1887
Volume 17, Issue 5
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

After a record number of women were elected to the House of Commons in 1997, many incidents of sexism and abusive behaviour were reported. The aim of this article is twofold: on the one hand, to scrutinize the mechanisms and effects of sexist discrimination and stereotyping of women MPs in the House of Commons; on the other, to identify the strategies used by female (and male) MPs to subvert discriminatory representations, and to counteract gender-biased and sexist treatment. The focus of the multi-level analysis is on three recurrent strategies: objectifying women MPs through fixation on personal appearance rather than professional performance (e.g. making trivialising comments about women’s hair and dressing style); patronizing women MPs through the use of derogatory forms of address (e.g. directly addressing them by the terms of endearment “honey”, “dear”, “woman”); and stigmatizing women MPs through abusive and discriminatory labelling (e.g. ascribing to them stereotypically insulting names.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.18015.ili
2018-08-14
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arneil, Barbara
    1999Politics and Feminism. Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ås, Berit
    1978Hersketeknikker [Master suppression techniques]. Kjerringråd.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Atanga, Lilan Lem
    2009Gender, Discourse and Power in the Cameroonian Parliament. Langaa: RPCIG.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bem, Sandra Lipsitz
    1993The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bou-Franch, Patricia
    (ed.) 2016Exploring Language Aggression against Women. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.86
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.86 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chappell, Louise
    2002Gendering Government: Feminist Engagement with the State in Australia and Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2006 “Comparing Political Institutions: Revealing the Gendered ‘Logic of Appropriateness.’” Politics and Gender2(2): 221–263.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Coates, Jennifer
    2003 “Address.” InInternational Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. byWilliam J. Frawley, 33–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Duffel, Nick
    2015/2014Wounded leaders: The Psychohistory of British Elitism and the Entitlement Illusion. Lone Arrow Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet
    1992 “Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-based Practice.” Annual Review of Anthropology21: 461–90.10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 [Google Scholar]
  11. Ehrlich, Susan, Miriam Meyerhoff, and Janet Holmes
    2014Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality. Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781118584248
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584248 [Google Scholar]
  12. Elliott, Cath
    2011 “Cameron’s ‘Calm down, dear’ is a classic sexist put-down.” The Guardian [online], 27April 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Fishman, Pamela
    1983 “Interaction: The Work Women Do.” InLanguage, Gender and Society, ed. byBarry Thorne, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley, 89–101. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gallagher, Michael, Michael Laver, and Peter Mair
    2011Representative Government in Modern Europe. McGraw-Hill, London.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gavison, Ruth E.
    1992 “Feminism and the Private-Public Distinction.” Stanford Law Review45: 1–45.10.2307/1228984
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1228984 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gye, Hugo
    2011 “Nadine Dorries storms out of Commons to schoolboy laughter after Cameron quips that she is ‘frustrated’”, Mail [Online], 8September 2011 Available atwww.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2035039/Nadine-Dorries-storms-Commons-schoolboy-laughter-Cameron-quips-frustrated.html (Accessed30 May 2018).
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hall, Kira, and Mary Bucholtz
    (eds.) 1995Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. New York and London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Harris, Sandra
    2001 “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society12(4): 451–472.10.1177/0957926501012004003
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012004003 [Google Scholar]
  19. Holly, Werner
    1994 “Confrontainment: Politik als Schaukampf im Fernsehen.” InMedienlust und Mediennutz: Unterhaltung als offentliche Kommunication, ed. byLouis Bosshart and Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, 422–434. Münich: Ölschläger.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ilie, Cornelia
    2000 “Cliché-based Metadiscursive Argumentation in the Houses of Parliament.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics10(1): 65–84.10.1111/j.1473‑4192.2000.tb00140.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2000.tb00140.x [Google Scholar]
  21. 2001 “Unparliamentary Language: Insults as Cognitive Forms of Confrontation.” InLanguage and Ideology, Vol. II: Descriptive Cognitive Approaches, ed. byRené Dirven, Roslyn Frank, and Cornelia Ilie, 235–263, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.205.14ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.205.14ili [Google Scholar]
  22. 2003 “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics1(2): 269–291.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2004 “Insulting as (Un)Parliamentary Practice in the British and Swedish Parliaments: A Rhetorical Approach.” InCross-cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. byPaul Bayley, 45–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.10.02ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.02ili [Google Scholar]
  24. 2010a “Analytical Perspectives on Parliamentary and Extra-parliamentary Discourses.” Journal of Pragmatics42(4): 879–884.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.09.015 [Google Scholar]
