Of course Slate jumps to the easy, politically satisfying conclusion that people are biased against women leaders after reading the India study. Three problems with this explanation:

1) Slate assumes that more "public goods" equals satisfied voters.

Those roads and wells weren't free. Maybe the people would rather have spent the money elsewhere. Also, there is ample evidence showing that a rise in a standard of living doesn't necessarily lead to a rise in happiness. Unfortunately.

2) The villages may not know they have better public services, but they Do know that their democracy was subverted- and they're pissed!

Say I am Joydeep farmer in India; I might not know that my public services are somewhat better than a village 200 miles away (and If I did know I might not care - see above). But here's what I do know: I was forced to vote only for a woman. I may not be the most progressive person ever, and my democracy was subverted. I am pissed. I wants payback!! The minute the affirmative action fix is out, she's gone! Whether or not she did good is irrelevant. Payback time!

3) Some "first generation" women politicians are surrogates for their husbands.

No, not thinking about Hillary. I'm thinking about Lurleen B. Wallace, who was elected governor of Alabama in 1967 as a front for George Wallace, who was term-limited from running. I am certain that not all, but at least some number of these first gen female mayors were transparent surrogates for politically disenfranchised spouses.

It is of course still possible that women leaders are systematically under-appreciated. That said, you diminish your credibility by jumping to the conclusion that fits your political worldview when other explanations lie fallow.

Moodyguppy it would appear you are guilty of the same crime as the article writer. Clearly you are a person who is very concerned about untrammelled democracy and free elections. You seem eager to assign that same stance to poor Indian villagers, unmindful it is a luxury available only to people with the affluence to care about such trivia because they are never hungry and their children almost always live.

I guess it is natural to think the things we, ourselves, care about most are universally important. But I think history and geography shows that people care more about basic survival issues than high ethical standards in politics.

I don't have a personal preference but I have noted both in research and my own personal experience the trend that both women and men are more openly critical and resentful of women in positions of power than of men in power.

But you have not addressed Moodguppy's points that THIS article, and possibly the underlying study, is flawed.

The article states that certian villages with female leaders have more services. We are also told these villages express greater dissatisfaction with their female leaders. Are these results necessarily mutualy exclusive? Based only on that information how can one honestly conclude that the villagers are unfairly criticizing their female leaders?

Based on what I have read, I think a more likely explanation is that the author has cherry-picked some facts to support an article that is calculated to be more controversial than informative. I simply cannot reach the conclusion, based on THIS article, that women leaders are generally unfairly criticized. (An interesting companion study might be to find leaders, male and female, who are not unfairly criticized.)

I have observed women in small local governments in the Western US for about 30 years because my wife has been the top or second from the top administrative person in these governments.

I would take a partial quote from above "... both women and men are more openly critical and resentful of women in positions of power than of men in power."

Sometimes the community becomes rebellious. The most extreme example, in one case a woman was driven from office in violation of the whistle blowing laws for getting a predominant local law enforcement officer tossed in federal prison for stealing drug money.

Typically however it takes the form of criticizing the woman for performance and then giving some white male credit for the womans performance as if it were his.

as Jane'slogin illustrates, my post is based on life experience. The article by itself is of course worthless. It only has interest as a conversation starter.

I am ashamed at your argument. You well know that personal anectdotes are utterly worthless when discussing a matter of this nature. At the very least it must be backed by demonstratable evidence if not caveated by disclaimers disclosing that you are stating an opinion.

People see the world the way they want to, if you dislike women or prefer men you will minimize female contributions. Naturally if you dislike men or prefer women you will minimize male contributions. Both cases are guilty of placing the gender of their choice in the roles of victims when things turn sour.

Personal opinions are fine, however you crossed the line when you stated this

"Typically however it takes the form of criticizing the woman for performance and then giving some white male credit for the womans performance as if it were his."

That is your opinion, not a fact.

Riiiiiight, Eigenvector. As though you are unaware that scientific "evidence" can be found to support whatever political position you care to espouse. In this forum, personal experience is just as relevant as any other talking point.

Especially when the context makes it completely clear that you are expressing your own opinion.

Moodyguppy:

You seem to be caught up with wanting to pounce on the author for his views, rather than analyzing the situation objectively.

1) There is no well-defined 'wish-list', that once fulfilled, will satisfy 100% of voters. Roads and wells are a practical and logical place to start. What would you rather have instead, bad roads and no drinking water? I agree with your comment about a rise in standard of living not necessarily resulting in happiness, but that just seems silly in this present context. Yes, I'm sure that a few voters would rather have had the money spent elsewhere, but nowhere in the world do you have that utopia where everyone's happy.

2) The conclusion that democracy is being subverted seems a little extreme. It is simply affirmative, EEO action. Also, repeated studies have shown that the best government is done at local levels. For example, in the US, once you reside in a particular school district, you do not have the option to send your children to a neighboring school district, even though there may be a better school there. Similarly, even certain laws vary from town to town. Albeit having its disadvantages, this system has proven to be more efficient in the overall scheme of things. 'Joydeep' may be too concerned with other issues to care about this today, but in time, it will become apparent to him, or his successors.

3) As far as some "first generation" women politicians being surrogates for their husbands, there may well be a few cases like that, and not only in India, as you yourself stated. However, there has to be a first generation of women politicians for there to be a second generation, which, hopefully will not be surrogate.

The author has used a scientific case study, the results of which support his conclusions about women being under-appreciated. How does that do anything, but increase his credibility??