Advances in Gender Research

THE PRIVATE MOTIVATIONS OF

PUBLIC ACTION: WOMEN’S

ASSOCIATIONAL LIVES AND

POLITICAL ACTIVISM IN BRAZIL

Solange Simoes, Bruno P. W. Reis, Daniel Biagioni,

Fabrıcio M. Fialho and Natalia S. Bueno

ABSTRACT

Purpose – To analyze the factors constraining and enabling politicalactivism and associational life among women in a large metropolitan areain Brazil.

Methodology – Our survey drew a probability sample of the BeloHorizonte Metropolitan Area population, and conducted 1,122 face-to-face interviews in 2005.

Findings – Against conventional wisdom, our data showed that women’spropensity to participate in associations and engage in political activismwas significantly greater than men’s. Strikingly, this was the case not justfor the more plausible civic activism but for protest activism as well.

Implications/limitations – Although our findings can be seen asconsistent with an international trend of a ‘‘rising tide’’ of women’spolitical participation, they are still remarkable in any current

Perceiving Gender Locally, Globally, and Intersectionally

Advances in Gender Research, Volume 13, 203–239

Copyright r 2009 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 1529-2126/doi:10.1108/S1529-2126(2009)0000013012

203

dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1529-2126(2009)0000013012

dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1529-2126(2009)0000013012

comparative approach – especially for women in an emergent country.They invite further analysis to better understand what is being measuredand to allow for more informed interpretations. A countrywide survey isneeded to verify the extent to which women in our metropolitan area studyare representative of Brazilian women.

Originality/value – The theoretical model we drew on from some of themost important studies in the field of political inequality did not predictand did not explain the differences we found in participation betweengenders. In the analysis of our unexpected empirical findings we arguethat public action can be seen as relating to women’s family roles. Weshow evidence of the ways women’s position in the private sphere canconstrain as well as enable women’s presence in the public sphere.

INTRODUCTION

We all know that women are less engaged than men in public action. Bothconventional wisdom and scholarly research have established that womenare less likely than men to engage in public life, especially when it comes toparticipation in political activities or organizations. In the 1970s, SidneyVerba and colleagues, in a study of political equality in seven nations,presented empirical evidence supporting the assertion that ‘‘sex is related topolitical activity, men participate more than women’’ (Verba, Nie, & Kim,1978). A few years ago, Inglehart and Norris (2003) claimed that ‘‘acrossmost forms of political activism, the World Values Survey evidence indicatesthat a modest but consistent gender gap persists across all societies, withwomen being less active than men’’ (p. 126). It is common belief then thatwhat remains for studies of gender political equality is to explain whywomen participate less. Verba as well as Inglehart and Norris developedconvergent explanatory models with structural and cultural factorsaccounting for gender inequality in political activism.

In our own study, we set out to investigate gender political inequality in amajor metropolitan area in Brazil, replicating several of Verba’s and theWorld Values Survey’s measures and adding a new one – familycircumstances. Drawing on these theoretical models, we expected to usestructural and cultural variables to explain why women in Brazil were lessengaged in associational life and protest activism. Surprisingly, our surveydata showed that, in the Belo Horizonte metropolitan area, women’spropensity to take part in associations and engage in political activism is

SOLANGE SIMOES ET AL.204

significantly greater than men’s. Moreover and strikingly, this was the casenot just for the more plausible civic activism but for protest activism as well.

This was certainly an exciting empirical finding, but how could we explainit? After all, consistent with our theoretical assumptions, we collected datathat would allow us to explain why women participated less. Inglehart andNorris (2003) showed a rising tide in gender equality, but we found ourselveshaving to explain reverse gender political inequality.

Interestingly, the political inequality theoretical model (including struc-tural, cultural, and family circumstances factors as independent variables)did explain the expected differences we found among women and amongmen, but did not account for the unexpected reverse inequality between menand women in our survey. Confirming the theoretical model, within womenand within men, those individuals with more structural and culturalresources show higher levels of both civic and political activism. However,and contrary to expectations, women participate more than men even whenwe control for structural and cultural factors. In other words, the theoreticalmodel we drew on from some of the most important studies in the field ofpolitical inequality (Burns, Schlozman, & Verba, 2001; Inglehart & Norris,2003) did not predict and did not explain the differences we found inparticipation between the genders.

Although this finding can be seen as consistent with an international trendof a ‘‘rising tide’’ of women’s political participation, this result is stillremarkable in any current comparative approach – especially for anemergent country. Therefore, it invites further analysis to understand better,on the one hand, what is being measured and, on the other hand, to allowfor more informed interpretations. Searching for validation of suchunexpected findings we found initial reassurance in time-use research datafor Belo Horizonte (Aguiar, 2005), which showed that women spend twiceas much time as men in volunteer work and meetings (women spend 27mina day compared with 14min by men).

Still left with the challenge to explain the unexpected empirical finding inthe absence of a theoretical framework and corresponding empirical data,we engaged in brainstorming sessions and extensive data exploration. This issurely a work in progress – in fact, we are currently conducting anotherwave of the survey – and we cannot claim that we can produce a thoroughexplanation. We have found, however, very interesting as well as plausibleclues to unveiling the factors shaping women’s greater participation in thepublic sphere.

Against conventional wisdom, our analysis of the survey data of the BeloHorizonte Metropolitan Area led us to the hypothesis that family roles both

Women’s Associational Lives and Political Activism in Brazil 205

constrain and enable those Brazilian women’s engagement in public action.That is the possible explanatory factor we set out to explore in the followingsections of this chapter.

HISTORICAL/CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND AND

THEORETICAL FRAMING

Our analysis and interpretation draws on studies of women’s public activismin two different political conjunctures in the recent history of the country. Ina book titled God, Country and Family: Women in the 1964 Military Coup,Simoes (1985) shows how in the 1960s women were recruited and mobilizedas ‘‘mothers and housewives’’ to support a military coup and lead the thenlargest street demonstrations in the history of the country, the ‘‘Marches ofthe Family with God for Freedom.’’

In a few years before the coup, women’s groups in the country’s majorcities were led by wives, sisters and daughters of the business and militaryelites that articulated the 1964 military coup against a democratically electedgovernment. Those men ‘‘discovered’’ in the women a new political actorbringing new appeal for mass mobilization: ‘‘At home mothers took care ofchildren and the family. The militant mother should look after the citizensand the ‘big family,’ the nation’’ (Simoes, 1985, pp. 137–138). Husbands,who used to praise motherhood to keep women at home, and discriminatedagainst in the public sphere, praised that role to engage them in the actionssupporting a coup.

