Search for Political Woman
by Jo Freeman
This article is the Prologue of Jo's book We Will Be Heard:Women's Struggles for Political Power in the United States
ago social scientists created a hypothetical construct which they called
"political man." While those who used this term probably thought
of it as a generic reference rather than sex-specific, it wasn't. If asked,
they probably would have said there was no such creature as "political
woman." In reality women's arrival as a factor in politics, in the
1880s and 1890s, coincided with the emergence of the social science disciplines,
but the social scientists simply didn't see them. To them, political woman
was neither distinct from political man, nor part of political man. She
simply didn't exist.
sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset published his book on Political Man
in 1960, he said in the Forward that a principle topic was "the factors
which affect men's participation in politics, particularly their behavior
as voters." (1963, x). But women are not mentioned at all and sex
differences only on one page, where he observes without further comment
that women in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s were more likely to vote
for the conservative or religious party than were men. That same year
(1960) the Democratic National Committee issued a short pamphlet on the
"History of Democratic Women" (prepared by the Democratic Congressional
Wives Forum); both the New York Times Magazine and the Saturday
Evening Post published articles on the woman voter, (Hastings 1960;
Shalett, 1960), Perle Mesta, who had been a major contributor to both
parties and Minister to Luxembourg under Truman, published My Story,
Maude Wood Park published her lengthy inside story of how women won the
19th Amendment, and John Talmadge published a book-length biography of
the first woman appointed to the U.S. Senate. Rebecca Latimer Felton had
been a major factor in Georgia politics for several decades though she
was only Senator for a day. While this isn't much for one year, especially
a Presidential election year, it does illustrate that at least some people
knew women were working in politics and had been for some time, but they
weren't social scientists.
like to think that political scientists, especially those that studied
voting behavior, were a little more aware of "political woman"
than political sociologists such as Lipset. But, as documented by Flammang
(1997) and Nelson (1989), they weren't. Although a gender gap of five
to six percent had appeared in the elections of 1952 and 1956, leading
Republican women to crow that "Women Elected Ike," (Priest 1953,
Shelton 1955, RNC 1962) political scientists barely noticed.
mainstream press did not completely ignore women. Newsweek covered
"Women in National Politics" in 1955. In 1956 the New York
Times sent reporters into several states to find out why women favored
Eisenhower. In 1958 U.S. News and World Report published a cover
story on "What Women Do in Politics," and in 1960 it asked "Will
Women Decide the Election?" In the 1950s political campaigns were
labor intensive, and women were 80 to 90 percent of that labor. But political
scientists had nothing to say about women in politics.
1968, when I started graduate school in Political Science at the University
of Chicago, I didn't expect to find a course on women and politics. The
women's liberation movement had just emerged and was not yet public. The
National Organization for Women (NOW) was founded in 1966. The small groups
of what I later called the younger branch of the movement were just appearing.
I had helped start one of them in Chicago in 1967 and was one of thirty
women from five states to go to our first national gathering in August
1968. I knew we were doing something new. But I also knew we were doing
something old because we were not the first women to protest our lowly
status. I entered grad school hoping to find out something about my predecessors.
While I didn't expect to find that political science had much to say about
women, I did expect something. I found virtually nothing.
same year, free lance writer Peggy Lamson published a book of biographies
of ten political women, aptly titled Few Are Chosen, and political
scientist Martin Gruberg published the first book-length study of Women
in American Politics. Born in 1935 and raised in the Bronx, Gruberg
stumbled into this topic from a background in public law. On completing
his dissertation at Columbia University in 1963, he started teaching in
Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Needing a book to get tenure, he looked around for
a hole crying to be filled. Gruberg saw women as a minority group in politics
that had been largely ignored. Encouraged by his academic advisors and
by two women he met at a March 1964 conference on getting women into politics
(who would help found NOW in 1966) held in Madison, Wisconsin, he collected
data eclectically. At the 1964 national nominating conventions he interviewed
whomever he could find willing to talk about women in politics. Although
he had no outside financing, Gruberg traveled to New York City and to
party headquarters in Washington, D.C. to do more interviews and visited
the Schlesinger Library in Boston. He picked up some basic pamphlets from
the national committees and found a few articles in the popular press,
but little scholarship. He couldn't synthesize the scholarly literature
because there wasn't any to synthesize. What he found out about political
woman came from anecdotes, newspaper clippings, booklets, and a few statistics.
