STEREOTYPES, SUBTYPES, AND STRATIFICATION: UNPACKING THE INFLUENCE OF GENDER AND SEXUALITY IN POLITICS

This dissertation comrpises three papers that explore the impact of gender and sexuality on public responses to political actors, such as politicians and protesters. In the first paper, I experimentally demonstrate that public audiences are less likely to tolerate protest repression when the protest features extensive participation by women. Yet, reactions to female protesters vary. Public audiences are especially averse to repression when protesters are women who emphasize patriarchy-compliant femininities, such as women who highlight their roles as mothers and wives. Patriarchy-defiant women such as feminists, on the other hand, do not benefit from the “gender shield” effect. They are perceived as equally peaceful as patriarchy-compliant women but as immoral which, in turn, makes it easier for public audiences to stomach repression against them. In the second dissertation paper, I explore two key biases underpinning heteronormativity: the biases against homosexuality and against gender atypicality. Through an innovative experimental design deploying visual and audio stimuli to manipulate the sexuality and gender typicality of political candidates, I uncover persisting biases among American voters. Republicans penalize candidates both for being gay and for being gender atypical. Democrats, too, are biased against gender atypicality, a key cultural marker of gayness. I find that Democrats prefer candidates who are gay but demand that they, in a sense, look and sound “straight.” Finally, my third dissertation paper experimentally assesses the stereotypes held by American voters about gay and lesbian politicians, a specific subgroup within the broader categories of gay men and lesbian women. I find that Republicans, while viewing sexual minority candidates as similarly competent and warm as heterosexual candidates, continue to discriminate against them due to presumptions of greater ideological liberalism. This points to “statistical” rather than “taste-based” discrimination, challenging extant literature that tends to attribute Republicans’ discrimination of non-straight candidates to overt animus. Together, these papers underscore the value of considering stereotypes and of disaggregating superordinate identity categories like “man” vs. “woman” or “gay” vs. “straight” in understanding biases, discrimination, and disparate treatment of members of historically marginalized communities.