In that context, Brazilian women transferred to the public sphere theirfamily role of guardians of order and harmony. Self-identifying with the‘‘Motherland,’’ those women treated the country (the population) as thebigger family they had to save from a supposedly communist threatimbedded in the socio-economic reforms promoted by the federalgovernment. When engaging in public action those women did not breakaway from their idealized roles of mother and wives. On the contrary, it wasthrough those attributes that they saw themselves as qualified for militantaction with moral authority to act in the public sphere. Those womenunleashed a great potential for political action, and became active partnersin a political agenda they came to share. ‘‘Biological bearers,’’ in the publicsphere they transformed themselves into ideological reproducers. In theyears preceding the coup, the women’s groups spearheaded and participatedin orchestrated actions among various social sectors, targeting proreform


congressmen, trade unions and the left-wing student movement and politicalparties.

It is noteworthy, however, that appeals to a traditional feminineconsciousness in Brazil fostered women’s public action in a right leaningas well as a left ideological direction. The appeal to women’s domestic rolesfor engagement in public action is not necessarily combined with a middle-class authoritarian ideological orientation. In fact, in the 1970s and 1980s, inthe context of transition from military rule to democracy, women were againrecruited and organized as mothers and housewives, but by progressivesocial movements that time around. A new female consciousness (concernwith family survival) emerged as working class women joined communityassociations, mothers clubs and other social movements opposing themilitary dictatorship and fighting for social justice (Simoes & Matos, 2009;Alvarez, 1990, 1994).

Main segments of the Brazilian second wave women’s movement emergedout of the neighborhood associations in the metropolitan areas. In theworking class neighborhoods, women moved from the private to the publicsphere as ‘‘mothers and housewives’’ demanding better conditions of living fortheir families, and in this process, they played an important role in the firstmobilizations against the military regime. Soares (1998) points out that whatwas then called the ‘‘women’s movement’’ included a wide range of femalegroups, not necessarily self-identified as feminist, such as the very activegroups linked to the Catholic Church [Ecclesiastic Base Communities (ECBs)].Neighborhood associations and housewives’ clubs were among the spaces thatlaunched and shaped the political participation of Brazilian women in thepublic sphere during the 1970s and 1980s. These groups were key players insocial movements struggling against living and working conditions, stressingthe need for childcare, good schools, local health clinics, sanitation, cleanwater, urban public transportation, decent housing, and many other urbanservices needed for their families and children. Alvarez (1990) appropriatelycoined the term ‘‘militant motherhood’’ to describe such movements.

Simoes (1985) pointed out that this type of motivation to politicalengagement by Brazilian women in support of the military coup resembledin many ways women’s political action in other countries and in otherpolitical contexts, such as Italian women’s relation to fascism and thewomen’s movement against Salvador Allende in Chile. Macciocchi (1978)analyzed Italian women’s promotion of fascism as emerging from an activeconsent cultivated by the fascist rulers through the use of symbols thatappealed to traditional values internalized by women. In Chile women gotinvolved in political demonstrations as mothers and housewives, without


breaking away from traditional women’s image (Mattelart, 1977). Chaney(1973) studying the ‘‘supermadres’’ showed how women joined the politicalarena as an extension of their domestic role.

On the other side of the political ideological spectrum, in a study ofworking women in Barcelona, Kaplan (1982) argued that a ‘‘feminineconsciousness’’ – women’s acceptance of the sexual division of labor andwomen’s family roles – would lead women into political activism whenfamily survival was at stake, and that participation could be revolutionary.In a study of women and politics in Latin America, Craske (1999), in herturn, makes the point that ‘‘women’s increased political participation hasdemonstrated the fluid nature of the boundary between public and privatespheres and emphasized that there is not a clear border between them’’(p. 22). Alvarez (1990) claims that motherhood is the starting point formobilization but can change overtime – gender discourses are constantlymodified in response to transformations in the structure of politicalopportunity.

In the interpretation of our recent data on women’s greater than men’scivic and protest activism in a democratic but highly unequal 2005 Brazil, wesuggest that women’s domestic roles can be enabling as well as constrainingfactors, as it will be shown later.

METHODS

Our data were collected in 2005 as part of a larger study on social inequalityin a large Brazilian metropolitan area, entitled the Belo Horizonte AreaSurvey (BHAS).1 The survey was conducted by the Center for QuantitativeResearch in Social Sciences (Cepeqcs) at the Federal University of MinasGerais, Brazil.

Questionnaire Design

The BHAS was modeled after the Detroit Area Survey, with the objective oftraining Brazilian faculty and graduate students in survey methodology. TheBHAS also sought to contribute to the development of state-of-the-artquestionnaire construction and pretesting, especially concerning the use ofstructured questionnaires to interview mass publics that are highlyheterogeneous in terms of educational levels and socio-economic status,and that include large segments of uneducated and illiterate respondents


(Simoes & Pereira, 2007). The BHAS conducted extensive pretests of thequestionnaire and developed a highly structured and rigorous methodologycombining focus groups, cognitive interviewing, and a comprehensivestandardized interviewer report for each interview conducted.

Sample

The study drew a random representative sample of the Belo HorizonteMetropolitan Area adult population.2 The initial sample was composed of1,440 cases. The sample was based on a three-level selection. Census areasand households were randomly selected, and the respondent was alsorandomly chosen from the adult (16 years and older) members of thehousehold. The total of successfully completed interviews was 1,122. Thefinal database was weighted to reduce bias (Suyama & Fernandes, 2007).

MEASURES

Dependent Variables

Two types of public action are analyzed as dependent variables: politicalactivism and participation in associations.

Political ActivismOur questionnaire replicated six items from the World Values Survey politicalactivism battery. Initially, we built a dummy variable (if the respondent hastaken part in any of such activities ¼ 1) for each activity. The types ofpolitical activism analyzed are: attending a community meeting to discusspublic affairs (26.1%); signing a petition (54.3%); taking part in a fund-raising campaign for a specific purpose (28%); joining a boycott, that is, notbuying products from a specific brand as a form of protest (15.4%); attendinga demonstration or a protest march (23.3%); and joining a strike (14.1%).

Participation in AssociationsIn the Brazilian context (as well as in many other developing nations),participation in many types of associations tends to be informal, meaningthat participation very often does not entail formal ‘‘membership.’’Therefore, instead of replicating measures from international surveys thatask about formal affiliation, we designed a battery of questions that would


allow us to account for (a) both formal and informal participation and(b) a more comprehensive range of associations (Simoes & Pereira, 2007).Fourteen different types of associations were taken into consideration:consumer’s protection associations (0.4%); community/neighborhoodassociations (that deal with housing and/or urban improvements issues)(3.8%); political parties (1.2%); business’ and owner’s associations (0.9%);student movements (0.7%); worker’s unions (1.1%); professional associa-tions (2.9%); Participatory City Budget3 (1.1%); charity associations(7.9%); sports or recreational associations (5.6%); minorities rightsassociations (3.1%); religious associations (25.9%); nonreligious youthgroups (0.9%); self-help associations (0.6%); and associations related tospecific issues such as culture, education, and health (4.5%).

We used different ways of aggregating these variables, so we could testdifferent patterns of associational behavior. First, we built a dummyvariable, which included all aforementioned associations and in which weattributed value ‘‘1’’ to those who participate in at least one association and‘‘0’’ to those who do not participate. 42.9% of the respondents declaredparticipating in at least one of the associations.