Persuading a publisher to tackle a new topic was also difficult. "Women"
had a niche in the popular press, but scholars did not take it seriously.
went to both party conventions as well -- to picket and vigil for civil
rights. I was about to begin my senior year at Berkeley, and had been
working for Democratic Party candidates since 1952. To give you some idea
of how remote "women in politics" was from public consciousness,
the only thing Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith's campaign for President
meant to me was that she put out a unique oval pin with a rose on it.
I was totally oblivious to the fact that she was the first woman to actively
campaign for a major party nomination for President, and so was everyone
else I encountered at those conventions.
the 1968 Democratic convention (conveniently held in Chicago) I was a
budding feminist and no longer oblivious, but I neither met nor saw anyone
I recognized as a political woman. Berkeley political scientist Aaron
Wildavsky came to Chicago to study delegate decision making, in expectation
of a contested convention. As one of several students he hired to do interviews,
and the only one with convention press credentials, I talked to a lot
of people that week. No one -- not political scientists, students, delegates,
the press or protestors -- had one word to say about women; nor did I
see any programs, posters, or panels on women's rights or women in politics.
fact, women were making noise that year, but were drowned out by all the
other protests going on. Sen. Eugene McCarthy (D. MN) had challenged President
Johnson in the Democratic primaries. While his focus was the War in Vietnam,
as the chief Senate sponsor of the Equal Rights Amendment, he made statements
for it part of his campaign. In fact, all of the candidates running in
both major party primaries in 1968 (except Robert Kennedy) supported the
ERA, though the others said little. Representatives from NOW and from
the National Woman's Party (NWP) testified in favor of an ERA plank before
the Platform Committees of both parties, but the final documents had somewhere
between little and nothing on anything to do with women, let alone the
places were prescient. In my home state of California, the Democratic
Party added a very strong plank on women's rights to its 1968 state party
platform. Very little notice was taken of any of these. The revolution
was coming, but no one knew it.
began my own search for political woman in order to write a term paper
for a course on public policy at the University taught by Theodore Lowi,
who was also my academic advisor. While he encouraged me to pursue the
topic, the only help he could give me was a copy of Gruberg's book after
I told him about it. Entering grad students were encouraged to do library
research rather than original research, but I found nothing there. In
the Law Library I found some law review articles on women and the law,
which Leo Kanowitz aptly called "The Unfinished Revolution."
Apart from Kanowitz, most dated from the 1920s and 1930s. There were a
few recent pieces, enough to cobble into a suitable term paper, but "women
and the law" was not about "political woman."
articles in Gruberg's bibliography specifically on political women were
in popular magazines like the Ladies' Home Journal and Woman's
Home Companion, and most were written years ago. Decades later I would
learn that women's magazines and the women's pages in newspapers were
where information on women in politics was to be found. But they did not
grace the shelves of the University of Chicago library, and if I had found
and cited them in a term paper, my work would have been dismissed as trivial.
met my first political woman in the archives of the University, where
she had been buried for many years. Inspired by an undergraduate sit-in
during the Winter 1969 quarter to protest the firing of Sociologist Marlene
Dixon, I wanted to know just how many women had held faculty positions
in that department. My quest led me to a small room where the course catalogs
were stored. I spent a week reading and taking notes from every catalog
put out since the University was founded in 1892. Finding too few women
in Sociology to count, I expanded my search to six Departments. It was
in these catalogs that I discovered Sophonisba Preston Breckinridge. After
tracing her career, I returned to the library, where I discovered entries
on her books occupied 3/4 of an inch in the card catalog. I also found
an ancient historian, Bessie Pierce, who knew her before her death in
1948. Pierce was the only one I found on the campus in 1969 who had ever
heard of Sophonisba Preston Breckinridge, even though she had been a prominent
and distinguished professor at the University for many decades.
more I learned about Breckinridge the more she became my model of a political
woman, the one whose path I would have followed if fate had been so kind.
What appealed to me was how she combined scholarship with activism in pursuit
of public policy to better the lives of everyone, but especially women.
