This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]

On: 14 October 2014, At: 11:21

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20

Stereotypes and the female politician:

A case study of Senator Barbara
Mikulski
a
Deborah Carol Robson
a
Assistant Professor in the Department of Speech
Communication , Syracuse University , Syracuse, NY, 13210
Published online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: Deborah Carol Robson (2000) Stereotypes and the female politician:
A case study of Senator Barbara Mikulski, Communication Quarterly, 48:3, 205-222, DOI:
10.1080/01463370009385593

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463370009385593

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Stereotypes and the Female
Politician: A Case Study of
Senator Barbara Mikulski

Deborah Carol Robson

This case study of Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) documents the successful
negotiation of a complex set of general and local stereotypes/expectations arising
primarily from gender. By recognizing and addressing these stereotypes/
expectations as rhetorical constructs, Mikulski has facilitated women's increased
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

participation in the political arena. This essay pays particular attention to the
rhetorical strategies that functioned to broaden the lens through which women in
politics are viewed by challenging the femininity/competence double bind. The
stereotypes/expectations examined include orientation toward family (female-
identified), availability (female-identified), and aggression (male-identified).
Mikulski used a variety of rhetorical strategies ranging from recasting to humor,
and her efforts can productively inform the campaigns of other women seeking
elective office.

KEY CONCEPTS women, stereotypes, expectations, double binds, politics,

rhetorical strategies.

Deborah Carol Robson (Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Amherst, 1995) is

an Assistant Professor in the Department of Speech Communication, Syracuse
University, Syracuse, NY 13210.

O ver the past two decades, images of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures
across the country have shifted from charcoal and navy to a more
colorful palette that visually bespeaks an ever-increasing diversity in U.S.
electoral politics. Most of that diversity has resulted from the increased participation
of women in the political arena. Prior to the 2000 election cycle, women occupied 22.3%
of the seats in state legislatures, an increase of 12% from 1979; and in eight states
legislatures, at least 30% of the representatives were women. Women held 27.6% of
statewide executive offices, and the number of women mayors of cities with
populations over 30,000 had risen from 58 in 1979 to 192 in 1999 (National Women's
Political Caucus). The fact that 58 women occupied seats in the U.S. House of
Representatives compared to 16 in 1979 was remarkable even after we observed that
the remaining 379 seats were held by men. We perceived progress when first California
and then Maine sent two women to the U.S. Senate but seldom observed that forty-
three states sent all-male delegations.

Communication Quarterly, Vol. 48 No 3 Summer 2000, Pages 205-222

 These facts testified to the significant advances women have made in electoral
politics over the past two decades, but they also affirm the fact that the political
playing field is still far from level. Female politicians must continue to negotiate
significant and often contradictory sets of gendered stereotypes/expectations, which
have remained amazingly stable over recent decades (Leuptow, Garovich, and
Leuptow 526). Gendered stereotypes/expectations that impact women's access to
power in the public sector deal with women's personalities, their professional abilities,
and the traditional female roles women are still expected to fulfill (Burrell 15).
The advances of women in politics have been greatly facilitated by efforts of
successful female politicians like Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). Mikulski and her
female colleagues in Washington and across the nation have been confronting,
challenging, and in some cases dismantling gender stereotypes/expectations that
have historically constrained women's activities in electoral politics. As a result,
substantive female stereotypes/expectations that once were valued only in the private
sector are being perceived as valuable in the public realm and, therefore, no longer
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

function as barriers. For example, we have long expected women to be nurturers in

their homes, but we now value that characteristic in the workplace.
In addition, several theorists credit the women's movement with both challenging
gender stereotypes and providing impetus for their reconfiguration. The women's
movement provided public forums directly confronting the issue of gender
stereotypes and facilitated the movement of large numbers of women into public
spheres previously reserved for men (Fecteau, Jackson, and Dindia 20; Duerst-Lahti
and Johnson 143).
Stereotypes for those engaged in particular professions are largely determined by
the individuals routinely seen in those professions (Glick, Wilk, and Perreault565). As
a result, female politicians appearing on C-SPAN, news programs, in campaign ads,
and campaigning in person should eventually dismantle or neutralize occupational
stereotypes that disenfranchise women in the political arena. Moreover, as the legal
remedies to gender discrimination propelled by the women's movement become
institutionalized, conflicting sets of stereotypical expectations based exclusively on
gender may one day become historical artifacts (Jamieson 136-145).
The purpose of this essay is to document the successful negotiation of a complex
set of general and local stereotypes/expectations arising primarily from gender. Our
failure to document such accomplishments by women too often results in other women
having to reinvent the wheel; therefore, I use Senator Barbara Mikulski as a case study
to demonstrate how one woman rhetorically negotiated a complex set of stereotypes/
expectations during thirty years in elective office. In doing so, she facilitated women's
increased participation in the political arena and broadened the lens through which
women in politics are viewed, hi light of Mikulski's lengthy electoral success, I argue
that women running for political office are well-advised to identify the local and general
stereotypes/expectations for women/candidates held by prospective constituents,
explore the complex interactions among and hierarchical ranking of those stereotypes/
expectations, and plan rhetorical strategies to address the revealed complexity.
In support of earlier research findings, I argue that the need to combat gender
stereotypes decreases as familiarity with the female politician increases. Finally, I
argue that negotiating these stereotypes/expectations and the constraints they
impose on women is primarily a rhetorical effort, which can be facilitated with the use
and assistance of the media.

206 Robson
 STEREOTYPES/EXPECTATIONS
Pragmatically, stereotypes function to help us make sense of and deal with the
complexities of our culture that bombard us daily by allowing us to sort and categorize
data and stimuli with little conscious thought Mass media play an important role in
strengthening the stability and pervasiveness of stereotypes and will increasingly do
so as we rely even more heavily on communication technologies. Nonetheless,
stereotypes and/or the value we assign to them can and do change. When media
present us with or when we encounter in our daily lives experiences that repeatedly
contradict "the pictures in our heads" (Lippmann 66), we can modify our stereotypes,
alter their value, change the expectations that flow from those stereotypes, or label the
contradictory experiences aberrations. Our choice is primarily a reflection of our
intellectual flexibility or rigidity (Lippmann 66). Lippmann suggested in 1922 and
other researchers have since confirmed that stereotypes operate most powerfully
during initial interactions with strangers and that the power of stereotypes
significantly diminishes in ongoing relationships (Kramarae, "Perceptions" 153;
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