We also built a variable which distinguished political and nonpoliticalassociations. By distinguishing the political and the nonpolitical, we do notintend to confine the political to the state. The ‘‘political’’ here refers to theoccurrence of strategic interaction or some form of conflicting interaction withconsequences that bind, potentially at least, all people in a given territory(Reis, 2000). Moreover, we consider political participation as the attempt toinfluence the distribution of social goods and values (Rosenstone & Hansen,1993; Warren, 1999, 2001). Political associations do not include self-helporganizations or recreational associations whose main activities includeproviding aid and leisure to its members. In addition, nonpolitical associationsare not involved in interest conflict or aimed at influencing conflict regulation(Bueno & Fialho, 2009). For further discussion see Fialho (2008).

We classify as political associations: consumer protection associations,community/neighborhood associations (that deal with housing and/orurban improvement issues), political parties, business’ and owner’sassociations, student movements, workers’ unions, professional associa-tions, and the Participatory Budget; 11.2% of the respondents declaredtaking part in at least one political association. As nonpolitical associations,we consider charity associations, sports or recreational associations,minorities rights associations,4 religious associations, nonreligious youthgroups, and self-help associations; 37.9% of the respondents declaredparticipation in at least one nonpolitical association.


Independent Variables

Drawing on Inglehart and Norris (2003), we have developed two groups ofindependent variables: structural and cultural factors. We added to themodel a set of variables related to family circumstances including measuresof the domestic division of labor, which we hypothesized as factorsconstraining and enabling women’s engagement in public action. Our finalmodel, which seeks to explain the relationship between political behaviorand gender, combines structural, cultural, and family circumstances factors.

Structural FactorsThese variables refer to socio-demographic characteristics such as income,schooling, race, main occupation, age, and religion

– Income: Logarithm of household income per capita. The mean ofhousehold income per capita is R$673.87 and its median is R$312.36(Brazilian reais currency).

– Schooling: The levels of education are elementary (4–7 years, 26.1%),incomplete secondary education (8–10 years, 15.2%), high school (11years, 24.2%), some college (12–14 years, 5.4%), and college (15 years ormore, 13.8%). The reference group is 0–3 years of schooling, 13.9%.

– Color/race: Respondent’s self-classification: Non-whites (pardos andblacks) are the reference group, 61.9% of the cases. Whites are 38.1%.

– Occupation: Four occupational categories housewife (9.4%),5 retired(12.8%), student (5.2%), and in the workforce, formally or informally(65.9%). The unemployed are the reference group (6.7%).

– Age: Three age groups 25–44 (46.5%), 45–64 (26.2%), and 65 years orolder (9.8%). 18–24 is the reference group (17.5%).

– Religion: Nonpracticing Catholic (reference group, 18.8%), Catholic(41.8%), Protestant (25.7%), no religion (7.8%), and other religions(spiritualists, orixas, and others, 5.6%).

Cultural FactorsVariables related to ‘‘political culture,’’ which includes exposure to politicalinformation, interest in politics, self-perception of knowledge of politics,and self-perception of political competence in mobilizing political action

– Exposure to sources of political information: Watch or listen to thepolitical news on TV or radio, read about politics in newspapers ormagazines, and talk about politics with friends. All these variables are


5-point Likert scales (from 0 ‘‘never doing’’ any activity to 5 ‘‘doing itevery day’’).

– Interest in politics: Interest in following what happens in politics andgovernment (4-point Likert scale, from 0 ‘‘almost never interested’’ to 4‘‘for the most part of time’’).

– Self-perception of efficacy: If the respondent thinks that she or he wouldbe able to organize with others to influence politics (5-point Likert scale,from 0 ‘‘completely disagree’’ to 4 ‘‘completely agree’’).

– Self-perception of knowledge of politics: If the respondent thinks she orhe understands politics (5-point Likert scale, from 0 ‘‘completelydisagree’’ to 4 ‘‘completely agree’’).

Family CircumstancesThere are five family circumstances variables. Two are related to thedomestic division of labor and the organization and structure of the familylife:

– Married and cohabitating (singles, divorced, separated, and widowed arethe reference group): 57.4% of our respondents are either married orcohabitating.

– Having at least one child (not having children is the reference group):68.5% of the respondents declared having at least one child.

We also have three variables about responsibilities in the household: beingthe main person responsible for housework, the main person responsiblefor taking care of the children and/or elderly, and the main one responsiblefor earning money. They are trichotomous variables, presenting thefollowing categories: the interviewee is the main household memberresponsible, she or she is not the main one responsible, and there is not amain household member responsible for that task at his/her home. Werecodified this variable as dichotomous, attributing ‘‘1’’ when theinterviewee declares she/he is the main one responsible for the task, and‘‘0’’ when she/he is not the main one responsible and when it is declaredthat there is not a main individual responsible. We chose to classify thisvariable this way so we would avoid overestimating the statisticalsignificance of the effect of being the one responsible for household duties(which could happen if we aggregated the category when there is no mainperson responsible). Additionally, we wanted to be more confident that ourmeasure was more precisely associated with housework. Therefore, only


those who claimed to be the main person responsible were classified in thatmanner.

– The respondent is the main one responsible for the housework: 29%declared being responsible for the housework.

– The respondent is the main one responsible for taking care of the childrenand elderly in the household: 22.6% declared being responsible for takingcare of the children and elderly.

– The respondent is the main person responsible for earning money tosupport the family: 31.7% of the respondents declared being responsiblefor earning money to support the family.

MULTIVARIATE MODELS

To analyze the independent variables’ effects on the dependent variables, weuse multivariate models of logistic regressions. The logistic regression modelestimates the effects of independents variables on a binary-dependentvariable. The logistic model can be written as follows:

LnfPðY ¼ 1Þ=1� ½PðY ¼ 1Þ�g ¼ b0 þ b1X1 þ b2X2 þ � � � þ biXi þ �

where Y is the dependent variable (i.e., take part in associations or activism),P(Y ¼ 1) the probability of occurrence of Y, bi the regression coefficients,and Xi are the independent variables.

Trying to improve the interpretation of our findings, we calculated theodds ratio for significant logistic coefficient regressions and presented themin the figures, since we believe these are the quantities of substantive interest(King, Tomz, & Wittenberg, 2000). The percentage is equivalent to theindependent variable’s effect on the propensity to take part in our dependentvariables (participation in associations and political activism) and the minusand plus signs indicated whether the variable negatively or positively affectsthe propensity to participate, either in associations or through politicalactivism.

In this chapter, we focus on the multivariate models. When reading them,it is important to keep two things in mind. First, we are only presenting thevariables that were statistically significant at a 10% level. Second, we are notgraphing the standardized coefficients, so that each variable is in a differentscale. This also means that comparing effects among variables should bedone very carefully, considering the variables’ measurement.


