this pattern of

speaking about immigration, Romney expressed his support of legal immigration very clearly

with the words, “I welcome legal immigration”. He prefaced his statement with, “We have to

finally fix our immigration system. I want our legal immigration process to be transparent and

straightforward, and I want to secure our border to stop illegal immigration.” (Romney, 2018).

Once again Romney was straightforward with what he said, not necessarily specific, but also

giving voters a clear idea of what he supported.

Wilson again used a rhetoric that was slightly different in regard to who she focused on.

In speaking about immigration, she utilized pathos by describing herself as having, “The heart of

a mother who cannot fathom parents being separated from their children and who will fight for

compassionate immigrate reform and a secure border.” (Wilson, 2018). While both Romney and

Wilson support the idea of a clear border, the words which Wilson used make her statement

contrast from his. The issues of mothers and the emotions associated with them are not
FINAL PAPER 13

traditionally things that are taken into account in politics, once again showing how Wilson’s

words more closely align with the doing away of the three silences.

Looking at this singular speech and the way both candidates present the issues which they

feel are most important to their voters, it can be seen how a female candidate possesses a

different perspective in comparison to her male peer. This would likely be seen across the wide

variety of female candidates who ran for office during the 2018 midterms. What got these

women to this place in time was the slow transition of the United States as a hegemonic power

and its associated social conflict. As women had the opportunity to leave the private sphere

following World War II, they began using their voice to become involved in the political sphere

as well. This, alongside the feminist movement, created a world in which female voices began to

have a place in decisions made within the United States. As women began to hold powerful

individuals accountable for their words and actions, they also acknowledged the ways in which

the United States has failed to recognize the everyday voice. This failure could possibly be

amended with women’s continued draw to politics and their election to those positions in which

they can create the change they feel is needed to most fully represent the citizens of the United

States.
FINAL PAPER 14

References

Arrighi, G. & Silver, B. (1999). Chaos and governance in the modern world system.

Minneapolis, LN: University of Minnesota Press.

Atkeson, L. R. (2003). Not All Cues Are Created Equal: The Conditional Impact of Female

Candidates on Political Engagement. Journal of Politics, 65(4), 1040–1061.

Bump, P. (30 July 2018). The wave that’s building for November may not be blue so much as

pink. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/07/30/the-wave-thats-building-

for-november-may-not-be-blue-so-much-as-pink/?utm_term=.0f4865e91916

Clayton, A. & Zetterber, P. (30 May, 2018). Will 2018’s ‘pink wave’ of female candidates make

it in Congress? Almost certainly. Here’s how. The Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/05/30/will-2018s-pink-

wave-of-female-candidates-make-it-in-congress-almost-certainly-heres-

how/?utm_term=.9a652812b0ae

Deckman, M. (27 August, 2018). This survey shows why there’s never been a better time for

women to run for office. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/27/this-survey-shows-

why-theres-never-been-a-better-time-for-women-to-run-for-

office/?utm_term=.4f3548643f5b

Flint, C., & Taylor, P. J. (2018). Political geography: World-economy, nation-state and locality.

New York, NY: Routledge.

FINAL PAPER 15

Hayes, D. (8 March, 2018). Do women in Congress work harder than their male colleagues. The

Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-

cage/wp/2018/03/08/do-women-in-congress-work-harder-than-their-male-

colleagues/?utm_term=.681ed74c8ac1

Jordan, M. (8 November, 2018). Record number of women heading to Congress. The

Washington Post. Retrieved https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/record-number-of-

women-appear-headed-for-congress/2018/11/06/76a9e60a-e1eb-11e8-8f5f-

a55347f48762_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7a432c0081ce.

Kofman, E., & Gilmartin, M. (2004).Critically feminist geopolitics.. New York, NY: Routledge.

Staeheli, L., & Kofman, E. (2004). Mapping gender, making politics: toward feminist political

geographies. New York, NY: Routledge.

Romney, M. (2018). Messages from the candidates. KUED7. Retrieved from

https://www.kued.org/election/2018/free-speech-message/mitt-romney

Wilson, J. (2018). Messages from the candidates. KUED7. Retrieved from

https://www.kued.org/election/2018/free-speech-message/jenny-wilson