Arliss 24). When we know people, we develop frameworks for understanding and
interpreting their behavior that replace the stereotypes otherwise engaged for this
purpose.
Subsequent research on the nature and function of stereotypes has explored with
increased specificity the claims originating in Lippmann's seminal work on the
subject In order to identify cultural beliefs/stereotypes about women and men that
lead to gender-specific expectations, researchers over the past three decades in
communication and several other disciplines have paid particular attention to gender
and sex-role stereotypes as the women's movement raised our awareness of and
concern for women's placement in society. Studies have been conducted to determine
the pervasiveness and persistence of gender stereotypes, their modes of transmission,
and how they influence our perceptions of sex differences; to detect changes in gender
stereotypes across time; to delineate the relationship between perceived and actual
gender differences confirmed by empirical study; and to identify how gender
stereotypes can be and have been successfully challenged as rhetorical constructs.
Research into personality, behavioral, and communication stereotypes has
consistently reported significant differentiation by gender. In 1968, Rosenkrantz,
Vogel, Bee, Broverman, and Broverman reported that socially desirable traits for men
included: aggressive, ambitious, dominant, unemotional, logical, and worldly (291).
These traits were largely related to issues of control and functioned in the public
sphere. The socially desirable traits most frequently associated with women included:
gentle, quiet, aware of the feelings of others and expressing tender feelings (291). All
female-identified characteristics were consonant with providing a nurturing
environment in the private sphere. When this same research group repeated their
study in 1972, they determined that "positively-valued masculine traits form a cluster
of related behaviors which entail competence, rationality, and assertion; the positively-
valued feminine traits form a cluster which reflect warmth and expressiveness"
(Broverman, Vogel, Broverman, Clarkson, and Rosenkrantz 61). Despite the stability
of many stereotypical traits, Werner and LaRussa reported in 1985 a clear shift from
earlier gender perceptions when they identified a set of newly differentiated
adjectives, reflecting a more positive perception of women. Newly identified
characteristics for women were sincere, cooperative, fair-minded, and optimistic,
characteristics not inconsistent with political aspirations or activity (1093-1097).

Stereotypes and the Female Politician 207

 Moving beyond personality and behavior, Kramarae translated earlier findings
into communication behaviors. In her 1974 study focusing explicitly on language use,
Kramarae reported women's speech stereotyped as both ineffective and incapable of
dealing with issues of public import (Kramarae, "Stereotypes" 626). In follow-up
studies in 1977 and 1981, she further identified boastfulness, loud speech, using swear
words, showing anger, and speaking aggressively as more representative of male
speech. Emotional, gentle, friendly, smooth, nurturing, and enthusiastic speech along
with concern for the listener remained more characteristic of female speech
(Kramarae, Women 121; Kramarae, "Perceptions" 158-9). Clearly, constraints
remained on women seeking to have influence in the public realm.
A1988 Campbell and Jerry study clarified the problems faced by women speaking
in public by directly comparing female stereotypes with speaker stereotypes.
Stereotypically, speakers were authoritative, ambitious, competitive, "call attention
to themselves, aggressively take stands, [and] affirm their expertise" (125). Even the
realm of public speaking has been clearly identified as a masculine domain. In sharp
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

contrast, perceptions of true women were as submissive, relegated to the domestic

arena, with no expertise beyond those narrow confines (125). Similarly, Hall found
that good women were expected to conform to stereotypes deeming them nonassertive
and self-sacrificing (2). Thus, women seeking to publicly address issues of policy must
walk a fine line between submissive and assertive, between self-sacrificing and
ambitious. They must linguistically tie issues of public policy to their expertise in the
domestic realm or risk violating audience expectations.
On a more positive note, there are several positive stereotypes of women that can
enhance their candidacies. According to Mandel, women are expected to be "more
humane, available, responsive in serving human needs, and to possess an intimate
knowledge of people's daily lives" (61). These stereotypes were particularly salient
during the 1992 elections, during which there was a revival or revaluation of
stereotypically female attributes. This revaluation resulted, in part, from the powerful
anti-incumbent sentiments articulated by the electorate and reflected a period when
the outsider, the "other," was looked upon favorably in comparison to the practice of
politics as usual. Witt, Paget, and Matthews assert that "the argument that women's
voices and values are different from men's has emerged as a powerful new factor in
American culture and politics" (266).
Despite the fact that female stereotypes are more highly valued than they have
been in the past, even in the public arena, women must still meet certain expectations
as politicians. They must be perceived as "fighters" who will champion the causes of
their constituents (Mandel 41). They must be assertive and in many cases forceful.
Political women are responding to this challenge by portraying themselves as "women
who do not conform to typical gender stereotypes" (Huddy and Terkildsen 503). In
fact, women who display what is called psychologically androgynous sex-role
identity, capable of responding with either masculine or feminine behavior depending
on the situation and the audience, appear to be abler campaigners (Carroll 97).
The work of Jamieson (1995), in particular, unmasked the prescriptive nature of
biology, theology, and the law as she documented the progress women have made in
dismantling numerous gender-based double binds flowing from those prescriptions.
Gender-based double binds are derived from stereotypes and expectations; they
function to circumscribe both choice and behavior. Double binds are rhetorical
constructs that offer individuals two alternatives, one or both of which involves

208 Robson
 penalty 0amieson 13). While other researchers share her desire to achieve equity for
women in the public sphere, Jamieson's Beyond the Double Bind presented a
comprehensive review and integration of earlier research and extended our
understanding by clearly describing how prescriptions on women's lives have been
dismantled and transformed.
Jamieson argued that the double bind (and thus the stereotype) is indeed a
rhetorical construction and as such can be rhetorically negotiated (20). Recasting is
one rhetorical strategy that has proven effective in manipulating stereotypes by
reclaiming the power to name and define (190). Jamieson further suggested that
women can confound stereotypes by exceeding stereotypical expectations where
women are stereotypically deemed disadvantaged (196). Jamieson's work represents
a major advance, especially in its treatment of the stereotype as a rhetorical construct;
but it is limited in two ways due to the scope of her project. Jamieson did not explore
local stereotypes and expectations of women that intersect, inform, and complicate
more broadly held beliefs, nor did she discuss how individual women negotiate
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

complex sets of stereotypes/expectations over long periods of time.

DATA AND PROCEDURES

Data Selection
Underlying the analysis in this essay is the assumption that communication is "a
systematic process in which individuals interact with and through symbols to create
and interpret meaning" (Wood 22). Meaning is created and interpreted through a
process of negotiation between parties. In Mikulski's universe of discourse, negotiators
of meaning included Mikulski, her opponents, constituents, and the media. Because
my interest is in how female politicians can successfully engage in this process of
rhetorical negotiation, instances of Mikulski's rhetoric from 1970 through 1999
constituted my primary database. Her rhetoric was drawn from well over 2,000
articles (primarily from the Sun and Washington Post, Maryland's two largest dailies),
over 150 Mikulski speeches published in the Congressional Record, videotapes of
campaign debates, speeches delivered outside Congress, televised interviews, and
numerous scholarly books, (e.g., Jamieson; Mandel; Witt, Paget, and Matthews; Cantor
and Bernay; Braden), commenting on her rhetorical style and citing instances of her
rhetoric.
A secondary database including comments on her communication behavior by
opponents, constituents, and the media was obtained almost exclusively from the Sun
and Washington Post. This secondary database provided anecdotal evidence
suggesting the engagement of her opponents, constituents and the media in
negotiating the stereotypes/expectations that were the focus of Mikulski's rhetoric.