SUMMARY OF VARIABLES

A list of independent variables used in the logistic regression models.

Sex X1 ¼ gender (women ¼ 1)

Family

circumstances

X2 ¼ marital status (married or cohabiting ¼ 1)

X3 ¼ children (have children ¼ 1)

X4 ¼ responsibility for housework (resp ¼ 1)

X5 ¼ responsibility for taking care of children and elderly

(resp ¼ 1)

X6 ¼ responsibility for earning money to support the family

(resp ¼ 1)

Structural factors X7 ¼ natural logarithm of household income per capita

Education (reference category ¼ up to 3 years of schooling)

X8 ¼ elementary or basic educational cycle

X9 ¼ incomplete secondary education

X10 ¼ high school

X11 ¼ some college

X12 ¼ college

X13 ¼ race (white ¼ 1)

Occupation (reference category ¼ unemployed)

X14 ¼ housewife

X15 ¼ retired

X18 ¼ student

X19 ¼ participation in the work force

Age (reference category ¼ from 18 to 24 years)

X20 ¼ from 25 to 44 years

X21 ¼ from 45 to 64 years

X22 ¼ 65 years or older

Religion (reference category ¼ nonpracticing catholic)

X23 ¼ Catholic

X24 ¼ Protestant

X25 ¼ no religion

X26 ¼ other religions

Cultural factors X27 ¼ watch or listen to the political news on the TV or

radio

X28 ¼ read about politics in newspapers or magazines

X29 ¼ talk about politics with friends

X30 ¼ interest in politics

X31 ¼ self-perception of political efficacy (mobilization)

X32 ¼ self-perception of understand politics


EMPIRICAL FINDINGS

In this chapter, we first explore data showing how public action isdistributed by gender in different forms of participation, mainly divided intotwo types: participation in associations and political activism. Then weanalyze the determinants of engagement, drawing on Inglehart and Norris’(2003) model, and adding our variables for family circumstances, usingmultivariate statistics, especially logistic regression models.6 As argued inthe sections earlier, we are particularly interested in finding the impact offamily circumstances on the propensity to take part in some form of publicaction.

The presentation of the findings be as follows. First, we presentdescriptive analyses of the data, focusing on the differences in engagementby gender. Second, we present the main patterns found in the multivariateanalyses. Third, we show the impact of family circumstances. Finally, wesummarize our main findings.

We should highlight three aspects regarding our analyses. First, we notdescribe all variable effects. We intend to focus on the major patterns.Second, we analyze the data between and within genders, meaning that wewill analyze the differences in political engagement between men and womenand also among women. Third, we consider statistical significance at 10%,making analyses less restrictive, so we are able to grasp the broader patternsthat affect engagement. In the appendix we report all analyses’ results.

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES

Our starting point is the description of how participation in associations andpolitical activism is distributed in our data. Following that we will show howthese variables vary between genders.

Of the respondents, 42.9% claimed to participate in at least oneassociation, 11.2% participated in at least one political association, and37.9% participated in at least one nonpolitical association. Regardingpolitical activism, 68.7% of the respondents claimed to engage in at leastone form of political activism. It is important to be aware that theengagement rates in different types of activism vary significantly: 26.1% ofthe respondents took part in community meetings to discuss public affairs,54.3% signed petitions, 28% took part in fund-raising campaigns, 15.4%participated in boycotts, 23.3% in public demonstrations, and 14.1% instrikes.


Between Genders

The most striking finding we can report is that women participate in a largernumber of associations and kinds of activism than men.

We distinguished the associations that presented a statistically significantdifference in participation between genders. These associations are charity,religious, community/neighborhood, sports or recreational, and workers’unions. Women participate more in charity associations, religious associa-tions, community/neighborhood associations, and workers’ unions. Menparticipate more only in sports or recreational groups. All other associations(presented in the methodology section) do not present a statisticallysignificant difference in participation between genders. In a few associationsthat did not present a statistically significant difference between genders,women had higher rates of participation. We believe that owing to the smallnumber of participants in those associations included in our sample, thestatistical test resulted in not being significant.

Concerning engagement in political activism, there is a statisticallysignificant difference in participation in fund-raising, boycotting, and publicdemonstrations. Women participate more in these kinds of engagement aswell as (at least in our sample) in signing petitions and strikes – but these lasttwo showed no statistically significant difference. For their part, menexhibited a greater propensity in our sample to participate in communitymeetings, but this finding, too, was not statistically significant.

As Fig. 1 shows, 48.2% of women participate in at least one association,whereas 37.4% of men take part in at least one association. Distinguishingpolitical from nonpolitical association, women are still more active thanmen: 13.5% of women participate in at least one political association and8.9% of men participate in at least one political association; 42.9% ofwomen participate in at least one nonpolitical association, whereas 32.6% ofmen take part in at least one nonpolitical association.

Concerning political activism, as Fig. 2 shows and as aforementioned,women are more active than men, except for taking part in community meet-ings. In the following types of activism, there were statistically significantdifferences between men and women, and in all of those kinds, women parti-cipate more than men: 32% of women and 23.7% of men participate in fund-raising campaigns; 17.9% of women participate in boycotts, whereas 12.9% ofmen take part in boycotts; 27.9% of women and 18.5% of men participate inpublic demonstrations. Women also participate more in signing petitions andin strikes, whereas men participate more in community meetings – none ofthese latter three forms of activism showed statistical significant difference.


Fig. 2. Gender and Activism. Source: BHAS 2005.

Fig. 1. Gender and Associations. Source: BHAS 2005.


MULTIVARIATE MODELS

Participation in Associations

Our dependent variables are participation in associations (all types ofassociations), participation in political associations, and participation innonpolitical associations.

Between GendersWe found two patterns of variables that affect participation in associations.Participation in nonpolitical associations and participation in all associa-tions are affected by a set of variables that is different from the set ofvariables that affect participation in political associations. However, genderwas always positive and a statistically relevant variable. This means thatbeing a woman raises an individual’s chances of participating in all kinds ofassociations, political associations and nonpolitical associations, even whencontrolled for structural, cultural, and family factors.

Before we begin presenting and discussing each model, we believe it wouldbe helpful to provide an example of how the multivariate models’ figuresshould be interpreted. As one can see in our first multivariate figure (Fig. 3),

Fig. 3. Participation in Associations between Genders. Source: BHAS 2005.


the independent variables have both positive and negative effects. Thisfigure refers to participation in all kinds of associations, for both men andwomen, and we interpret it as follows. The gender variable is coded so thatwomen are equal to 1 and men are the reference category (equal to 0). So,being a woman increases by 87.1% the chances of participating, comparedto being a man, controlling for all variables in the model. Variables withnegative signs should be read no differently. Still in our example, beingresponsible for the housework decreases one’s chances of participating by48.5%, compared to the reference category – not being responsible for thehousework. All categorical variables should be interpreted this way,relatively to their respective reference categories.

