Look how wealth and salaries are - women have less money than men. And it is not traditional in couples in the US for the women to have control of the family purse for big ticket items, like giving to politians.

It doesn't follow at all that women candidates are at a disadvantage because women are more likely to give to women than men are when women give only 20% of campaign contributions. Maybe women give to women 90% of the time, whereas men give to women 45% of the time. In that situation, women candidates are at an advantage!

That's before asking whether the lack of women candidates affects the fraction of money that goes to female candidates. If women made up 30% of candidates and received 40% of campaign contributions, women candidates would be at a huge financial advantage. (Obviously the question, "whither 30%?" raises questions about female candidates having an advantage. It merely illustrates that the disadvantage doesn't follow from this article.)

Next, it isn't at all clear from the statistic that 94% of women give time or money to charity that women aren't stingy. Is that more or less than men give? What fraction of women's incomes or time goes to charity, vs. men's? Even if women gave more time than men, that might not be because of greater generousity: women live longer than men; I bet that they spend a greater portion of their lives retired. And, while women who work tend to work (including unpaid work at home) a greater number of hours than men do, women in aggregate work fewer hours than men do: women who don't have paying jobs bring down the mean number of hours worked by women -- still including unpaid hours -- to fewer than the number of hours worked by men. Women in aggregate have more time to give to charities.

They don't, though have more money to give, and, finally, you miss a big reason why women give less money than men: "thanks" to institutionalized sexism, men have more money than women, and, in particular, have more disposable income. Of course men give more. They have more to give.

None of that disproves your thesis, which is probably correct. Female candidates assuredly are at a disadvantage when it comes to fundraising, and there may well be factors affecting male to female giving ratios other than net income. This blog post, though, is well below Broadsheet's standards.

When you buy a pair of Jimmy Choos, it stays a pair of Jimmy Choos. It doesn't suddenly turn into a pair of Steve Maddens in your closet one day.

That "shoes" approach to fund-raising is not limited to the female audience. How many "general interest" charities and causes use the nonsexist pitch: "For the price of a Starbucks latte, you can provide a meal for a starving kid in Africa..." etc. Stop seeing condescension, etc. where it doesn't exist!

I'm far from rich, but I made a decision to support Obama to the best of my ability. Besides, my contribution level provided the opportunity to actually meet him.

The idea that women don't give as much because they have less money is BS; most women have jobs and credit cards and can contibute as much as men, especially since with the contribution limits in place. The real reason is that most women feel the need to talk with their husbands, boyfriends, friends, and/or family before spending a significant amount of money, especially something as iffy as a political candidate. Most people would respond negatively, thus discouraging the would-be contributor.

On the other hand, my attitude is that it's my money and credit, and I'll do what I damn well please. I never did tell my husband how much I gave.

Its a matter of money

Look how wealth and salaries are - women have less money than men. And it is not traditional in couples in the US for the women to have control of the family purse for big ticket items, like giving to politians.

What is the average amount of money donated to Obama? $20-$100?

Women don't have that money? $20 is a big ticket item?

What year does your calendar say it is?

It's probably more related to how men look outward toward the world and many women look inward toward the home.

Remember you folks have to "raise consciousness." This isn't to say that women are unconscious, but let's face it, women that read Salon and newspapers and political blogs are much less in proportion to society as a whole than men that do.

Why is Hillary the so called obvious candidate? Because the assumption is that women will vote for her knowing nothing else about her.

Julia, how much was your last pair of shoes, and how much was your last political contribution?

(By the way, the NPR pitch is often that NPR for a month compares to a latte.... Julia, are you an NPR member? Do you walk with your Nina Totenbag?)

"women tend to open their wallets when they have a sense that their money will have an impact, and when they are familiar with where their money is going."

Shoes.

After the whole Howard Dean thing, I am convinced that I can't change the world with my money. For one thing, I don't have enough of it, and for another, there are people closer to me who need it more than Barack Obama does. Like my son the college freshman. I don't know where this 20 million dollars (or whatever it was) came from that Obama's campaign raised last quarter, but if it came from mostly $100 and under contributions, I'd be really surprised. The fact that it now costs nine figures just to convince other Democrats to nominate a particular candidate diminishes the already paltry ROI on my $100 investment. So my kid's getting it instead. It ought to keep him in gas money until the first midterms.

"Jonathan Prince, deputy manager of the Edwards campaign, said that slightly more than half of the $9 million — a total of $4.7 million — came from small donations. In the first quarter, more than 80 percent of donations to the Edwards campaign were $100 and under; this quarter, more than 80 percent were $50 and under."

"I need you to get people to write $25 and $50-checks and build a movement that will change this country. We have the chance today," said the senator's wife, Michelle Obama."

Julia, how much were those shoes? And when did you last buy a pair of shoes? And how many pairs of shoes do you own?