Procedures and Criteria

From my review of literature on gender, behavioral, and occupational stereotypes,
sex roles, double binds, gender and communication and women in politics, I compiled
a list of more than 100 gender-differentiated stereotypes/expectations. A second body
of literature dealt with the political history and demographics of Maryland and
relevant history of immigration to Baltimore by and cultural expectations of various
ethnic groups. From this material, I was able to identify a much smaller list of local
stereotypes/expectations deriving from local politics and ethnic traditions/norms
relating to gender that were operant during Mikulski's career. I narrowed this list to

Stereotypes and the Female Politician 209

 19 by deleting any stereotypes not meeting the following three criteria: stereotypes that
were valued; female-identified stereotypes/expectations that were valued in the
private sphere but could, in my opinion, be assets in the public arena; and stereotypes
that were both male-identified and deemed essential to success in public life.11 then
examined my primary database to discover how Mikulski's rhetoric functioned to
negotiate the meaning of the 19 stereotypes/expectations and their local counterparts.
A similar search of my secondary database provided anecdotal evidence suggesting
the role of other individuals (constituents, opponents, and the media) in this process
of negotiating expectations (Robson, "The Rhetorical" 68-118).
For this essay, I selected the three stereotypes/expectations that most directly
address the femininity/competence double bind, because this bind persists as a barrier
to women in politics. The stereotypes/expectations selected include orientation
toward family, availability, and aggression. The frequency with which Mikulski
addresses these three stereotypes/expectations indicates their centrality in her
successful self-construction as an effective female politician; moreover, they
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

significantly contribute to widening the lens through which women in politics are
viewed.

CASE STUDY OF BARBARA MIKULSKI

The overarching double bind Mikulski faced during her career in elective office
was the femininity/competence double bind that, according to Jamieson, "expects a
woman to be feminine, then offers her a concept of femininity that ensures that as a
feminine creature she cannot be mature and decisive" (120). When combined with
local stereotypes/expectations in 1971, Mikulski's rhetorical challenge was to adhere
to a set of female-identified stereotypes/expectations while demonstrating that she
was tough enough to be effective in Maryland's particularly rough brand of machine
politics (male-identified). Moreover, she faced the need for the feminine/masculine
characteristics to be mutually supportive.
The challenge Mikulski faced was demonstrating that "you can be a lady and still
go out there and give 'em hell" (qtd. in "Miss Mikulski"). One of Mikulski's primary
responses to components of this double bind centered on the rhetorical strategy of
"recasting words used to disqualify into terms denoting qualification, and so
transforming handcuffs into credentials" (Jamieson 192). For example, Mikulski
redefined a politician as a "social worker with power" and in doing so transformed
social worker into a political credential. Furthermore, social work is a female-
identified occupation, but possessing and exercising power has stereotypically been
viewed as a masculine enterprise. Because "one of the assumptions that lies at the crux
of the bind . . . [is] that a person must fall into one or the other of two variant,
categories—masculine or feminine" (Jamieson 130), Mikulski's "social worker with
power" also presented androgyny as an alternative to the masculine/feminine
dichotomy and directly challenged the crux of the femininity/competence bind.
Barbara Mikulski, the great-granddaughter of Catholic Polish immigrants, is a
single, self-proclaimed feminist who stands 4-feet-ll inches tall. Born in a blue-collar
ethnic neighborhood in Baltimore, Maryland, Mikulski has resided just five minutes
from that same neighborhood for most of her public life and commuted daily to
Washington. After being educated in Catholic schools, Mikulski began a career as a
social worker—a career that conformed to the church's expectation of service to the
community. Her community service became political when, as a member of the

210 Robson
 Southeast Community Organization, Mikulski took on city hall in an effort to block
construction of a freeway that would have decimated many neighborhoods in
Baltimore. The fight against the "Road," as it came to be known, was still under way
in 1971 when she ran against Baltimore's powerful and deeply entrenched Democratic
political machine and won a seat on the Baltimore City Council. Ultimately, Mikulski
ended up on the losing side of the Road vote, but she successfully negotiated relocation
of the freeway with then Mayor William Donald Schaefer. After losing a Senate race
in 1974, Mikulski easily won the open seat in Maryland's Third Congressional District
in 1976, this time with the full support of her party. In 1986, Mikulski defeated
Republican Linda Chavez for an open Senate seat and has easily won reelection in two
subsequent election cycles.
As the subject of scholarly research, Mikulski is worthy on several counts. With her
1986 victory, she became the first woman elected to statewide office in Maryland and
the first Democratic woman elected to the Senate in her own right. Mikulski was also
the first woman to serve on the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House, and
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

in the Senate she also became the first woman to hold a Democratic leadership
position.
Even more important than these "firsts" is Mikulski's active role as a trailblazer
for other women in politics. Mikulski is well known for her unique personal style,
particularly her gift for one-liners; however, she is also unique by definition as a first,
a trailblazer, and a "transformational leader" (Mikulski, Hutchison, Feinstein, Boxer,
Murray, Snowe, Collins, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Whitney 31). In this latter capacity,
Mikulski has contributed significantly to broadening the perceptions and expectations
of women in politics and to shattering the femininity/competence double bind
through her demonstrable competence. And finally, Mikulski has successfully
negotiated a complex set of both local and general stereotypes/expectations over a
lengthy career in elective office. Her manner of negotiation has been significant to the
other women she has invited to join her in politics.

ANALYSIS
Each of the characteristics discussed in the following analysis exists on a
continuum that is neither masculine nor feminine. Our different stereotypes of women
and men place these characteristics at different positions on that continuum, and those
stereotypes lead to expectations. By calling a particular characteristic stereotypically
female- or male-identified, I am noting its placement on the continuum and the
gendered expectations that have come to be associated with it. For example, women
are expected to be more, rather than less, cooperative, accessible, oriented toward the
family than men, just as men are expected to be more, rather than less, aggressive than
women. Two additional factors that are salient to this analysis are the degree to which
each characteristic is valued and the realm (private/public) in which that valuation
accrues.
The stereotypes/expectations selected using the criteria noted above include the
following: (1) orientation toward family, (2) availability, and (3) aggression.
Orientation toward family and availability are female-identified stereotypes/
expectations, which traditionally accrue value in the private realm; and aggression is
a male-identified characteristic valued in the public arena. Please note that the
stereotypes/expectations under analysis, their local and general components, and the
means with which they are rhetorically negotiated are neither neat nor discrete, but

Stereotypes and the Female Politician 211

 overlap, intersect, and inform each other.