For continuous variables, such as income and cultural factors, thepercentage represents the effect of a change in one point in the variable’sscale on the dependent variable. For example, one point in the self-perceptionof knowledge about politics variable increases by 14.2% the chances ofan individual to participate, controlled by all variables in the model. Thevariable income, that was not statistically significant in the figure we areusing for these examples, also is a continuous variable, but we transformed itinto a logarithm. So, it should be interpreted: if there is an increase in 100%of an individual’s income (if you double it), there is an increase in anindividual’s chance of participating equal to the percentage displayed in thefigure (Fig. 4).

The most important variables that affect participation in all associationsand in nonpolitical associations are schooling and religion – structuralfactors – and listening to political news on TV/radio and self-perceptionof understanding politics – cultural factors. Having high school level ofeducation seems a crucial threshold for participating in these kinds ofassociations. Being a practicing Catholic and being Protestant are also veryimportant in increasing an individual’s chances of becoming active inassociations, in general, and in nonpolitical associations in particular.Having children increases participation, but being responsible for house-work decreases involvement (Fig. 5).

Regarding participation in political associations, another set of variablesis relevant. Although, gender and listening to political news on TV/radio arerelevant for political participation (as they were for nonpolitical associa-tions), different variables appear as relevant. Income and being a studentare positively related in taking part in political associations. Schooling andself-perception of understanding politics are not more important factors,and being a Catholic has a negative effect. When it comes to familycircumstances, being married increases chances of involvement.


Fig. 4. Participation in Nonpolitical Associations between Genders. Source: BHAS

2005.

Fig. 5. Participation in Political Associations between Genders. Source: BHAS

2005.


Within Gender (among Women)Considering only the women in our sample, we analyzed the variables thatdetermined participation in associations. Again, we find two patterns, onefor participation in all kinds of associations and for nonpolitical associationsand one for participation in political associations (Figs. 6 and 7).

Fig. 6. Participation in Associations among Women. Source: BHAS 2005.

Fig. 7. Participation in Nonpolitical Associations among Women. Source: BHAS

2005.


Regarding all associations and nonpolitical participation, family circum-stances variables show opposite effects for women. Having childrenincreases women’s chances of participation, whereas being responsible forthe housework negatively affects their chances of participating. Religion isalso relevant for participation in associations. Being Protestant, as well asbeing affiliated with ‘‘other religions,’’ increases the chances of participating.However, having no religion negatively affects the chances of participating.Relative to cultural factors, reading newspapers and magazines also presentsa positive effect on participation (Fig. 8).

Concerning specifically political associations, being Protestant negativelyaffects the chances of becoming a member. However, cultural factors –talking with friends about politics, listening to political news on TV/radio,and self-perception of efficacy – positively affect the chances of participat-ing. Structural factors, such as income and being a student, showed norelevant effect and neither did family circumstances factors.

Political Activism

Let’s turn now to the results for determinants of political activism. Weanalyzed six forms of this kind of public action: participation in communitymeetings, signing petitions, participation in campaigns to raise money for acause, taking part in boycotts, taking part in demonstrations, andparticipation in strikes.

Fig. 8. Participation in Political Associations among Women Gender. Source:

BHAS 2005.


Between GendersA smaller number of variables have statistically significant effects fordifferent kinds of activism than for associations. Nevertheless, two variablesremain particularly important: gender and talking to friends about politics.As with participation in associations, being a woman increases anindividual’s chances of engaging in any type of political activism.Additionally, talking with friends about politics also increases one’s chancesof participating, but it must be said that the causal direction might well bethe opposite, with activism leading to political conversations with equallyactive friends. If that is the case, gender remains as the singlemost importantpredictor of political activism, and more: with the opposite signal fromconventional wisdom (Figs. 9–11).

In fact, other variables do represent statistically significant effects onpolitical activism, but they do not affect as many forms of activism asgender (or talking to friends about politics, for that matter). Nevertheless,some variables show particularly interesting effects. Regarding structuralfactors, more years of schooling decreases one’s chances of taking part incommunity meetings; on the other hand more years of schooling increasesone’s chances of participating in boycotts, strikes, and public demonstra-tions. Being older decreases the chances of taking part in fund-raising, butincreases the chances of boycotting. Being a student raises one’s chances of

Fig. 9. Meeting in the Neighborhood/Community between Genders. Source:

BHAS 2005.


engaging in public demonstrations, whereas being a student or being ahousewife decreases an individual’s chances of taking part in communitymeetings.7 Self-perception of understanding politics raises one’s chances ofparticipating in community meetings, signing petitions, fund–raising, andboycotting (possible feedback effects notwithstanding), even though itdecreases one’s chances of participating in strikes (Figs. 12–14).

Fig. 10. Signing Petitions between Genders. Source: BHAS 2005.

Fig. 11. Fund Raising between Genders. Source: BHAS 2005.


Within Gender (among Women)When analyzing the determinants of engaging in political activism amongwomen, it is even harder to distinguish clear patterns, since very few variablesare statistically significant for more than one kind of activism (Figs. 15–17).

Fig. 12. Boycott between Genders. Source: BHAS 2005.

Fig. 13. Demonstrations between Genders. Source: BHAS 2005.


Regarding family circumstances, having children increases a woman’schances of taking part in public demonstrations, signing petitions, andstrikes. Students have higher chances of engaging in boycotts and publicdemonstrations; additionally, students, the retired, and women in theworkforce also have higher chances of signing petitions, participating in

Fig. 14. Strikes between Genders. Source: BHAS 2005.

Fig. 15. Reunion in the Neighborhood/Community among Women. Source: BHAS

2005.


strikes, and participating in more activities when compared to theunemployed. Again, as occurring for between genders, more years ofschooling decreases a woman’s chances of participating in communitymeetings, whereas more schooling raises women’s chances of taking part instrikes. Talking to friends about politics has, as usual, a statisticallysignificant positive correlation with participation in community meetings,signing petitions, and taking part in public demonstrations (Figs. 18–20).

Other variables do not show consistent patterns. When they are statisticallysignificant, they affect specific types of activism. Being responsible for

Fig. 16. Signing Petitions among Women. Source: BHAS 2005.

Fig. 17. Fund Raising among Women. Source: BHAS 2005.


housework increases a woman’s chances of boycotting and demonstrating inpublic. Being older decreases women’s chances of fund-raising. PracticingCatholics and Protestants are less likely to participate in boycotts than otherreligious groups and women without religious affiliation.

Women who are affiliated with ‘‘other religions’’ (mainly Spiritualists) aremore likely to take part in public demonstrations and strikes than any other

Fig. 18. Boycott among Women. Source: BHAS 2005.

Fig. 19. Demonstrations among Women. Source: BHAS 2005.


group of women defined by religion. Regarding cultural factors, readingsabout politics in newspapers and magazines raises women’s chances ofboycotting and fund-raising. Self-perception of political efficacy to mobilizepeople has a negative effect on fund-raising, but increases the chances oftaking part in demonstrations.