Born in 1866 into a distinguished Kentucky political family, she was the
first woman to be admitted to the Kentucky Bar and practice law. In the
mid-1890s she moved to Chicago where she received a joint Ph.D. in the Departments
of Political Science and Economics in 1901. She promptly entered the Law
School, getting her J.D. in 1904. Armed with three doctorates, she became
an instructor at the University, in the Department of Household Administration.
This was the "women's studies" department of its day; here Breckinridge
taught courses on the legal and economic position of women.
her career would be characterized as one in social work education. She helped
pioneer that profession, arranging for the University to adopt what became
the School of Social Service Administration in 1920. But she was a political
woman -- working in the Progressive Movement through such organizations
as the Women's Trade Union League to write laws she felt would benefit women,
serving as Vice President of the National American Woman's Suffrage Association
and campaigning for the Progressive Party in the election of 1912. As a
social scientist, she did extensive field research, making observations
and taking detailed notes on how people lived and worked. She did not gather
these facts for their own sake, but so that government could better tend
to the needs of people. To Breckinridge, knowledge needed to be useful,
and action needed to be informed.
the Depression began, President Herbert Hoover named a Research Committee
on Social Trends to provide scientific information on the problems now confronting
the country. Breckinridge was commissioned to write a monograph on women,
financed by the Rockefeller Foundation. Published in 1933 as Women in
the Twentieth Century: A Study of Their Political, Social and Economic Activities,
roughly one-third of its 364 pages are on "Women and Government."
Surveying women as voters, lobbyists, party workers and office holders,
it was the first comprehensive study of women in politics. She concluded
that women had made great strides in organizing voluntary associations,
and through them could affect some public policy, but the formal institutions
of government and the parties had opened the door to women only a little
(Breckinridge, 1933, 288).
U.C. sit-in created much interest in the status of women. I gave four lectures
on my archival findings at rallies, seminars and colloquia that quarter.
I also wrote a pamphlet using data from the Handbook on Women Workers
which was widely distributed, and published an article in The Nation
on "The New Feminists." As a result quite a few students asked
me to teach a course on women in the Spring quarter. Of course, the course
was non-credit and I was not paid, but so what else is new? To get a room
on campus I needed a faculty sponsor. All the left-leaning men and every
woman faculty member I asked turned me down. Finally, Don Scott, a very
junior history professor in the undergraduate college, agreed to "front"
the course. He made copies of the syllabus and some of the readings for
us and gave independent study credit to any student who needed it even though
he had to read term papers to do this. U.C. didn't give him tenure, and
probably didn't even give him credit for this extra work. The "Sophonisba
Preston Breckinridge Memorial Course on the Legal and Economic Position
of Women -- (formerly H.A. 21)" included material on public policy
issues of relevance to women, such as Title VII and the ERA, but women's
political work was notable by its absence.
was left out of my course because Gruberg's book only existed in hardcover,
was not in the library, and I couldn't find anything else for my "students"
to read. What I needed was a current version of the 90 page paper on "The
Political Role of Women in the United States" written by Louise Young
in 1952 for UNESCO. At the request of the UN's Commission on the Status
of Women, UNESCO asked the International Political Science Association to
conduct a survey of member nations on women in political life. IPSA asked
the League of Women Voters to prepare the US report, and it asked Louise
Young to do so, pro bono. An active League member, Young had published a
small book on Understanding Politics: A Practical Guide for Women
in 1950. She reported later that "American political scientists were
either indifferent or regarded the survey as of no importance and none offered
to help." (oral history, 1982, 116)
countries submitted reports -- four written by women. Several of these were
presented at a conference held at The Hague on September 8-12, 1952. Louise
Young borrowed money from her father to attend the conference and present
the US report. Surveys from four countries became the basis of a short book
written by Maurice Duverger on The Political Role of Women. Norway,
West Germany, France and Yugoslavia were chosen because they had the best
data. Young's report became a pamphlet distributed overseas by the US Information
Agency. However, I did not know about this pamphlet in 1969, and despite
some serious searching, I've never seen a copy.
