Search results

This book addresses the problem of the underrepresentation of women in politics, by examining how language use constructs and maintains inequality in political institutions. Drawing on different political genres from televised debates to parliamentary question times, and fifty interviews with politicians between 1998 and 2018, the book identifies the barriers and obstacles women face by considering how gender stereotypes constrain women's participation, and give them additional burdens. By comparing the UK House of Commons with newer institutions such as the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, it asks: how successful have newer institutions been in encouraging equal participation? What are the interactional procedures that can be thought of as making an institution more egalitarian? It also explores the workings and effects of sexism, fraternal networks, high visibility in the media, and gendered discourses, through detailed case studies of Theresa May, Julia Gillard and Hillary Clinton.

"On the 7th February 2017, Senator Mitch McConnell read the statement below in an attempt to justify the silencing of Senator Elizabeth Warren's earlier speech in the US Senate: Senator Warren was giving a lengthy speech. She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted. (Senator Mitch McConnell, U.S, Senate on 7th February 2017)1 This statement and subsequent reactions to it encapsulate many of the issues raised in this study of women, language and politics. First, it is a statement made by a man in a political institution referring to invoking formal rules to justify the collective and institutional silencing of the speech of a woman politician, having already silenced her on the floor of the chamber by a series of interruptions. Second, it is about the interpretation and application of institutional rules as a controlling mechanism with which to silence. Elizabeth Warren's speech had criticised the appointment of Jeff Sessions as US Attorney General by reading out previous objections to his appointment as a federal court judge in 19862. The citing of these objections to Sessions' appointment was deemed to have broken a rule3 which prohibits ascribing to a Senator any 'conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a senator'. However, the application of these rules is not clear-cut and involves subjective judgements, with this particular rule being conventionally viewed as an edict that is rarely enforced (Jacobson 2017). Further doubt about the enforcement of the rule rested on the fact that a male colleague of Warren's subsequently read out the same objections from 1986 on the floor of the senate - in full and without censure4"--