FAMILY CIRCUMSTANCES

Participation in Associations

Between GendersConsidering only the statistically significant cases, being married increasesthe chances of participation in political associations. Having childrenincreases the chances of engagement in all associations, and being the mainperson responsible for childcare increases the chances of engagement innonpolitical associations. Being the main person responsible for housework,however, decreases the chance of engagement in those associations.

Within Gender (among Women)Being married increases women’s chances of engagement in political asso-ciations. Having children increases their chances of engagement in all associa-tions, as well as in nonpolitical associations specifically. Being the main oneresponsible for housework, however, decreases the chance of engagement in

Fig. 20. Strikes among Women. Source: BHAS 2005.


those associations. Being the main family member responsible for childcaredecreases women’s chances of engagement in nonpolitical associations.

Activism

Between GendersBeing married increases the chances of participation in campaigns to raisemoney, boycotts, and strikes. Having children and being the main personresponsible for housework increases the chances of participation in strikes.However, being the main household member responsible for earning moneydecreases the chances of participation in demonstrations.

Within Gender (among Women)Having children increases women’s chances of signing petitions, andparticipating in demonstrations and strikes. Being the main personresponsible for childcare increases the chances of raising money for a cause.Being the main person responsible for housework increases chances ofraising money for causes, joining boycotts and demonstrations. Contrary tothe effect of other family circumstances, being the main household memberresponsible for earning money decreases women’s chances of raising moneyfor a cause, and joining boycotts.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUDING

REMARKS

In this chapter, we examined gender inequality in associational attachmentand public action in Belo Horizonte, Brazil. Traditionally, most studiespoint out that women are less likely than men to be publicly active, or totake part in associations, especially in political organizations. Surprisingly,our exploratory analysis of the data showed that, in Belo Horizontemetropolitan area, women’s propensity to take part in both public action orcivil association was significantly greater than men’s. However consistentwith an international trend of a ‘‘rising tide’’ of women’s politicalparticipation, this result was remarkable for any current comparativestandard – especially for an emerging country. Thus, it invited furtheranalysis, to be pursued with due caution.

The more disaggregated analysis we have conducted so far presents us aninteresting scenario when we examine each association, or each form of


public activation, individually. We accounted for five types of association inwhich the proportions of men and women were significantly unequal.Women were the majority in four of those. As for the varieties of politicalactivism, women were significantly more prone than men to take part inpublic demonstrations, boycotts, and fund-raising activities for some cause.

Fig. 21 summarizes the main effects of gender for every kind of publicaction, as described in the previous analyses. As aforementioned, being awoman raises one’s chances of engaging in each and every kind of publicaction, even when controlled by structural, cultural, and family factors.

When looking into public action among women, considering allindependent variables in our model we were able to find patterns fordeterminants of associational life, but not in the case of political activism. Inrelation to the impact of family circumstances it stands out that havingchildren tends to lead to an increased likelihood of participation inassociations as well as in political activism – we would like to claim that thisfinding could be interpreted as an indication of women’s mother role as apropulsion factor – if not actually an enabler – of public action. Being themain person responsible for housework, in its turn, impacts negatively onparticipation in associations but (in a somewhat puzzling way) positivelyaffects political activism – that factor could be seen as both a constraint

Fig. 21. ‘‘Being Woman’’ Effects on Associational Life and Activism. Source:

BHAS 2005.


and an enabler of public action. How could these opposite impacts ofresponsibility for housework be interpreted?

As theorized by Burns et al. (2001) engagement in civic voluntarism requiresresources (such as time, money, and skills). We could argue then that timespent with housework limits the resources an individual needs to participate inassociations. Housework in this case is a constraining factor. When it comes topolitical activism, however, the kinds of activities positively associated withresponsibility for housework are taking part in boycotts and public demon-strations, which tend to be less frequent activities and therefore less timedemanding. Moreover, findings from the cognitive interviews conductedduring questionnaire pretesting indicated that when respondents talked aboutparticipation in boycotts they were referring to consumption behavior. It seemsplausible that women’s responsibility for housework and family survival mightmotivate them to take part in actions that they see as part of or consistent withthose roles. Housework, in this case, turns into an enabling factor.

We believe that these initial findings indicate some support for ourexploration of engagement in private roles as both enablers and constraintsof public action. Nevertheless, important questions on ‘‘the private roots ofpublic action’’ remain to be answered, and must be carefully addressed infuture chapters. Private roles might enable public action, but to what extentdoes public action rooted in women’s traditional roles reinforce or challengethe prevailing domestic division of labor? How does this, in turn, affectfurther participation? To what extent does participation linked to familyroles and concerns allow for or lead to participation motivated by differentfactors? What are the trajectories of women’s participation in public action?

In two earlier political conjunctures described in this chapter – in supportof the 1964 military coup, and in the transition to democracy in the 1970sand 1980s – the political orientation of women’s public action shifted fromthe right to the left. The political orientations of current public action areanother issue still to be addressed in our analyses.

Finally, why women in Belo Horizonte are more engaged in public actionthan men remains a challenging and intriguing theoretical and empiricalquestion, which we continue exploring with more refined measures andfurther analysis in the current 2008/2009 wave of the BHAS.

NOTES

1. The BHAS 2005 module on gender political inequality is part of the largersurvey ‘‘Poverty and Inequality in South Africa and Brazil,’’ an international


bilateral collaboration between the Cape Area Study (CAS) conducted at theUniversity of Cape Town, and the BHAS conducted at the Federal Universityof Minas Gerais, under the auspices of the Social Hubble Project. The BHAS2005 was funded by the Brazilian Pronex (CNPq – National Research Council &Fapemig – Minas Gerais Research Council), the Tinker Foundation, and the FordFoundation.2. Belo Horizonte is the capital of the Brazilian state of Minas Gerais. According

to the Brazilian Institute of National Geography and Statistics (IBGE), themetropolitan area of Belo Horizonte has an estimated population of approximately4.9 million inhabitants for 2007. It is ranked as the third most populous metropolitanarea in Brazil.3. The participatory budget is a model of public administration that aims to meet

the demands and foster participation and representation of civil society in citybudget decisions through regular consultations (at neighborhood and city levelassemblies). The most successful experience of this type of policy, which became abasic and inspiring model for cities throughout the world, has been developed andimplemented in the city of Porto Alegre, Brazil since 1989. Various experiences incity participatory budgets in Brazil, and their implications for democraticgovernance are presented and analyzed in Avritzer and Navarro (2003).4. In BHAS 2005 data, human rights associations are classified as nonpolitical

because the types of the associations in which people declared to take part are mostlycharity-based associations, which are not involved in interest conflict or aimed atinfluencing the regulation of the distribution of social goods and values (see Bueno &Fialho, 2009).5. Of the 96 individuals who declared homemaker as their main occupation, only

1 individual was a man. This way, when referring to that variable, women will be ourreference for interpretations.6. We only report the most relevant tests for our goals. See appendix for more

details on the data, variables, and models. Nevertheless, descriptive statistics, moretests and details are available on request.7. Taking part in community meetings was the only form of engagement in which

being a housewife had relevant effects, and this only with respect to between genderanalyses, since being a housewife has no effect in within gender analyses. We thinkthat the lack of predictive power of this variable could be due to the followingreasons: all but one of the individuals who declared being a housewife were women,so the variable gender and the variable ‘‘being the main responsible for thehousework’’ overlap the effects of being a housewife (85% of all housewives declaredto be the main one responsible for the housework); and the low number of cases thatdeclared being a housewife (9.4% of our sample).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors want to thank Neuma Aguiar, for encouragement and fruitfuldiscussions, and Tatiana M. Goulart, for helpful work on data processing.


