User:Naomil07/War on women

Potential negative consequences of the term
While the "war on women" rhetoric has been used to target Republican party attacks on women's rights, particularly on issues of reproductive health, research has shown some potential negative impacts of the Democratic party using this terminology. A Cambridge Core study published in 2017 by scholars Simas and Bumgardner found that the use of this rhetoric may steer male voters, particularly liberals who would usually vote for the Democratic party, away from the Democratic party. A 2015 Fordham University study by scholars Deckman and McTague finds a growth in the gender gap from 7 percentage points in 2008 to 10 between Obama and Romney in 2012. Though it could be theorized that this growing gender gap can be attributed to an increasing female support due to the inclusion of women's issues in Obama's campaign, this is in fact incorrect. In actuality, Obama's male vote decreased from 49% in 2008 to 45% in 2012. The Cambridge Core study attributed this decrease to sexist men who embody a concept called "modern sexism," a version of sexism similar to neosexism that focuses on a belief that sex discrimination no longer exists and, as a result, women should receive no special favors or advantages. As the Encyclopedia of Group Processes and Intergroup Relations puts it," Modern sexism manifests itself in terms of downplaying the existence of discrimination against women and resentment of complaints about sexism and efforts to assist women." This compares to a more traditional form of sexism which is focused on gender roles and the exclusion of women from the public sphere. Simas and Bumgardner theorize that Obama's focus on women's issues drove away male voters who were modern sexists and thus found this focus on women's issues to be futile and unfair. In their study, they find that modern sexism significantly increases the likelihood that men vote for Romney. On the other hand, these results do not hold for female voters. These results imply that the use of rhetoric such as the "war on women" narrative which emphasizes women's rights as a salient political category may harm the Democratic party by pushing away Democratically aligned voters who do not prioritize or believe in women's rights as requiring special attention.

Potential positive consequences of the term
Though some research has shown a negative impact of the adoption of the term "war on women," some research has shown potential positive consequences of the political and public attention that terms like "war on women" bring to issues. One study by Katherine McCabe found that when abortion becomes a salient political topic, voters revert back to their pre-existing beliefs on abortion more so than when it is less salient. This contradicts former scholarship showing that voters tend to side with the issue preferences of their party, especially in recent years. This finding may serve as emphasis for the importance of terms like the "war on women" which bring more public attention and salience to issues like abortion, potentially causing more people to vote in line with their beliefs rather than their party's beliefs.

2012 presidential candidates
The "war on women" narrative was particularly salient in the 2012 presidential election because Obama's campaign largely targeted female voters and attempted to spread the narrative that the Republican party and Mitt Romney were out of touch with women's issues. A 2015 Fordham University study by Deckman and McTague studied the effects of the "war on women" narrative and vote choice in the 2012 election with respect to two issues: birth control insurance coverage and abortion attitudes. They found that voters, but particularly women, who supported the Obama administration's birth control mandate were far more likely to vote for Obama than those who didn't. However, abortion attitudes were found not to be a strong predictor of vote choice in this election. This disparity was characterized largely due to a difference in conceptualization of the issues. While abortion was seen more as a moral/cultural issue, the birth control mandate was viewed more as an economic and social welfare issue. Due to these differences, it is difficult to tell whether the "war on women" narrative played a positive or negative role in women's vote choice in the 2012 presidential election.

2014 Democratic candidates
Despite the power of the "war on women" rhetoric in 2012 presidential and congressional elections, the 2014 election cycle saw far less deployment of the term by Democratic candidates. After the 2012 presidential elections experienced the largest gender gap in partisanship based on voting since Gallup began tracking presidential voting behavior in 1952, the Republican party felt the pressure to regain its female voting contingent for the 2014 elections. Many efforts were taken to bring women back to the Republican party and reduce the public perception at that time that the Republican party didn't address women's issues. For one, the Republican party took considerable efforts to dismantle the use of "the war on women" narrative by attempting to show female voters that they did care about women's issues and to highlight instances when the Democratic party demonstrated "anti-woman" behavior. Furthermore, the Republican party attempted to re-attract female voters by taking a pro-birth control pill stance, telling voters that they supported birth control pill access over the counter, 24-7. This move was found to be particularly wise by sociology scholar Deana Rohlinger because it "balances religious freedom and women's rights," protecting Republicans' relationship to their religious and socially conservative constituents by continuing to support workplaces in their right to deny birth control access on the basis of religious freedom, but still allowing birth control to be accessible to those who need it. Though these efforts did not close the gender partisan gap in the 2014 elections, they did diminish Democratic candidates use of the the "war on women" rhetoric by highlighting Democratic hypocrisy at times and showcasing Republican efforts to support women's issues.