Orientation toward Family

As mentioned above, orientation toward family is a female-identified expectation
that has traditionally accrued positive value for women in the domestic sphere. As a
component of the femininity side of the femininity/competence double bind, this
expectation centers on our belief that the "appropriately" feminine woman, the
"ideal" woman, and the good female role model is a wife and mother (Hall 2). Single
women are morally suspect, and married women without children are deemed
deficient (Witt, Paget, and Matthews 61-63). More recently, orientation toward family
has come to include the assumption that women's socialization provides them with
experiences that lead to perspectives that differ from men's in terms of expertise on,
interest in, and priority given to family issues (Kaminer 64-68). Because Mikulski is
single, the expected orientation toward family, particularly with respect to marital
status, was one of the more challenging general expectations for her to negotiate
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

rhetorically early in her political career. This more general expectation was informed
by local expectations for a good Catholic woman. As Mikulski recalls, "hi my
neighborhood the only reason a woman moved out of her house at any age was she was
entering the convent, getting married, or she had died prematurely" (qtd. in Barone,
"Moving"). After considering the combination of local and general expectations
regarding orientation toward family, Mikulski's options included marriage, entering
the convent (marry the Church), living at home as a "maiden aunt" (which would still
be suspect), or rhetorically negotiating, challenging, or conforming to a modified
version of these expectations.
The rhetorical agility Mikulski demonstrated in dealing with this expectation is
particularly informative. She negotiated the expectation through redefinition, and
this redefinition allowed her to conform to a modified version of the expectation, hi
addition, she directly challenged the expectation and, at times, negotiated it through
humor. To negotiate the expectation and idealization of marriage, Mikulski
rhetorically constructed an almost familial relationship between herself and her
constituents by redefining and enlarging the concept of "family" to include
constituents. Language, and thus naming, defining, and redefining, is a tool "that
changes our focus and our perceptions" (Jamieson 192). Speaking for herself and her
political ally, Governor William Donald Schaefer (D-MD), also single, Mikulski
asserted, "We have literally devoted our lives to public service and we look upon the
people we represent as part of our extended family. We feel about them personally.
Thaf s why we listen to their concerns and their issues as we would people within our
own family (qtd. in Walker and Waldron, "Mikulski Sings").
Confirming the intent of Mikulski's act of redefinition, Baltimore politician Mary
Pat Clark stated of Mikulski, "I think people like the idea that you're sort of married to
them" (Hosier, "Mikulski"). When Mikulski was mugged near her Baltimore home in
1995, farmer and writer Peter Jay observed in the Sun, "To many of her constituents,
an attack on her seemed almost personal, the next thing to an attack on them or their
families." Mikulski was not exactly family, but she was the next best thing to many of
her constituents. At the very least, this quasi-familial relationship precluded most
personal attacks made by her opponents.
Mikulski also directly challenged this expectation on numerous occasions by
contending that for female politicians marital status was a no-win proposition: "If

212 Robson
 you're married, you're neglecting him; if you're single, you couldn't get him; if you're
divorced, you couldn't keep him; and if you're widowed, you killed him!" (qtd. in Boxer
109) So while we idealize the role of wife, even if she were to marry, Mikulski asserted,
she would simply be placing herself in another no-win situation. According to
Jamieson, rhetoric that identifies and indicts stereotypes "helps dismantle their
power" (130).
Mikulski has also been known to use humor to mitigate her single status. One of
many such incidences occurred during her 1986 Senate race when she campaigned at
the St Mary's County Oyster Festival in Leonardstown, Maryland. During the
festivities, she approached Guy Calvin, a tall, burly constituent wearing Harley-
Davidson sunglasses, grabbed his arm and kiddingly asked if he was single. He nodded,
and as she walked away she yelled back, "Hey, Calvin, give me a call after the election.
I won't be so busy then" (Dowd). Similarly, when Mikulski hooked a three-foot striper,
she joked, "I think this fish is bigger than some of the guys I have dated" (qtd. in Baker).
The media have been particularly helpful in rhetorically confronting explicit,
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

articulated attacks on Mikulski's single status. According to Witt, Paget, and

Matthews (1994), single women politicians are routinely "gay-baited," and they
recommend that female candidates simply shrug off such attacks (62-3). Indeed,
during her 1971 race for the city council, Mikulski experienced a whisper campaign
about her sexual habits (Mandel 67), but a more overt attack occurred during her
senatorial race in 1986. Chavez, who claimed motherhood as a credential, labeled
Mikulski a "San Francisco-style Democrat," "anti-male" (qtd. in Eddings 13), and
urged Mikulski to "come out of the closet" (qtd. in Edmunds 63). Chavez went so far
as to warn potential voters that if Mikulski won they could "kiss" their "traditional
values goodbye" (qtd. in Sia, "Chavez").
Chavez's personal attacks on Mikulski backfired. Repeated letters to the editor,
columns, and editorials in the Sun and Washington Post castigated Chavez for
"majoring in innuendo" (Olesker). Similarly, an influential group of 350 Baltimore
ministers endorsed the candidacy of Mikulski and condemned Chavez for unfairly
attacking Mikulski "for being a single woman" (Ollove, "Ministers"). Sixty-five year
old constituent, Louise Tostavnoski, was even more direct: "Chavez brings up a lot of
slander just because Barbara's not married. But thaf s Barbara's choice. Some people
want to get married and have children, and others don't" (qtd. in Dowd).
As mentioned earlier, rhetoric that identifies and indicts a stereotype helps
dismantle its power (Jamieson 130). In this case, the rhetoric of the media and
constituents identified and indicted the stereotypical assumption that single feminist
women are lesbians. Moreover, by 1986, Mikulski was the familiar, not the stranger,
and thus she did not have to respond rhetorically to the gay-baiting by Chavez. She
wisely let the rhetoric of the media and constituents do it for her.
The rhetorical strategies discussed above functioned successfully to reduce the
dissonance Mikulski's single status evoked; note, however, that candidates running
against Mikulski, not her constituents, generated most attacks on Mikulski's single
status. In fact, as the examples above illustrate, constituents were even more vocal
than Mikulski in their rejection of such personal attacks, particularly subsequent to her
declaration of candidacy for the Senate in 1986. Mikulski directly challenged gendered
expectations regarding marital status, but she also reaffirmed the expectation by
rhetorically redefining constituents as family and fulfilling the redefined expectation.
Her critique of the expectations diminished its power, while reaffirming it facilitated