Young was one of the few scholars looking at political women who bridged
the gap between Breckinridge and Gruberg, but she did her work largely as
a labor of love. Born in Ohio in 1903, she came of age with the Suffrage
Movement in a family that followed politics closely. She always remembered
the excitement of the 1912 election. Following her husband to the University
of Pennsylvania in 1925, she did graduate work in English. Her 1939 Ph.D.
did not bring paid employment. In the 1930s and 1940s married women were
not expected to work, especially while raising their children. They were
hired for professional jobs, even teaching, only when men or single women
were not available. It was the League of Women Voters, which she joined
as a suburban Philadelphia housewife in the 1940s, that became the base
for her scholarly as well as public activity for the rest of her life.
the family moved to Washington D.C. in 1946 Young combined raising three
children, scholarly research and volunteer work. Her research was facilitated
by a cubicle in the Library of Congress from which she catalogued and archived
the League's papers for the Library, edited a special volume of the Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science on "women's
opportunities and responsibilities" (May 1947), and collected information
on the history of women in politics. She did all this, she later said, in
the "interstices" of her life (oral history, 1982, 89). In 1953
the President of American University, the husband of a childhood friend,
asked her to teach part time to help alleviate the shortage of Ph.D.s on
the faculty. She became a full time faculty member in 1955 and taught until
1967 Young was invited to prepare a major history of the League of Women
Voters to commemorate its 50th anniversary in 1970. This project took more
time than she expected, and by the time it was finished in 1973, both the
publisher and the League had lost interest. It was put on the back burner
for another decade, until finally published in 1989 as In the Public
Interest: The League of Women Voters, 1920-1970. Young learned from
her study of League history what Breckinridge had concluded in 1933 -- that
women influenced public policy through voluntary associations rather than
by electing sympathetic individuals to office. While women were politically
active everywhere as individuals, only when organized as women were they
anniversary Young missed -- 1970 -- was the take-off point of the new feminist
movement. That was the year all the major media "discovered" women's
liberation and did major news stories about it. When NOW held its march
down New York City's Fifth Avenue on August 26 to commemorate the 50th anniversary
of the 19th Amendment, the world witnessed an uprising of American women.
Political Science, which had successfully ignored women for so long, had
to pay attention. Although women were less than ten percent of the profession
(how much less depends on what is measured), in 1969 an official Committee
on the Status of Women was appointed and an unofficial women's caucus organized
to press for equal opportunity for women in the discipline. While neither
of these groups had the study of political woman on its agenda, panels on
women soon proliferated at the annual meetings of both national and regional
associations. Jane Jaquette gathered many of these papers into an anthology
on Women in Politics, published in hardcover in 1974. Marianne Githens
and Jewel L. Prestage brought out another paperback collection in 1977.
Its title -- A Portrait of Marginality -- summarized its message:
five of its 24 chapters were specifically on black women in politics.
causal connection was very clear. The new feminist movement attracted press
attention, media coverage created scholarly interest across disciplines
in what women were doing, convention organizers looked for panels that would
bring audiences, and scholars responded by writing papers. In effect, demand
created supply. It wasn't the curiosity of scholars or the availability
of research that legitimated the search for political woman; it was trendiness.
Soon journals were looking for special editions and publishers were looking
for books on this hot, new topic. In 1967, Martin Gruberg found little interest
by publishers in his book. By 1972, publishers were writing me, a
mere graduate student (albeit well-published), asking if I had a book in
hand. In that period of emerging interest in women and resulting high demand,
I found it easier to write for publication than to write term papers.
others rode this wave, to judge by the sudden profusion of articles on women,
feminism and related topics to appear first in the popular press and then
in scholarly journals. Louise Young was asked by the Journal of Politics
to contribute an article on women to commemorate the bicentennial (1976).
She had on hand enough pages for a book on two hundred years of women's
involvement in American politics, which she compressed into 9,000 words.
The full manuscript was never published, but articles and books by others
elaborating on what Young said in 1976 have been appearing ever since.
as well as individuals joined the search for political woman. In 1971 the
Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University, established in 1956
with a small endowment from suffragist Florence Peshine Eagleton, secured
$50,000 from the Ford Foundation to create a Center for the American Woman
and Politics (CAWP). It opened in July with Ruth Mandel, another English
Ph.D., and Ida Schmertz, an ABD in Russian Studies, as co-directors. Since
Eagleton's primary focus is on state politics, CAWPs first major project
was a conference of women as one of several meetings of "up-and-coming"
state legislators. Of the 344 women then in this office, the LWV, BPW and
the AAUW nominated two each from 25 states, who were perceived as influential.
