Well, first, there's the basic issue of the value of a representative democracy to citizens and pretending that we have one. We're attached to that idea. Second, young girls can't be what they can't see -- it's a vicious circle. Third, there is the matter of how women operate as elected officials. Despite their low numbers, female elected officials make a difference in the issues they prioritize, the bills they sponsor and cosponsor, the output they generate, and the extent to which they mobilize their constituents.

Many people just believe that women aren't interested, not ambitious enough, can't be bothered with all the ugliness of the public political sphere. However, the reasons are more complex. The study, completed by Professor Jennifer Lawless of American University's Women & Politics Institute and based on interviews with 4,000 male and female potential candidates for office, revealed the following:

"1. Women are substantially more likely than men to perceive the electoral environment as highly competitive and biased against female candidates.

2. Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin's candidacies aggravated women's perceptions of gender bias in the electoral arena.

3. Women are much less likely than men to think they are qualified to run for office.

4. Female potential candidates are less competitive, less confident and more risk averse than their male counterparts.

5. Women react more negatively than men to many aspects of modern campaigns.

6. Women are less likely than men to receive the suggestion to run for office -- from anyone.

7. Women are still responsible for the majority of childcare and household tasks. In families where both adults are working (generally in high-level careers), women are roughly six times more likely than men to bear responsibility for the majority of household tasks, and they are about ten times more likely to be the primary childcare provider. This division of labor is consistent across political party lines."