Stereotypes and the Female Politician 213

 her election.
In addition, Mikulski rejected the assumption that marital status and expertise/
interest in family issues are mutually dependent, stating, "I don't think your marital
status determines whether you understand what American families are going
through" (qtd. in Folkenflik, "Mikulski Has"). What Mikulski did not challenge was
the stereotype/expectation that women are more knowledgeable about and focused
on family issues than their male counterparts due to sex-role socialization, nor would
it be in her interest or in the interest of other women seeking political office to do so.
Being "experts" on the day-to-day lives of families is a political credential for women,
particularly when the national political agenda is so strongly focused on domestic
issues. Mikulski's rhetorical efforts have been directed toward moving this positive
perception of women into the public arena, not only to facilitate the election of more
women, but because she believes that "women's issues" are "really family issues" that
are also "business issues" (qtd. in Sia, "The Senate").
The ultimate goal of this line of argument was to view most political issues through
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

the lens of the family experience. And this makes sense. Families in all configurations
constitute our society; and government's purpose is to serve society, the people, and
our families. So what better question to ask about proposed governmental policy than
how would it impact families? If broadly accepted, such an argument would uniquely
qualify women for political office and significantly alter the process and product of
governance. This argument would also reaffirm significant "difference" between men
and women.

Availability
The general expectation that female politicians will be more available than their
male counterparts comprises yet another component of the femininity side of the
double bind and is an expectation Mikulski has steadfastly fulfilled. This expectation
derives from and is informed by a group of stereotypes that have long been valued in
the domestic arena and stem primarily from women's sex-role socialization. Women
are stereotypically friendly, concerned for listeners, nurturing (Kramarae,
"Perceptions" 158-159; Kramarae, Women 121), and responsive to human needs
(Mandel 61-62). When these stereotypes are translated into the public sector, they
create high levels of expectation regarding the availability of female politicians. Not
only will women in politics be readily available, but they will also want to hear
constituents' problems, will comprehend their importance, and will be responsive.
Within Mikulski's city council district, the expectation of availability arose not
only from gendered stereotypes but also from increasing voter frustration over being
excluded from decisions that affected their lives and communities. The Democratic
machine in Baltimore had once been responsive to the needs of constituents, but by the
early 1970s elected politicians "had become entrenched... and they weren't listening,"
according to community organizer Gloria Aull (qtd. in Crenson 245). Concerned that
the city government had "not been responsive to the needs of the people" (qtd. in
McLellan), Mikulski was determined to be a politician who listened. Thus, although
the sources of the general and local expectations regarding availability differ, the
expectation derived from those sources remains the same.
Mikulski fulfilled the expectation of availability with two communication
practices. One dealt with direct or literal access to which she rhetorically assigned
value and a second with the rhetorical construction of familiarity, creating the

214 Robson
 perception of availability. So prominently featured was literal access in Mikulski's
concept of governance that others have called it her "hallmark of office" (Clifford). As
former campaign manager Wendy Sherman explains, "People feel they have personal
access to her [because] she came up through the community, not through political
organizations" (qtd. in Eddings 10). Mikulski often took phone calls from constituents
in her Baltimore home and recalls, "I used to get calls from fat people at three in the
morning.... They told me they were standing in front of their icebox and wanted to
talk to somebody who had the same problem" (qtd. in Clifford). In her Congressional
office, Mikulski did not even use a desk because she believed it would erect "a barrier"
between her and the people she was trying to help (qtd. in Clifford).
Most important, however, was Mikulski's continuing practice of spending part of
her week traveling around Maryland, holding teach-ins at retirement homes and town
hall meetings, visiting festivals and bazaars, listening to her constituents, soliciting
their advice, and providing them with direct access to their representative. In
attributing value to her time spent with constituents, Mikulski claimed that "the
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

people" were her "best advisors" (qtd. in CRourke), and that she had "been able to
make a difference by listening to people talk about the issues they confront in daily life
and then working to turn those issues into national policy" (Mikulski, "Can"). She also
affirmed their right to access to their representative, stating that "the people who are
the most affected should have the most to say" (qtd. in McCarthy). She let them know
that it was often "their words" (her constituents') she expressed when she was in
Congress by centering her arguments on their stories (qtd. in "She Represents").
When constituents discussed Mikulski's forays around Maryland, they most often
noted her willingness to listen, even calling it her "appeal." Constituents claimed
Mikulski "listens to what I have to say" (qtd. in Shepnick), "listens, follows through
and takes action" (qtd. in Shepnick), "takes time to visit" (qtd. in Kimelman, "Mikulski
Builds"), and "seems always interested in talking to people, not just shaking their
hands and moving on" (qtd. in Canzian, "Barnes"). The comments surrounding these
brief quotations confirmed her constituents' belief that Mikulski's desire to hear their
perspectives was genuine, not a campaign strategy, and that this practice was central
to their support of Mikulski's political career.
Rhetorically constructing a sense of familiarity with constituents further
contributed to a perception of availability by transforming a stranger into a friend or
acquaintance. Mikulski facilitated this transformation by encouraging constituents to
call her by her first name, stating, "They don't say 'Good afternoon, Miss Mikulski.'
They say 'Hey Barb' or 'Yea, Barb'" (qtd. in Kimelman, "Mikulski Takes"). She also held
fund-raisers like "Be-Bob with Barb" and "Burgers and Baseball for Barb," which
further encouraged the practice (qtd. in Daemmrich). Mikulski herself claimed,
"People feel they don't know OF me. They feel they know ME" (qtd. in Walker and
Waldron, "Mikulski Frustrates"). Being on a first name basis allowed Mikulski to enjoy
what she termed "a very personal relationship" with her constituents (qtd. in
Kimelman, "Mikulski Takes"). Media confirmed that "voters still call her by her first
name and claim her as one of their own" (Folkenflik, "Mikulski Keeps"), "everyone
knew her as Barbara" (Kimelman, "Mikulski Builds"), and in Southeast Baltimore as
"our Barbara" (Ollove, "Polish). Being on a first name basis, even if it only creates the
perception of familiarity, may diminish the barriers that status and position often
construct.
Mikulski's residence in Maryland, a state adjacent to the nation's capitol, the fact

Stereotypes and the Female Politician 215

 that she returned to her hometown every night, and the fact that she did not have the
responsibilities associated with being a wife and mother greatly facilitated her
fulfillment of the expectation of availability. Moreover, her conformance functioned
to reduce the power of other female-identified stereotypes to which Mikulski did not
adhere by transforming stranger into "friend." In Mikulski's case, once constituents
were "familiar" with her, the fact she was single appeared to lose most of its
significance. Listening to her constituents also provides Mikulski with the expected
knowledge about family issues—the intimate knowledge of people's daily lives—
which other women are assumed to acquire through marriage.
The downside of Mikulski's increased availability was the demands it put on her
time and her staff. Her weekly mail went from 600 to 2,000 letters between 1993 and
1994, and as one of only a handful of women in the Senate, she was in demand for
national events and speaking engagements across the country (Baer). Mikulski had
little time for a private life. But even this cloud had a silver lining. Her national
constituency provided her with access to networks of financial resources she would
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

not otherwise have enjoyed.

