OxTalks will soon move to the new Halo platform and will become 'Oxford Events.' There will be a need for an OxTalks freeze. This was previously planned for Friday 14th November – a new date will be shared as soon as it is available (full details will be available on the Staff Gateway).
In the meantime, the OxTalks site will remain active and events will continue to be published.
If staff have any questions about the Oxford Events launch, please contact halo@digital.ox.ac.uk
Join Zoom Meeting: zoom.us/j/95465830050?pwd=C9bVWTjW7y8dWqi4qED0MgCvVkCrZG.1; Meeting ID: 954 6583 0050; Passcode: 867678
Abstract: The mega-election year of 2024 featured 31 direct presidential elections, with women winning just five contests—and only in two instances where the president is the sole or more powerful chief executive. This pattern persists even as public opinion shows increasing voter support for women leaders. Yet does this support persist once women express presidential ambition?
In the US case, defeated presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris received high approval ratings while serving in Congress, yet faced relentless criticism when seeking the presidency. Both were called “too ambitious.” We use survey experiments to explore the existence of a presidential ambition penalty for white and non-white women. Contrary to our supposition that women and non-white women face an ambition penalty relative to white men, we do not find an across-the-board penalty for ambitious women. Rather, where the ambition penalty exists, it is applied by men and hostile sexists. Our findings suggest that media narratives emphasizing women candidates’ ‘over-ambition’ reflect the continued dominance of men’s perspectives in US public discourse.