The Carnegie Corporation provided $15,000 to bring them to a Pennsylvania
retreat for three days in May, 1972.
and Schmertz thought this was a marvelous opportunity to learn who these
women were and what it was like to be a political woman. After Basic Books
expressed interest in publishing something broader than a conference report,
they invited Jeane Kirkpatrick to design a study and obtained $71,000 from
the Carnegie Corporation to fund it. The women who came to the conference
filled out a long questionnaire and submitted to individual interviews of
two to three hours. This information and transcripts from the discussions
were turned over to Kirkpatrick for assessment and analysis. The result
was her 1974 book Political Woman. Her "most important finding
... [was] that political woman exists." But she recognized that "[f]or
women to achieve de facto political equality,... both a cultural and a social
revolution is required." (Political Woman, 1974, 217, 244).
was the ideal person for this job. One of only a handful of women to hold
the rank of full professor in a Ph.D. granting Department of Political Science,
she was well-connected in the discipline, well-respected and personally
interested in the position of women, especially as political actors. Born
Jeane Duane Jordan in 1926 in Oklahoma, she too came from a family with
strong political interests. Her childhood in Oklahoma, Illinois and Missouri
led her to New York, where she completed her B.A. at Barnard in 1948 and
her M.A. at Columbia in 1950. After working for a few years, she married
Dr. Evron M. Kirkpatrick, the new Executive Director of the American Political
Science Association. Like Louise Young, she devoted the next few years to
raising their three sons while continuing with her research and writing
in Washington, D.C. She finished her Ph.D. at Columbia in 1968 and was promoted
to full professor at Georgetown University in 1973. As a political scientist,
her training was in political theory and comparative government, but when
she met Harold Lasswell she became very interested in behaviorism. She thought
women were a distinctive group, and was puzzled why they did not have a
distinct political behavior. The CAWP study provided a welcome opportunity
to answer some of her questions.
own search for political woman began well before CAWP tapped her to author
its study of state legislators. In August of 1970 Warren Miller, Director
of the Center for Political Studies at the University of Michigan, brought
together a group to design a study of delegates to the 1972 national nominating
conventions. Kirkpatrick was invited in because they wanted to compare men
and women delegates. Traditionally, women were only 12 to 15 percent of
the delegates to the Democratic Party convention, and 15 to 18 percent of
Republican delegates. However, in response to its tumultuous 1968 convention,
the Democrats were revising their delegate selection rules. Guidelines were
proposed that required minorities, youth and women be represented in each
state's delegation "in reasonable relationship to their presence in
the population of the state." Women's presence in the 1972 convention
seemed likely to increase significantly. Although the Republicans were not
considering a similar requirement, spillover from the Democratic efforts
and new consciousness by women was having an effect. The investigators felt
that women would be numerous enough to examine as a class, and not as "idiosyncratic
individuals." Furthermore, women delegates could be matched with an
equivalent sample of men.
backlash caused many casualties among pioneer scholars, especially those
who did not have tenure. While Gruberg got tenure in 1968, I don't know
of any woman whose primary research was on women in politics who got tenure
in a Department of Political Science before the mid 1980s. Those who did
publish on women were told to leave it off of their resumes when coming
up for review. Others joined shaky women's studies programs just making
their appearance on the academic scene, or held joint appointments. Many
downgraded their aspirations to junior colleges, or full time adjuncting,
or did something else.
established political scientists did not foresee that the trendy topic of
the early 1970s would become a scarlet letter by the mid 1970s. In 1972
both Ted Lowi and Aaron Wildavsky encouraged me to write my dissertation
on the new feminist movement; neither expressed concern that this might
adversely affect my job prospects. In 1975 I published two books on women.