Aggression
Aggression is a male-identified characteristic that constitutes a portion of the
competence side of the double bind and is a characteristic research indicates is both
desirable and necessary for success in public life (Rosenkrantz, Vogel, Bee, Broverman,
and Broverman 291; Duerst-Lahti and Johnson 142; Huddy and Terkildsen 508).
Entering Baltimore's tough machine politics in the early 1970s and campaigning to
fight the Road, Mikulski had little choice but to be aggressive; but aggression also
appeared to be part of her nature. What sets this expectation apart from some other
male-identified stereotypes/ expectations is that women are not thought incapable of
aggression. Aggressiveness is simply deemed socially inappropriate when enacted by
women. Today, "assertive" behavior within a "limited range" is viewed as gender
appropriate for women, but women still face social sanctions if they cross the invisible
line between assertive (feminine) and aggressive (masculine) behavior (Duerst-Lahti
and Kelly 28; Cantor and Bernay 74). Thus, women in politics remain trapped in a
double bind, being "tough enough" to be effective in politics and being appropriately
feminine.
The strategy Mikulski used most prominently and successfully to prove she was
"tough enough" to win elections and govern effectively was the rhetorical
construction of herself as a "fighter," which she defined as a "high-energy" approach
to advocacy "for the people" (qtd. in Sia, "The Senate"). This strategy was particularly
salient during her 1974 and 1986 campaigns for the Senate when Mikulski was
addressing audiences who were not yet "familiar" with her and her record.
Strengthened by similar constructions from the media and her constituents, fighter
became a central component of her public image.
The need to be perceived as a fighter was clearly most important early in Mikulski's
career because of her gender and diminutive physical stature, but she has continued
to use this construction even when her reelection is assured. In her unsuccessful bid for
the Senate in 1974, she campaigned with the slogan: "Barbara Mikulski is not afraid of
the big boys" (qtd. in Kenworthy, "Feisty") as a way of mitigating her height During
other election cycles, Mikulski has pledged to be a "fighter" in Congress (qtd. in
"Mikulski, Culotta"), a "straight talking fighter" (qtd. in Canzian, "Mikulski"), a

216 Robson
 "fighter" who "sweat the details" (qtd. in Hosier, "Hughes"), "a fighter for our
neighborhoods and our schools, a fighter for jobs and justice" (qtd. in Kenworthy,
"Mikulski''). Mikulski claimed, "I'm a fighter . . . fighting for you" during her 1992
contest with Alan Keyes (qtd. in Hill); and in her most recent campaign, she asked
Maryland voters to let her "keep fighting—for the people" (qtd. in Argetsinger).
Media have enhanced, reinforced, and assigned value to Mikulski's fighter image,
and constituents have spoken with pride about Mikulski's toughness and aggressive
style. Media have characterized her as "feisty and direct" (Kenworthy, "Feisty"),
"instinctively pugnacious" (Barone, "Growth"), "willing to jump in and slug it out"
(Eddings), "a scrapper who will fight for them (voters)" (LeDuc), and as a "bright,
combative women" ("And for"). Constituents clearly have found Mikulski "tough
enough." Carolyn Krysiak best explained the appeal of Mikulski's fighter image in her
native Baltimore: "Women from blue-collar families have to accept so much that you
kind of like to watch a fighter. When you have someone like Barbara who is not going
to let the big guys keep her down, you look at her as a hero" (qdt in Ollove, "Polish").
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

Other constituents proudly claimed that Mikulski "doesn't let people push her
around" (qtd. in Canzian, "Mikulski"), "really fights for senior citizens" (qtd. in
Kimelman, "Mikulski Builds"), "fights for the people" (qtd. in Smith), and was
"fighting for the veterans" (qtd. in Bowman).
Functionally, Mikulski has constructed herself as a fighter to heighten constituent
confidence in her ability to function competently in politics, but she has done so in a
way that is consistent with and supportive of the female-identified expectations
discussed earlier. Mikulski most often constructed herself as a politician fighting
selflessly for her "extended family" of constituents and for their needs. She presented
a model of a fighter consistent with the female role of nurturer. She "fights" for them
because they depend on her tenacious advocacy. Mikulski was available to her
extended family, listened to them, and then went to Washington to fight for them. The
success of Mikulski's self-construction through rhetorical negotiation is evident in the
comments by her constituents noted above, some of whom are Republicans, who value
her advocacy for Marylanders above broader political philosophies. In fact, her image
as a fighter has so solidified that it apparently precludes opponents from successfully
claiming this characteristic for themselves.

DISCUSSION
The anecdotal evidence cited in this analysis suggests that Barbara Mikulski has
contributed to dismantling the femininity/competence double bind through three
decades of rhetorically negotiating the three stereotypes/expectations discussed in
this essay. She has contributed to extending positively valued stereotypes/
expectations regarding orientation toward family and availability into the public
sector and the range on the assertive/aggressive continuum within which women in
politics can "appropriately" enact their offices. These extensions significantly
broadened the lens through which women in politics have been seen, but there are still
remnants of earlier barriers and even some that have arisen out of the refuse of
shattered binds to which women seeking political office must attend.
In terms of expected marital status, women still face barriers to elective office.
Until domestic responsibilities and parenting are genuinely shared endeavors,
married women with children should still expect to be asked, "Who will care for your
children and husband?" Women so challenged would do well to articulate the no-win

Stereotypes and the Female Politician 217

 situation such a question constructs and to reveal the gender bias inherent in the
question. We have apparently come to accept the reality that single mothers must
work outside the home, so they will be less likely to experience motherhood as a barrier
to elective office. Women who are both single and childless may still be gay-baited, but
Mikulski's rhetorical construction of a familial relationship to constituents may
mitigate such allegations. Moreover, as more openly gay individuals attain elective
office and serve successfully, gay-baiting by opponents may prove counterproductive.
The more substantive expectation of orientation toward family—the assumption
that women's socialization provides them with expertise on, interest in, and priority
given to family issues—provides an advantage to women seeking elective office in
times when domestic issues top the national agenda. First, extending this stereotype/
expectation into the public sphere makes it an element of competence, but it also
remains female-identified. Women seeking elective office are well advised to
demonstrate their expertise on family issues rather than take that expertise for
granted. In addition, Mikulski's broad definition of family issues is a good one to
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