REFERENCES

Aguiar, N. (2005). Time use in a Brazilian metropolis: A comparative perspective. Annals of the

XXV Congress of the International Association for Time Use Research, Halifax Nova

Scotia, Canada.

Alvarez, S. (1990). Engendering democracy in Brazil. NJ: Princeton University Press.

Alvarez, S. (1994). The (trans)formation of feminism and gender politics in democratizing

Brazil. In: J. Jaquette (Ed.), The women’s movement in Latin America (pp. 13–63).

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Avritzer, L., & Navarro, Z. (Eds). (2003). A Inovac- ao Democratica no Brasil: O Orc-amento

Participativo. Brazil: Cortez, Sao Paulo.

Bueno, N. & Fialho, F. (2009). Race, resources, and political inequality in a Brazilian city. Latin

American Research Review, 44(2), (in press).

Burns, B., Schlozman, L., & Verba, S. (2001). The private roots of public action: Gender, equality

and political participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Chaney, E. (1973). Women in Latin American politics: The case of Peru and Chile. In:

A. Pescatello (Ed.), Female and male in Latin America (pp. 103–140). Pittsburgh, PA:

University of Pittsburgh Press.

Craske, N. (1999). Women and politics in Latin America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.

Fialho, F. (2008). Participac- ao e Desigualdade Polıtica: Um Exercıcio em Teoria e Metodo.

Unpublished MA thesis, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas

Gerais, Brazil.

Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the

World. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, T. (1982). Female consciousness and collective action: the case of Barcelona

1910–1918. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 7(3), 545–566.

King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses:

Improving interpretation and presentation. Journal of Political Science American, 44(2),

347–361.

Macciocchi, M. (1978). Sept theses sur la sexualite feminine dans l’ideologie fasciste. In:

M. Macciocchi (Ed.), Les Femmes et les Maitres. Paris: Christian Bourgeois.

Mattelart, M. (1977). Chile: el golpe de estado femenino o quando las mujeres de la burguesia

salen a calle. Casa das Americas, 88(January–February), 75–90.

Reis, F. (2000). Polıtica e Racionalidade: Problemas de Teoria e Metodo de uma Sociologia

Crıtica da Polıtica (2nd ed). Belo Horizonte: Editora UFMG.

Rosenstone, S., & Hansen, J. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America.

New York: Longman.

Simoes, S. (1985). Deus, Patria e Famılia: As Mulheres no Golpe de 1964. Petropolis, Barzil:

Vozes Editora.

Simoes, S., & Matos, M. (2009). Modern ideas, traditional behavior, and the persistence of

gender inequality in Brazil. International Journal of Sociology, 38(4), 94–110.

Simoes, S., & Pereira, M. (2007). A arte e a ciencia de fazer perguntas. In: N. Aguiar (Ed.),

Desigualdades Sociais, Redes de Sociabilidade e Participac- ao Polıtica (pp. 241–261). Belo

Horizonte, Brazil: Editora UFMG.

Soares, V. (1998). Muitas faces do feminismo no Brasil. In: A. Borba, N. Faria & T. Godinho

(Eds), Mulher e Polıtica – Genero e Feminismo no Partido dos Trabalhadores (pp. 33–54).

Sao Paulo, Brazil: Editora Fundac- ao Perseu Abramo.


Suyama, E., & Fernandes, D. (2007). Amostragem da Pesquisa da Regiao Metropolitana de

Belo Horizonte. In: N. Aguiar (Ed.), Desigualdades Sociais, Redes de Sociabilidade e

Participac- ao Polıtica (pp. 263–285). Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Editora da UFMG.

Verba, S., Nie, N., & Kim, J. (1978). Political participation and political equality: A seven-nation

comparison. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Warren, M. (1999). What is political? Journal of Theoretical Politics, 11(2), 207–231

Warren, M. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

APPENDIX

Table A1. Participation in Associations between Genders.

All Associations Nonpolitical Political

Constant �2.685* �2.440* �8.618*

Gender 0.627* 0.625* 1.193*

Family circumstances

Married/cohabitation 0.222 0.101 0.840*

Children 0.463* 0.399 0.024

Housework �0.664* �0.836* �0.482

Care taker 0.340 0.470* �0.036

Earning money 0.233 0.207 0.199

Structural factors

Income 0.067 0.068 0.283*

Elementary education 0.003 �0.035 0.403

Incomplete secondary education 0.432 0.617* �0.020

High school 0.715* 0.808* 0.507

Some college 1.578* 1.303* 0.413

College 1.115* 0.794* 0.485

Race �0.176 �0.180 �0.026

Housewife �0.164 �0.086 �0.410

Retired �0.801* �0.785* 0.748

Student �0.376 �0.741 1.637*

Workforce �0.517 �0.475 0.439

25–44 years �0.238 �0.378 0.675

45–64 years 0.400 0.234 1.226*

65þ years 1.345* 1.222* 0.271

Practicing catholic 0.674* 0.710* �0.599*

Protestant 1.038* 1.179* �0.601

No religion �0.489 �1.267* 0.418

Other religions 0.279 0.503 0.108



Cultural factors

Political news TV/radio 0.131* 0.125* 0.335*

Read about politics 0.120 0.065 0.242*

Talk with friends 0.045 0.044 0.166

Interest in politics �0.087 �0.063 �0.001

Political efficacy 0.017 �0.051 0.152

Understanding politics 0.133* 0.121* 0.132

w2 145.858 144.247 177.662

Degrees of freedom 30 30 30

Overall hit rate 69.476 70.781 90.216

N 871 871 871

*sigo0.10.

Source: BHAS 2005.

Table A2. Participation in Associations among Women.