One quickly became the leading introductory women's studies textbook. The
other -- the published version of my 1973 dissertation -- won a $1,000 prize
as the Best Scholarly Work on Women in Politics, given that year by the
American Political Science Association to commemorate International Women's
Year. My last academic job offer was in 1974. I received two one-year fellowships
in Washington, D.C., but the gates to academe were locked and I could not
find a key. Before I gave up and went to law school in 1979, I probably
applied for every job in American government advertised in the APSA personnel
newsletter. The feedback I received, second or third hand, was that "we
don't need anyone to teach women and politics." Of course, I never
taught such a course; I taught basic American government. But I wrote about
women and politics.
soon got out that "women" was no longer "in". When I
guest lectured at universities and at political science meetings, graduate
students told me that their advisors told them not to write their dissertations
on political women, and particularly not on feminism; it was too risky.
Writing about political women paused for about a decade before picking up
again. I too stopped researching and writing about women in politics, except
for going to the quadrennial party conventions as a journalist for feminist
publications. Not until 1986 did I once again commit time to write another
major book on women and politics. What I began that year evolved into A
Room At A Time: How Women Entered Party politics, that was only published
a year ago. Like Louise Young I did this on my own, as a labor of love,
in the interstices of my life, with a little help from my friends.
this book convinced me that academic researchers were not merely
ignorant of the presence of political women, but willfully ignorant.
Although "political woman" as a hypothetical construct did not
exist until the 1970s, political women as active participants in elections
and influencers of public policy had been quite common for at least a century.
Party women, as a specific type of politically active woman, emerged in
numbers worthy of note in the 1880s, and were extensively described and
commented on in 1890s newspapers. Women were a major component of the Progressive
Movement in the early 20th century, and not just in organizations devoted
to women's issues. Women expanded the definition of politics and contributed
enormously to the creation of interest groups as major players in the political
process. Women particularly utilized this avenue to influence public policy
because the parties made it clear that they wanted women's labor, but not
their ideas. Nonetheless, many women organized their own party clubs and
spent their time electing "good men" to public office, sometimes
making a crucial difference in who won.
discovered that the common wisdom that "feminism failed" after
suffrage, because women did not vote as a bloc to reform the political system,
was a myth. Suffragists never claimed that women would vote as a bloc. That
assertion was made by the opposition. Nonetheless, there was a "gender
gap" in the 1920s, with more women voting for the Republican Party,
which the Democratic Party closed in the 1930s. It reappeared in the 1950s.
Nor were women unorganized. The "Women's Lobby on Capitol Hill"
was called by the American Medical Association the "most highly organized
and powerful lobby ever seen in Washington." (Breckinridge, 1933, 259-60)
The major political parties were so afraid that women would organize to
exercise influence as women that in the years immediately following the
19th amendment they campaigned against "sex solidarity." Political
leaders denounced women's political organizations as unAmerican unless organized
within an existing political party, and demanded that political women choose
between their party and their sex. The parties worked hard to co-opt women
in order to control them, and largely succeeded. Party women were not complacent
about this but their complaints were ignored.
it may be true that history is written by the victors, and it is
true that women were not the victors in the post-Suffrage struggle for political
power, it is also true that scholars were blind to the battle. Political
women commented on it; journalists wrote about it; but most scholars missed
it almost entirely. When Roy Peel wrote his book on The Political Clubs
of New York City covering the years 1927 to 1933 he saw women's clubs
only as auxiliaries to the 1,200 regular male clubs. During those years
there were hundreds of separate women's party clubs in New York City whose
meetings and work were reported on in the newspapers. New York party women
published three magazines for several thousand readers, but Peel appears
not to have read them.
addition to the sources cited below, information for this article came
from personal conversations with Jeane Kirkpatrick, correspondence with
Martin Gruberg, and material supplied by Louise Young's son, Crawford.
I also interviewed Ruth Mandel, Director of the Eagleton Institute, Teresa
Levitin, Warren Miller's former research assistant, and was sent information
from the foundations' annual reports by Debra Brookhart, Archives Specialist
at Indiana University, Indianapolis, where the foundation archives are
Barnard, Eunice Fuller, "Madame Arrives in Politics," 226 North
American Review, November 1928, pp. 551-6.
Breckinridge, Sophonisba Preston, Women in the Twentieth Century: A
Study of Their Political, Social and Economic Activities, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1933, reprinted by Arno Press, New York, 1972.
Democratic Congressional Wives Forum (DCWF), History of Democratic
Women, 43 page pamphlet prepared under the auspices of the Democratic
National Committee, 1960.