follow. Women were once deemed at a disadvantage legislating issues like crime and
war. But what issues have a greater impact on the family than these two? Women in
the U.S. Congress powerfully debated the Crime Bill, in part, by discussing crime in the
context of their own lives and those of their constituents—on shattered families not
just statistics from law enforcement agencies.
The extension and legitimation of availability as a valued expectation of women
in the public sector has produced more positive than negative outcomes for women.
When women candidates fulfill the expectation of increased availability with literal or
perceived access, a level of familiarity with constituents develops, which may function
to mitigate local or general stereotypes/expectations that are functioning as barriers
to women seeking elective office. In addition, when availability is enacted through
listening practices not only does familiarity increase, but the candidate also acquires
evidence at the nexus of individuals' lives and public policy.
In her run for the Senate in New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton began her
unofficial campaign with a "listening tour" of the state. Following Mikulski's model,
Clinton asked New Yorkers what their problems were, what solutions they thought
possible, and then assigned value to the knowledge thus acquired. This kind of
listening certainly provides women with the information that allows them to
humanize issues in a way with which the general electorate can identify. Although the
expectation of increased availability functions primarily to advantage women,
fulfilling this expectation may contribute to a new double standard where women are
expected to be more accessible than their male counterparts but still expected to
perform the same job functions. Another more likely possibility is that increased
availability will become an element of competence and constituents will demand it of
all candidates for public office. This latter possibility would continue to be
advantageous to women, whose socialization prepares them for this element of
competence.
In terms of broadening the acceptable range of aggression for women in politics,
Mikulski's contribution has been both valuable and problematic. The value of Mikulski's
fulfillment of this measure of competence is that she demonstrated how to construct
rhetorically the image of a fighter who nurtures, one who fights for her constituents. As
long as aggression is an element of competence, Mikulski's example can be useful to other
women seeking to demonstrate competence in their quest for elective office.

218 Robson
 Perhaps Mikulski and colleagues like Geraldine Ferraro, Barbara Boxer, and
Dianne Feinstein, who have similarly found rhetorical means to negotiate their own
toughness, have made it less necessary for women candidates today to prove their
toughness. On the other hand, Mikulski's rhetorical negotiation of the expectation of
aggression is problematic because she fails to identify the expectation itself as
problematic. With a universe of metaphors of war and athletic contests dominating
political discourse, aggression as typically manifested by men is considered an
essential component of competence in politics. The reality, however, is that politicians
today, both female and male, need the communication, critical thinking, and problem
solving skills necessary to develop effectively, articulate fully, and maintain their
positions in a powerful manner. The kind of toughness required today is mental
toughness not the capacity to engage in fisticuffs (Robson, "Is Crime Debatable?";
Robson, "To Make the World").
The power of the femininity/competence double bind has diminished as the
gendered stereotypes/expectations of women are brought into the public sector and
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

assigned value by female politicians like Barbara Mikulski. That diminution is visible
when female incumbents are asked less often to prove they have the basic credentials
to hold office and are able to run on their records and visions for the future. It is visible
when C-SPAN coverage of the House and Senate reveals women demonstrating a
broad range of leadership styles and functioning as effective legislators. What will be
interesting to observe over the next few election cycles is whether orientation toward
family and availability will become expectations of all politicians and whether, in the
name of increased civility, aggression as an element of political competence becomes
less salient. In any case, the increased diversity in political representation facilitated
by the rhetorical activities of Barbara Mikulski has both challenged and transformed
the process and product of governance.

NOTE
1
The female-identified stereotypes/expectations positively-valued in the private sphere included:
available, cooperative, notions of power as empowerment, humane, intimate knowledge of
people's daily lives, responsive to human needs, idealistic, optimistic, fair-minded, and tradi-
tional orientation toward family (marriage). The male-identified stereotypes/expectations
necessary for success in public life included: boastful, competitive, fighter, showing anger,
loudness of voice, sarcasm, obscenity, tough talk, and assertive speaking.

REFERENCES
"And for the US Senate." Editorial. Washington Post 5 Sept. 1986: A24.
Argetsinger, Amy. "Mikulski Vs. Peirpont: A Study in Contrasts." Washington Post 31 Oct. 1998:
VMD4.
Arliss, Laurie P. Gender Communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1991.
Baer, Susan. "Mikulski Breaks the Glass Ceiling." Sun 6 Mar. 1994: 1A.
Baker, Peter. "How Rockfish Can Help You Forget the Blues." Sun 28 Apr. 1992: 9B.
Barone, Michael. "Growth and Government." Editorial. Washington Post 24 Aug. 1986: C8.
—. "Moving Up in Maryland." Editorial. Washington Post 10 June 1986: A19.
Bowman, Tom. "Support for Mikulski Defies Anti-Incumbent Clamor." Sun 16 Aug. 1992: 1B.
Boxer, Barbara. Strangers in the Senate: Politics and the New Revolution of Women in America.
Washington: National Press Books, 1994.
Braden, Maria. Women Politicians and the Media. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1996.

Stereotypes and the Female Politician 219

 Broverman, Inge K., Susan Raymond Vogel, Donald M. Broverman, Frank E. Clarkson, and Paul
S. Rosenkrantz. "Sex-Role Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal." Journal of Social Issues 28.2
(1972): 59-78.
Burrell, Barbara C. A Woman's Place Is in the House. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1994.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs, and E. Claire Jerry. "Woman and Speaker: A Conflict in Roles." Seeing
Female: Social Roles and Personal Lives. Ed. Sharon S. Behm. New York: Greenwood, 1988.
123-133.
Cantor, Dorothy W., and Toni Bernay. Women in Power: The Secrets ofLeadership. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin, 1992.
Canzian, Eileen. "Barnes, Hughes Fail to Gain." Sun 7 Sept. 1986: A1.
—. "Mikulski Retains Lead in Senate Race." Sun 3 Aug. 1986: A1, A20.
Carroll, Susan J. Women as Candidates in American Politics. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1985.
Clifford, Garry. "The House Will Be a Home for Two New Women on Capitol Hill: Reps. Oakar
and Mikulski." People 10 Jan. 1977: 23.
Crenson, Matthew A. Neighborhood Politics. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1983.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

Daemmrich, JoAnna. "Party Hopper." Sun 27 July 1992: 1C.

