2019年對政界女性來說是個好年頭嗎？問題看似很容易回答,。畢竟,，目前有6名女性在爭取民主黨總統(tǒng)候選人資格，創(chuàng)下歷史紀錄,，而在第116屆國會里,，女性議員人數(shù)也超過以往。

然而,，喬治敦大學教育與勞動力中心（CEW）公布的一項最新分析表明,，盡管取得了不可否認的進步，女性候選人仍然面臨著與能力或資格完全無關的障礙,。因為13%的美國人,，或者說約十分之一的人仍然認為男性從“情感上”比女性更適合從政。

這是20世紀70年代以來,，研究人員通過社會調查一直在問的問題（這也解釋了相關措辭有些過時的原因）,。喬治敦大學教育與勞動力中心的首席經(jīng)濟學家、也是該報告的合著者尼克·史密斯表示,，盡管報告沒有詳細說明女性在情感方面具體存在怎樣的缺陷,，但“潛臺詞”很明確。

“如果使用‘情緒’這個詞,，還放在與‘女性’有關的話里,，就是刻板印象,。意思是涉及非常重要的決定時……女人更可能受情緒影響,，不夠理智?！?史密斯告訴《財富》雜志,。“相關擔心符合女性容易歇斯底里的成見,，即女性可能控制不住脾氣,，因而不應該讓女性負責重要事務?！?/p>

不過,，雖然“歇斯底里的女人”這個老掉牙的比喻依然存在令人沮喪,，分析也顯示刻板印象正在逐漸消失。認為男性更適合從政的美國人比例在1975年達到50%左右的峰值,，此后一直呈下降趨勢,。研究人員發(fā)現(xiàn)，關于誰最有可能認同女性不太適合從政觀點方面,，許多區(qū)別正在逐漸打破,。舉例來說，在過去幾十年內,，年輕人和老年人持此觀點人數(shù)的差距已經(jīng)顯著縮小,。

然而，對于如何看待該問題方面仍然有兩個因素很重要：政治背景和教育程度,。分析顯示,，兩種性別里，比起“堅定民主黨人”,，“堅定共和黨人”對女性從政存在偏見的可能性幾乎是三倍,。教育程度方面，高中文憑以下者認為男性從情感上更適合從政的可能性約為擁有學士學位者的兩倍,。

對女性候選人來說,，含義顯而易見。正如史密斯所說,，13%已經(jīng)可以“左右成敗”,，女性只能艱難爭取“好感度”，還要承受從面部表情到衣著等各種方面的膚淺判斷,。

“女人從政的起點與男性并不在同一條起跑線,。”史密斯說,?！皬囊婚_始女性就落后了四五步?！保ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng)）

譯者：馮豐

審校：夏林

Is 2019 a good year to be a woman in politics? It seems like a simple question. After all, there are currently a record six women running for the Democratic presidential nomination, while the 116th Congress includes more female lawmakers than ever before.

Yet a new analysis from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (CEW) suggests that, despite the undeniable progress, female candidates continue to face a significant headwind that has absolutely nothing to do with their abilities or qualifications: 13% of Americans—or roughly one in 10—still believe men are better “emotionally suited” for politics than women.

That’s a question researchers have been asking via the General Social Survey since the 1970s (which explains the dated-sounding turn of phrase). And although it doesn’t specify what, exactly, the respondents believe women’s emotional shortcomings to be, Nicole Smith, chief economist at CEW and co-author of the report, says the “subtext” of the question is clear.

“When you use the word ’emotion’ and you put it in the same sentence ‘women,’ it’s playing to the stereotype that when it comes to very important decisions… women might be more likely to make an emotional determination with their heart, rather than with their head,” Smith told Fortune. “Part of the concern here plays to the stereotype that women can be hysterical, that women can fly off the handle—that women shouldn’t have their finger on the button.”

But while it’s depressing to see that the tired old trope of the “hysterical woman” persists, the analysis also shows that stereotype is on the wane. The share of Americans who said men were better suited to politics peaked at about 50% in 1975 and had been trending downward ever since. The researchers found that many of the distinctions about who is mostly likely to buy into the idea that women are less suited are breaking down. For instance, the gap between younger and older respondents has narrowed dramatically over the past decades.

There are, however, still two factors that have a significant influence on how one views this issue: political affiliation and education. The analysis shows that “strong Republicans” of both genders are almost three times as likely as “strong Democrats” to show bias against women in politics. On the education side, Americans with less than a high school diploma are almost twice as likely as those with a bachelor’s degree to say men were more emotional suited for the political arena.

For female candidates, the implications are clear. Thirteen percent could easily be, as Smith puts it, “the difference between winning and losing”—especially when women face an uphill battle on “l(fā)ikability” and superficial judgements on everything from their facial expressions to their clothing.

“Women are not starting at the starting line,” says Smith. “Women are starting four or five paces behind.”