Duverger, Maurice, The Political Role of Women, New York: UNESCO,
Flammang, Janet A., Women's Political Voice: How Women Are Transforming
the Practice and Study of Politics, Philadelphia, Pa: Temple University
Freeman, Jo, "The New Feminists", The Nation, Vol. 208,
No. 8, February 24, 1969, p. 241.
______, "Women on the Social Science Faculties Since 1892" at
the University of Chicago, in Discrimination Against Women, Hearings
before the Special Subcommittee on Education of the House Committee on
Education and Labor, on Section 805 of H.R. 16098, held in Washington,
D.C. in June and July 1970, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1971, pp. 994-1003.
______, A Room At A Time: How Women Entered Party Politics, Lanham,
Md.: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000.
Githens, Marianne, and Jewell Prestage, eds., A Portrait of Marginality:
The Political Behavior of American Women, New York: McKay 1977.
Gruberg, Martin, Women in American Politics: An Assessment and Sourcebook,
Oshkosh, Wisc.: Academia Press, 1968.
Hastings, Philip K., "Hows and Howevers of the Woman Voter,"
New York Times Magazine, June 12, 1960, pp. VI:14, 80-81.
Kirkpatrick, Jeanne, Political Woman, New York: Basic Books, 1974.
______, The New Presidential Elite, New York: Russell Sage Foundation,
"Kirkpatrick, Jeane (Duane) J(ordan)", Current Biography,
1981, pp. 255-59.
Lasch, Christopher, "Sophonisba Preston Breckinridge," I Notable
American Woman, 1971, pp. 233-6.
Jaquette, Jane S., ed., Women in Politics, New York: Wiley, 1974.
Lamson, Peggy, Few Are Chosen: American Women in Political Life Today,
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
Lipset, Seymour Martin, Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics,
New York: Doubleday, 1960.
McCormick, Anne O'Hare, "Enter Women, the New Boss of Politics,"
The New York Times Magazine, October 21, 1928, pp. 3, 23.
Mesta, Perle with Robert Cahn, Perle: My Story, New York: McGraw
Nelson, Barbara, "Women and Knowledge in Political Science: Texts,
Histories and Epistomologies," 9:2 Women and Politics, Summer
1989, pp. 1-25.
Park, Maud Wood, Front Door Lobby, Boston: Beacon Press, 1960.
Peel, Roy V., The Political Clubs of New York City, New York: Putnam's
Priest, Ivy Baker, "The Ladies Elected Ike," 76:350 American
Mercury, February 1953, pp. 23-8.
Republican National Committee, Women's Division, Win With
Womanpower, 1962, 16 page pamphlet.
Schuck, Victoria, "Some comparative statistics on women in political
science and other social sciences," P.S., Vol 3, Summer 1970,
Shalett, Sidney, "Is There a 'Women's Vote'?" 233 Saturday
Evening Post, Sept. 17, 1960, pp. 31, 78-80.
Shanley, Mary L., and Victoria Schuck, "In Search of Political Woman",
Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 55, December 1974, pp. 632-644.
Shelton, Isabelle, "Spotlight Pinpoints the Woman Voter, Though '56
Campaign Is Still Off Stage," Women's World column, The Sunday
Star, May 15, 1955, D-1.
Smith, Helena Huntington, "Weighing the Women's Vote," 151 Outlook
and Independent, January 23, 1929, pp. 126-8.
Talmadge, John E., Rebecca Latimer Felton: Nine Stormy Decades,
Athens, University of Georgia Press, 1960.
Young, Louise M. Understanding Politics: A Practical Guide for Women,
New York: Pellegrini & Cudahy, 1950.
______, In the Public Interest: The League of Women Voters, 1920-1970,
Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1989.
______, "Women's Place in American Politics: The Historical Perspective",
38:3 Journal of Politics, August 1976, pp. 300-320,
______, oral history interview with Jeanette B. Cheek, September 27, 1982,
"What Women Do in Politics," U.S. News and World Report,
December 12, 1958, cover + pp. 72-9.
"Will Women Decide the Election?" U.S. News and World Report,
October 3, 1960, pp. 61-5.
"Women in National Politics," Newsweek, May 9, 1955,