Very important, informative diary here... Nice work.

I disagree to some degree.  This may sound harsh, but the fact is that caucuses are party building exercises first, nominating conventions, second.  As private party meetings, they don't fall under sanctioned primaries, and unfortunately (or fortunately depending on which side you are on), can't be regulated as primaries can.  

But for those who can and do show up to caucuses (generally 55% women), they are a tremendous opportunity to have a real voice, and take leadership roles in the party.  I could site numerous examples of women I know who became delegates and then encouraged to run for office here in Iowa.  The Iowa State Assembly is stocked with women like this.

Perhaps this is more expectation gamesmanship from Hillary?  Do you think she'd have this conversation with America if she were up 10 points in Iowa?

Thank you for this thoughtful post.  I agree that we cannot really know how gender may play into the caucus system.  My experience tells me that women would approach a caucus by being less direct, but not necessarily less forceful or less effective.  There may be a tendency for (some) men to discount what women think, but I doubt many of these men are Democrats anyhow.

Just an aside, the caucus system certainly has its flaws, but overall I think it is a great system because it allows for discussion and persuasion.  It also allows (at least in theory) for candidates with much less name recognition to get some attention.  Under the best circumstances, caucuses can be very educational.  The group dynamics may squelch some of this, but I think it plays an important counterpart to the 30-second TV ad.

I don't know, empirically, what the answer is.  I suspect Hillary's comment was based on things she's heard from supporters.  I mean, if you ask people to caucus for you and you keep hearing from women that the process makes them nervous, you'd start to see a pattern at some point.  I'm just speculating here.

What tells me that this may be part of a calculated process of expectations management is that I remember Hillary's statement, earlier in the campaign, that Iowa and Mississippi were the only two states that hadn't elected a woman as governor, senator, or congressman.  So that's one attempt to set up an excuse: "Iowans just aren't as willing to vote for a woman."  Now we have a second attempt at an excuse: "The caucus system discourages women from participating."

I think the first comment was more blatant than the second; that Mississippi thing didn't just find its way into the conversation unbidden.  But viewing the two events in conjunction, I think there's a link.  And overall, I'd characterize it as uncool.  You don't see Obama going around suggesting that maybe Iowans have problems with a black guy.

I agree wholeheartedly. I may be generalizing a bit too broadly, but I would assume that this phenomenon is even greater in a relatively "conservative" midwestern place such as Iowa. But on the other hand, I think these caucuses are bringing out for the most part only the most motivated of supporters.  It maybe that if you're actually committed enough to caucus, it's unlikely that you're going to be swayed by anything other than whatever issues may sway any other voter (second thoughts about electability etc).

To start with, I think we should note that every major network and print outlet has repeated stated that "women won't go out in bad weather" as if the 21st century world where women are allowed to vote has somehow been time shifted back to the days of June Cleaver when housework was all women did and, by god, they did it in pearls.

It disgusts me that Democrats aren't standing up and pushing back against the mainstream media meme -- a narrative that is straight out of the all-boys club Republican world view.

I don't know about the rest of you. But, all the women I know go out in bad weather.

My concerns with the effect of the caucus system on gender was not that women would not be vocal enough to participate in the system, but rather that older, more traditional wives would not be willing to publicly vote differently than their husbands.

My concerns are not Iowa-based, but rather out of the idea that there are women in all 50 states who would vote their conscious in a secret ballot, but would not be willing to walk to a different side of the room as their husband. Or, of course, if she wants to vote for an entirely different party, she would have to go to an entirely different place.

Also, this is not a strictly female concern. I could certainly see a timid husband being scared to act differently from their politically vocal wife.

I guess the public forum of the caucus system is uncomfortable to my waspy East Coast sensibilities.