Dowd, Maureen. "Razor-Edged Race for Maryland Seat." New York Times 21 Oct. 1986: B3.
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia, and Cathy Marie Johnson. "Management Styles, Stereotypes, and Ad-
vantages." Women and Men of the States: Public Administrators at the State Level. Ed. Mary E.
Guy. London: Sharpe, 1992. 125-156.
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia, and Rita Mae Kelly. "On Governance, Leadership, and Gender." Gender
Power, Leadership, and Governance. Ed. Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly. Ann Arbor:
U of Michigan P, 1995. 11-37.
Eddings, Jerelyn. "Mikulski: Stepping Up to the Senate." Sun Magazine 22 Feb. 1987: 7-15.
Edmunds, Lavinia. "Barbara Mikulski." Ms. Jan 1987: 63, 94.
Fecteau, T. Joan, Jullane Jackson, and Kathryn Dindia. "Gender Orientation Scales: An Empiri-
cal Assessment of Content Validity." Constructing and Reconstructing Gender: The Links Among
Communication, Language, and Gender. Ed. Linda A.M. Perry, Lynn H. Turner, and Helen M.
Sterk. Albany: State U of New York P, 1992. 17-34.
Folkenflik, David. "Mikulski Has Money for Re-Election, but No Opponent Yet." Sun 5 Feb.
1998: 2B.
—. "Mikulski Keeps Balance in DC and Baltimore Image." Sun 24 Aug. 1998: 1B.
Glick, Peter, Korin Wilk, and Michele Perreault. "Images of Occupations: Components of Gen-
der and Status in Occupational Stereotypes." Sex Roles 32 (1995): 565-582.
Hall, C. Margaret. Women and Identity: Value Choices in a Changing World. New York: Hemi-
sphere, 1990.
Hill, Michael. "Republican Keyes Attacks Bush As Well As Mikulski during Televised Debate."
Sun 20 Oct. 1992: 14C.
Hosier, Karen. "Hughes, Barnes Are Proof That Upsets Can Happen," Sun 7 Sept. 1986: B1.
---. "Mikulski Keeps Campaign Composure in Face of Attacks." Sun 26 Oct. 1986: B1.
Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. "The Consequences of Gender for Women Candidates at
Different Levels and Types of Office." Political Research Quarterly 46 (1993): 503-525.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. New York: Oxford UP,
1995.
Jay, Peter A. "Mikulski's Mugging and the Logic of Crime." Letter. Sun 5 Nov. 1995: 3F.
Kaminer, Wendy. "Crashing the Locker Room." Atlantic Monthly July 1992: 59-70.
Kenworthy, Tom. "Feisty Mikulski Flexes for Fifth Term." Washington Post 22 Oct. 1984: B1, B4.

220 Robson
 —. "Mikulski Returns to Her Roots for Rousing Victory Celebration." Washington Post 5 Nov.
1986: A41.
Kimelman, Donald. "Mikulski Builds Base among Third's Elderly." Sun 29 Mar. 1976: n. pag.
—. "Mikulski Takes It Easy in Third District Race." Sun 26 Oct. 1976: C1, C3.
Kramarae, Cheris. "Perceptions of Female and Male Speech." Language and Speech 20 (1977):
151-161.
—. "Stereotypes of Women's Speech: The Word from Cartoons." Journal of Popular Culture 8
(1974): 624-630.
—. Women and Men Speaking: Frameworks for Analysis. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1981.
LeDuc, Daniel. "A Confident Mikulski Seeks 3rd Senate Term." Washington Post 7 Apr. 1998: A8.
Leuptow, Lloyd B., Lori Garovich, and Margaret B. Leuptow. "The Persistence of Gender Stereo-
types in the Face of Changing Sex Roles: Evidence Contrary to the Sociocultural Model."
Ethology and Sociobiology 16 (1995): 509-530.
Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. New York: Free Press, 1965.
Mandel, Ruth B. In the Running: The New Woman Candidate. Boston: Beacon P, 1981.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

McCarthy, Colman. "Stick-Shift Populist." Editorial. Washington Post 5 Apr. 1986: A23.
McLellan, Welford L. "Coalition Uniting the Silent Majority for Southeast Section's Betterment."
Sun 14 Apr. 1971: n. pag.
Mikulski, Barbara. "Can Women in the Senate Make a Difference? You Bet!" Los Angeles Times
26 June 1993: B7.
Mikulski, Barbara, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray,
Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mary Landrieu, Blanche L. Lincoln, and Catherine Whitney.
Nine and Counting: The Women of the Senate. New York: William Morrow, 2000.
"Mikulski, Culotta Exchange Mutual Contempt in TV Debate." Sun 15 Oct. 1976: Cl, C2.
"Miss Mikulski Is at Her Best Person-to-Person." Sun 30 Oct. 1974: n. pag.
National Women's Political Caucus Fact Sheet, 1999.
Olesker, Michael. "Chavez Choosing Wrong Issues for Mikulski Assault." Sun 2 Oct. 1986: Cl.
Ollove, Michael. "Ministers Endorse Cardin, Mfume, Mikulski, Castigate Crosse, Chavez." Sun
14 Oct. 1986: 2D.
—. "Polish Neighbors Cheer Mikulski as One of Them." Sun 5 Nov. 1986: A1.
O'Rourke, Kerry. "Mikulski Pays Visit, Hears Local Concerns." Sun 10 Feb. 1993: 5B.
Robson, Deborah C. "Is Crime Debatable? Congresswomen Debate the Crime Issue." Women
Confront the Crime Issue. ECA Convention. Westin William Penn Hotel, Pittsburgh. 29 Apr.
1995.
—. "The Rhetorical Construction of Political Identity: A Case Study of Senator Barbara Mikulski."
Diss. U. of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1995.
--. "'To Make the World Look Better Up Close': Congresswomen and the Gulf War Debate."
Women's Talk on a Changing Political Landscape. ECA Convention. Portland, ME. 2 May
1992.
Rosenkrantz, Paul, Susan Vogel, Helen Bee, Inge Broverman, and Donald M. Broverman. "Sex-
Role Stereotypes and Self-Concepts in College Students." Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology 32 (1968): 287-295.
"She Represents Her Constituency." Affiliate Sept. 1979: n. pag.
Shepnick, Phillippe. "Senator Barbara Mikulski." The Hill 9 Sept. 1998: 35.
Sia, Richard H.P. "Chavez Lags in All Areas." Sun 2 Nov. 1986: A1.
—. "The Senate Race: A Review of the Issues." Sun 24 Aug. 1986: E1
Smith, C. Fraser. "Mikulski Pledges to Continue Fight for Cities and Change." Sun 7 June 1992:
6D

Stereotypes and the Female Politician 221

 Walker, Leslie, and Thomas W. Waldron. "Mikulski Frustrates Her Rivals." Sun 4 Sept. 1986: A1.
—. "Mikulski Sings Merrily as Foe Tunes Up Attack." Sun 12 Sept. 1986: A1, A12.
Werner, Paul D., and Georgina Williams LaRussa. "Persistence and Change in Sex-Role Stereo-
types." Sex Roles 12 (1985): 1089-1100.
Witt, Linda, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews. Running as a Woman: Gender and Power in
American Politics. New York: Free P, 1994.
Wood, Julia T. Communication Mosaics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1999.
Downloaded by [McMaster University] at 11:21 14 October 2014

222 Robson