Women in Politics: How Can it Make a Difference?

I was asked by a man the other day why I believe it is important for more women to get involved in politics.

He was reacting to comments I had made about the need for a different approach in politics – the “kinder, gentler” collaborative/connective approach of a positive politics — and the need for women’s involvement for this to really happen.

“Why are you being biased toward women?”, he wanted to know. “Isn’t that exclusionary and contrary to what you say is needed? Why wouldn’t you advocate for bringing more individuals with this viewpoint to politics — no matter what gender they are? Don’t you think you’re just being ‘tribal’?”

And I acknowledged that he’s right. We do need both men and women who are willing and able to work in new ways.

And he’s wrong. We do need more women for it to happen as naturally and quickly as possible. And that’s not just me saying that as a member of the female “tribe”.

Let’s take a look at why….

Working in politics is stressful, I don’t think anyone will deny that. The issues are stressful, the different needs of stakeholders are stressful, the political environment and constant strategizing are stressful.

And the way we respond to stress has an impact on not just ourselves, but on the systems we live and work in.

So how do we respond to stress?

Most people are familiar with the idea of the “fight-or-flight” stress response. (It’s actually a fight, flight, or freeze reaction, but that’s for another article…) The fight-or-flight stress model describes a hard-wired response going way back in our evolutionary history. We either run from the threat or stand our ground and fight our way to safety. The hard wiring of the reactions are the result of interactions between our nervous system and our hormones. The sympathetic nervous system kicks into high gear when we are threatened. It is responsible for the immediate release of two hormones: adrenaline and noradrenaline (also known as epinephrine and norepinephrine). In addition, the brain is an active player. When we encounter a stressful situation, or even anticipate one, the brain starts to release a number of other hormones that support the stress response over several hours or even longer. All of this activity is intended to help the body react in a such a way as to support the kinds of things we need to do to fight or flight (or freeze). I’m not going to go into the specifics any more than this, because it’s not necessary in order to make my point.

So what does this stress and hormone stuff have to do with women in politics?

Think hormones.

This tidy picture of how the body responds to stress is created from studies of men. Women were only 17% of research participants of stress studies since researchers were worried that their monthly hormone cycles would mess up their analyses.

And they were right. Looking at how women respond to stress does change the picture considerably.

In 2000, Dr. Shelley Taylor and her co-investigators published a paper that looked at how women respond to stress. Perhaps not surprisingly given that women have a different mix and balance of hormones, “fight-and-flight” was not the best description of women’s stress response. Instead, women show a stress response pattern Dr. Taylor called “tend-and-befriend”, which was associated with women’s higher levels of the hormone oxytocin.

The tend-and-befriend model of responding to stress creates different patterns of behaving than fight-or-flight. Rather than the aggressive and physical reactions associated with the men studied in earlier investigations, women are more likely to increase their “tending” attention to more vulnerable people around them and to “befriend” others around them, creating support networks.

So now, I’m thinking that my point should be coming clear.

If we want to create a more collaborative, more connected system of politics, one that focuses on creating networks and working collaboratively, we are going to be in for some stressful change. If our political system is primarily represented by men, that stress will tend to lead to either more “fighting” for position (read: safety and survival) or a backing-down — “flight”– to authority and peer pressure.

If women are involved in the change — in large enough numbers to be creating supportive networks — we can anticipate that the stress of change will actually result in more “befriending” (read: collaboration and connection) and “tending” of individuals who are being threatened by habits and attitudes of the older system.

So, to go back to the question I was asked about whether I was just being “tribal”and whether it isn’t more important to select individuals with the characteristics a different kind of politics would need rather than women per se…

Yes and No.

Of course, some men respond to stress in different ways — more like the tend-and-befriend model. But if they are surrounded by other men, they aren’t likely to be able to sustain that approach and they won’t make as much as headway with others looking to “befriend” them as well. And some women have learned to cope with male environments by “fighting or fleeing” (or freezing), but women on the whole are more likely to start looking for support and connections when stressed, so they have a head-start.

Since a healthier political system requires more collaboration and more use of a connective leadership model, it would seem that having more women involved in the system will move us there more easily and more naturally.

I’m not being tribal….it’s in the hormones…and in this, women have the easier time.

To read more about the different stress responses of women and men, try:

Evolutionary and Biochemical Explanations for a Unique Female Stress Response: Tend-and-Befriend - Lauren A. McCarthy
Conclusion: (with comments following this main article)

The male fight-or-flight response is inherently different from the female tend-and-befriend response. The male stress response most likely evolved as a protective measure to ensure the survival of the male. If the male was likely to overcome the threat he would fight whereas if the threat was unlikely to be overcome the male would flee. Females with the same stress response as the male model would be unable to defend themselves while caring for offspring and be unable to flee promptly since they would have to move their offspring away efficiently. Taylor et al. (2000) propose the tend-and-befriend female stress response as an evolutionary solution to this problem that would have been selected for in natural selection. Females who retained the fight-or-flight response would have decreased chances of surviving and hence decreased likelihood of their offspring survival and reproduction. The formation of female networks that would ensure the care of offspring and aid in the defense if a threat were present would have been selected for in natural selection since it would increase the likelihood of survival. Animal experimental evidence as well as human models supports Taylor et al.’s (2000) hypotheses as a feasible evolutionary and biochemical mechanism to ensure female and offspring survival.

An New Stress Paradigm for Women – American Psychological Association Monitor on Psychology

Taylor, S. E., Klein, L. C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R, & Updegraff, J. A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107, 441-429.