News

When Sarah Palin and Joe Biden face off tonight on the debate stage, they're likely to stick closely to their parties' platforms on all the major issues. But, according to new research, they may be swapping a little bit of gender behaviour.

A study in the October issue of the journal Communication Studies, co-authored by Mitchell McKinney, of the University of Missouri-Columbia, argues that a new pattern of behaviour is emerging in mixed-gender political debates, in which each sex adopts the traditional approach of the other.

The received wisdom suggests that the male style is more aggressive and uses interrogation, as opposed to the more intimate and relational approach ascribed to women.

But after a detailed examination of four televised debates during the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races in 2000 and 2002, Prof. McKinney and Mary Banwart of the University of Kansas found that female candidates issued personal attacks 58 per cent of the time, whereas male candidates attacked 45 per cent of the time.

For women, "the directive was to be as forceful and aggressive as possible and give no sign of weakness," Prof. McKinney says. The directive for male candidates was to be careful and to not look as though they were being unkind to their opponent.

Those who study gender relations in politics say the research taps into previous work on how female candidates are "forced, or feel forced, to adopt a more masculine style," says Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant, an assistant professor of political studies at Queen's University. "But it's interesting that it's working both ways."

The study also found that women were more apt to raise issues traditionally associated with male candidates, such as foreign policy and crime, while men were keen to discuss health and family issues.

Erin Fitzgerald of the Hart House Debating Club at the University of Toronto, says that even when it comes to which substantive issues to raise, it's all about strategy.

"They want to show they're well-rounded candidates, [that] even though they're debating someone with perceived strengths, [they want to show] they can outdo them in that way."

It's a strategy that yields mixed dividends for women, experts say. In Canada, Kim Campbell and Sheila Copps faced scrutiny for their forceful styles in Parliament. According to Prof. Goodyear-Grant, Ms. Campbell has said her political style "wasn't her natural way of being in the world. That you lose part of yourself when you go into politics as a woman."

Hillary Clinton drew criticism for both her hawkish foreign policy and her stereotypically female teary moment in New Hampshire.

Sarah Palin is juggling her aggressive political style with a family-first background.

"That's the reality they are faced with. They can fight stereotypes till they're blue in the face, but their goal is to get elected," Prof. Goodyear-Grant says.

Men don't always fare well in the gender swirl, either. When Ms. Clinton was debating incumbent Rick Lazio during the Senate race of 2000, Mr. Lazio made a power move, walking a no-new-tax pledge over to her to sign on the spot. Focus groups recoiled, he took a hit in polls and eventually he lost.

The danger here, says Prof. Goodyear-Grant, is that this reaction is based on old-fashioned ideas of chivalry, "which is then playing into another feminine stereotype that women can't hold their own against a male opponent."

In tonight's vice-presidential debate, Dr. McKinney says, he won't be surprised if the candidates echo his results. Ms. Palin will probably use aggressive tactics. Mr. Biden will be gentlemanly and relinquish having the last word.

Ms. Palin's challenge, says Prof. McKinney, will be adopting stereotypically male issues to champion - especially foreign affairs, which has not been her strong point thus far. "So therefore it would be smart strategy for her to carve out different areas of expertise."