解释公众对性别配额的支持:日本的性别歧视、代表性质量和国家干预

IF 3.1 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics & Gender Pub Date : 2022-12-20 DOI:10.1017/S1743923X22000617
M. Miura, K. McElwain, Tomoki Kaneko
{"title":"解释公众对性别配额的支持:日本的性别歧视、代表性质量和国家干预","authors":"M. Miura, K. McElwain, Tomoki Kaneko","doi":"10.1017/S1743923X22000617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Electoral gender quotas remain contentious among many publics. One hurdle is the “principle-policy puzzle”: those who espouse gender egalitarianism may nevertheless oppose affirmative action measures because of disagreements about their necessity and worries about government overreach. Based on an original survey in Japan, where women’s underrepresentation is particularly pronounced, we identify two dimensions that drive attitudes toward quotas. First, modern sexism matters: those who attribute underrepresentation to women’s disinterest or who think that quotas will increase the number of unqualified women candidates are less likely to support quotas. Second, appropriateness matters: those who oppose government intervention in gender affairs are less likely to support quotas. Crucially, these differences hold even among those who desire more women in parliament. Our results suggest that public acceptance of quotas depends more on correcting misperceptions about structural gender barriers and the benign consequences of quotas (“policy”), rather than encouraging people to prefer more women in parliament (“principle”).","PeriodicalId":47464,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Gender","volume":"19 1","pages":"781 - 805"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining Public Support for Gender Quotas: Sexism, Representational Quality, and State Intervention in Japan\",\"authors\":\"M. Miura, K. McElwain, Tomoki Kaneko\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1743923X22000617\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Electoral gender quotas remain contentious among many publics. One hurdle is the “principle-policy puzzle”: those who espouse gender egalitarianism may nevertheless oppose affirmative action measures because of disagreements about their necessity and worries about government overreach. Based on an original survey in Japan, where women’s underrepresentation is particularly pronounced, we identify two dimensions that drive attitudes toward quotas. First, modern sexism matters: those who attribute underrepresentation to women’s disinterest or who think that quotas will increase the number of unqualified women candidates are less likely to support quotas. Second, appropriateness matters: those who oppose government intervention in gender affairs are less likely to support quotas. Crucially, these differences hold even among those who desire more women in parliament. Our results suggest that public acceptance of quotas depends more on correcting misperceptions about structural gender barriers and the benign consequences of quotas (“policy”), rather than encouraging people to prefer more women in parliament (“principle”).\",\"PeriodicalId\":47464,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics & Gender\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"781 - 805\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics & Gender\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X22000617\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Gender","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X22000617","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要选举中的性别配额在许多公众中仍然存在争议。一个障碍是“原则政策难题”:尽管如此,那些支持性别平等主义的人可能会反对平权行动措施,因为他们对这些措施的必要性存在分歧,并担心政府的过度扩张。根据在日本进行的一项原始调查,我们确定了推动对配额态度的两个方面,在日本,女性代表性不足尤为明显。首先,现代性别歧视很重要:那些将代表性不足归因于女性不感兴趣,或者认为配额会增加不合格女性候选人的数量的人,不太可能支持配额。其次,适当性很重要:那些反对政府干预性别事务的人不太可能支持配额。至关重要的是,这些差异甚至在那些希望更多女性进入议会的人中也存在。我们的研究结果表明,公众对配额的接受更多地取决于纠正对结构性性别障碍和配额的良性后果的误解(“政策”),而不是鼓励人们在议会中更喜欢女性(“原则”)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Explaining Public Support for Gender Quotas: Sexism, Representational Quality, and State Intervention in Japan
Abstract Electoral gender quotas remain contentious among many publics. One hurdle is the “principle-policy puzzle”: those who espouse gender egalitarianism may nevertheless oppose affirmative action measures because of disagreements about their necessity and worries about government overreach. Based on an original survey in Japan, where women’s underrepresentation is particularly pronounced, we identify two dimensions that drive attitudes toward quotas. First, modern sexism matters: those who attribute underrepresentation to women’s disinterest or who think that quotas will increase the number of unqualified women candidates are less likely to support quotas. Second, appropriateness matters: those who oppose government intervention in gender affairs are less likely to support quotas. Crucially, these differences hold even among those who desire more women in parliament. Our results suggest that public acceptance of quotas depends more on correcting misperceptions about structural gender barriers and the benign consequences of quotas (“policy”), rather than encouraging people to prefer more women in parliament (“principle”).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Politics & Gender
Politics & Gender Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: Politics & Gender is an agenda-setting journal that publishes the highest quality scholarship on gender and politics and on women and politics. It aims to represent the full range of questions, issues, and approaches on gender and women across the major subfields of political science, including comparative politics, international relations, political theory, and U.S. politics. The Editor welcomes studies that address fundamental questions in politics and political science from the perspective of gender difference, as well as those that interrogate and challenge standard analytical categories and conventional methodologies.Members of the Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association receive the journal as a benefit of membership.
期刊最新文献
All the President’s Women? Female Leaders, Family Ties, and Gendered Cabinet Appointments Worldwide Intensifying Gender Inequality: Why Belgian Female Students (Sometimes) Gain Less Internal Political Efficacy from Citizenship Education Than Male Students Ticking Two Boxes, Fighting Two Battles: Intersectional Experiences of Ethnic Minority Women Councillors in UK Local Government Do Women Politicians Know More about Women’s Policy Preferences? Evidence from Canada Backlash after Quotas: Moral Panic as a Soft Repression Tactic against Women Politicians
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1