Constant �2.670 �2.282 �7.587


Married/cohabitation 0.466 0.394 0.716

Children 1.046* 0.867* 1.022

Housework �0.904* �0.911* 0.059

Care taker �0.141 �0.115 �0.560

Earning money 0.141 0.131 �0.619

Structural factors

Income 0.030 0.008 0.193

Elementary education �0.133 �0.180 0.192

Incomplete secondary education 0.097 0.410 �0.843

High school 0.402 0.653 �0.181

Some college 1.129* 0.716 �0.720

College 0.574 0.712 �0.766

Race 0.265 0.229 0.565

Housewife 0.050 0.185 �1.089

Retired �0.367 �0.143 1.049

Student �0.101 �0.595 1.687

Table A1. (Continued )



Workforce �0.118 0.005 0.354

25–44 years �0.149 �0.478 0.267

45–64 years 0.397 0.204 0.349

65þ years 1.137* 0.589 �0.520

Practicing catholic 0.533 0.792* �0.416

Protestant 0.908* 1.244* �1.612*

No religion �1.342* �2.282* 0.032

Other religions 1.235* 1.416* 0.951

Cultural factors

Political news TV/radio 0.162* 0.115 0.438*

Read about politics 0.273* 0.226* �0.070

Talk with friends 0.078 �0.008 0.521*

Interest in politics �0.202 �0.188 0.341

Political efficacy 0.113 0.052 0.106

Understanding politics 0.145* 0.111 0.359*

w2 104.269 99.537 151.272

Degrees of freedom 29 29 29

Overall hit rate 69.637 71.539 90.802

N 475 475 475

*sigo0.10.

Source: BHAS 2005.

Table A3. Political Activism between Genders.

Meetings Petition Raising

Money

Boycott Demonstration Strikes

Constant �2.747* �1.453* �3.776* �4.674* �4.483* �3.857*

Gender 0.553* 0.337* 0.907* 0.462* 0.769* 0.516*


Married/cohabitation 0.656* 0.164 0.547* 0.495* �0.132 0.055

Children 0.094 0.255 0.015 �0.008 0.527* 0.296

Housework �0.174 0.301 �0.303 0.429 0.665* 0.080

Care taker �0.274 �0.184 0.187 0.428 �0.366 �0.380

Earning money �0.331 0.007 0.039 �0.492* �0.122 0.309




Money


Structural factors

Income 0.087 0.042 0.146 �0.148* 0.020 0.007

Elementary education �0.359 0.002 0.540 �0.238 0.366 �0.051

Incomplete secondary

education

�0.861* 0.139 0.172 0.003 0.653 0.744

High school �0.755* 0.362 0.373 0.973* 1.206* 1.159*

Some college �0.612 �0.208 0.422 1.228* 0.860 1.143*

College �1.262* 0.282 0.075 0.238 1.230* 1.006*

Race �0.035 �0.194 0.317* �0.459* �0.229 0.292

Housewife �0.980* �0.183 �0.278 0.134 0.305 �0.887

Retired 0.108 0.468 0.172 0.081 0.350 0.387

Student �2.203* 0.199 0.155 1.236 1.439* 0.091

Workforce 0.010 0.344 0.258 0.952 0.647 �0.176

25–44 years �0.295 �0.252 �1.095* 0.748* �0.903* �0.001

45–64 years 0.374 �0.271 �0.988* 1.861* �0.343 0.534

65þ years �0.086 �1.295* �1.009* 2.229* �0.145 0.150

Practicing catholic 0.174 �0.084 0.049 �0.568* �0.063 �0.221

Protestant �0.027 �0.001 �0.066 �0.832* �0.336 �0.291

No religion �0.358 0.439 0.252 �0.203 �0.328 0.317

Other religions 0.880* 0.253 0.933* 0.149 0.071 0.778*

Cultural factors

Political news TV/

radio

0.061 0.044 0.116 0.127 �0.036 �0.122

Read about politics 0.207* 0.039 0.081 0.214* 0.081 0.157

Talk with friends 0.185* 0.162* 0.232* 0.285* 0.209* 0.185*

Interest in politics 0.006 0.004 0.156 0.050 0.263* 0.223

Political efficacy 0.156* 0.123* 0.027 0.017 0.312* 0.078

Understanding politics 0.109* 0.095* 0.117* 0.124* �0.002 �0.214*

w2 129.436 85.245 154.726 163.636 167.377 107.661

Degrees of freedom 30 30 30 30 30 30

Overall hit rate 76.583 63.258 75.965 85.555 81.193 87.929

N 869 869 867 863 865 866

*sigo0.10.

Source: BHAS 2005.



Table A4. Political Activism among Women.


Money


Constant �2.773* �2.307* �2.213* �4.725* �3.989* �5.523*


Married/cohabitation 0.298 0.175 0.192 0.073 �0.279 0.070

Children 0.225 0.767* 0.017 0.745 1.013* 1.257*

Housework 0.132 0.427 �0.352 0.842* 0.784* �0.221

Care taker �0.346 �0.195 0.353 0.333 �0.460 �0.466

Earning money �0.177 �0.048 �0.308 �0.859* �0.405 0.182

Structural factors

Income 0.033 0.135 0.186 �0.099 0.080 0.159

Elementary education �0.534 �0.433 �0.188 �0.918 0.108 0.864

Incomplete secondary

education

�1.530* �0.280 �0.008 �0.883 0.080 1.308

High school �0.851* 0.049 �0.071 �0.006 0.799 1.986*

Some college �1.214 �0.450 �0.070 �0.117 0.471 1.959*

College �1.708* �0.201 �0.634 �0.869 0.665 1.675

Race �0.097 �0.226 0.171 �0.162 �0.040 0.240

Housewife �0.423 0.232 �0.381 0.348 0.330 �0.611

Retired 0.646 1.588* 0.287 0.552 0.863 1.107

Student �0.965 1.192* 0.330 2.034* 1.331* 0.779

Workforce 0.739 0.875* 0.033 1.417 0.898 �0.021

25–44 years 0.442 �0.170 �0.647 0.397 �1.230* 0.100

45–64 years 1.049* �0.589 �0.832* 1.429* �0.762 0.094

65þ years �0.242 �2.414* �1.240* 0.857 �1.100 �1.180

Practicing catholic 0.206 0.131 �0.188 �1.047* �0.181 �0.302

Protestant �0.391 0.164 �0.186 �1.169* �0.353 �0.778

No religion �0.466 0.935* 0.357 �0.543 �0.744 0.249

Other religions 0.239 0.224 �0.160 0.348 1.079* 1.048*

Cultural factors

Political news TV/radio 0.103 0.085 0.245* 0.160 0.087 0.022

Read about politics 0.135 0.057 0.207* 0.436* �0.002 0.276

Talk with friends 0.322* 0.347* 0.141 0.186 0.343* 0.105

Interest in politics 0.075 �0.089 0.174 0.153 0.217 0.156

Political efficacy 0.104 0.031 �0.153* 0.088 0.222* �0.106

Understanding politics �0.018 0.060 0.047 0.145 0.023 �0.127

w2 86.570 74.414 82.137 118.536 99.485 93.622

Degrees of freedom 29 29 29 29 29 29

Overall hit rate 77.033 66.923 74.740 85.664 79.176 88.180

N 474 473 474 470 472 473

*sigo0.10.

Source: BHAS 2005.


Documents

Advances in Gender Research