  25. 2010b “Strategic Uses of Parliamentary Forms of Address: The Case of the U.K. Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag.” Journal of Pragmatics42(4): 885–911.10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.017
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.08.017 [Google Scholar]
  26. 2012 “Representing Gender in Parliamentary Dialogue: Are There Any Cross-cultural Stereotypes?” In(Re)presentations and Dialogue, ed. byFrançois Cooren and Alain Letourneau, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ds.16.04ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.16.04ili [Google Scholar]
  27. 2013 “Gendering Confrontational Rhetoric: Discursive Disorder in the British and Swedish Parliaments.” Democratization20(3): 501–521.10.1080/13510347.2013.786547
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.786547 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2016 “Parliamentary Discourse and Deliberative Rhetoric.” InParliaments and parliamentarism: A comparative history of disputes about a European concept, ed. byPasi Ihalainen, Cornelia Ilie, and Kari Palonen, 133–145. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lakoff, Robin
    2005 “Language, Gender and Politics: Putting “Women” and “Power” in the Same Sentence.” InThe Handbook of Language and Gender, ed. byJanet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 161–178. Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lovenduski, Joni
    2012 “Prime Minister’s Questions as Political Ritual.” British Politics7(4): 314–340.10.1057/bp.2012.13
    https://doi.org/10.1057/bp.2012.13 [Google Scholar]
  31. Lovenduski, Joni, and Azza Karam
    2005 “Women in Parliament: Making a Difference.” InWomen in Parliament: Beyond Numbers, ed. byJulie Ballington and Azza Karam, 187–198. Stockholm: IDEA.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Malley, Rosa
    2011 The Institutionalism of Gendered Norms and the Substantive Representation of Women in Westminster and the Scottish Parliament, PhD Thesis, University of Bristol.
  33. Maltz, Daniel N., and Ruth A. Borker
    1982 “A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication.” InLanguage and Social Identity, ed. byJohn J. Gumperz, 196–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. McConnell-Ginet, Sally, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman
    (eds) 1980Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. McConnell-Ginet, Sally
    2003 ““What’s in a Name?” Social Labeling and Gender Practices.” InThe Handbook of Language and Gender, ed. byJanet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 69–97. Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756942.ch3
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch3 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pateman, Carol
    1983 “Feminist Critiques of the Private-Public Dichotomy.” InPublic and Private in Social Life, ed. byStanley I. Benn and Gerald F. Gaus, 281–303. London: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Pérez de Ayala, Soledad
    2001 “FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? – Politeness in Question Time.” Journal of Pragmatics33: 143–169.10.1016/S0378‑2166(00)00002‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00002-3 [Google Scholar]
  38. Puwar, Nirmal
    1997 Reflections on Interviewing Women MPs. Sociological Research Online2(1).10.5153/sro.19
    https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.19 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2004Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of Place. Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Berg.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Ross, Karen
    1995 “Gender and Party Politics: How the Press Reported the Labour Leadership Campaign, 1994.” Media, Culture and Society17(3): 499–509.10.1177/016344395017003009
    https://doi.org/10.1177/016344395017003009 [Google Scholar]
  41. Shackle, Samira
    2011 “PMQs Review: Same Old Insults, but Little Real Substance”, New Statesman [online], 9March 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Shaw, Sylvia
    2002 Language and Gender in Political Debates in the House of Commons. PhD thesis, The Institute of Education, University of London.
  43. Slack, James
    2009 “Why Jacqui Smith was out of her depth and never up to the job of Home Secretary”, Daily Mail [online], 4June 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sones, Bonnie, Margaret Moran, and Joni Lovenduski
    2005Women in Parliament: The New Suffragettes. London: Politicos.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tannen, Deborah
    1994Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men in the Workplace: Language, Sex and Power. New York: Avon.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Thorne, Barrie, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley
    (eds) 1983Language, Gender and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Walsh, Clare
    2013Gender and Discourse: Language and Power in Politics, the Church and Organisations. London and New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. West, Candace
    1995 “Women’s Competence in Conversation.” Discourse and Society6(1): 107–131.10.1177/0957926595006001006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006001006 [Google Scholar]
  49. West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman
    1983 “Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-sex Conversations between Unacquainted Persons.” InLanguage, Gender and Society, ed. byBarrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley, 102–117. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Wodak, Ruth
    2003 “Multiple Identities: The Roles of Female Parliamentarians in the EU Parliament.” InThe Handbook of Language and Gender, ed. byJanet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 671–698. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470756942.ch29
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756942.ch29 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wolfson, Nessa and Joan Manes
    1980 “Don’t “dear” me!” InWomen and Language in Literature and Societyed. bySally McConnell-Ginet, Ruth A. Borker and Nelly Furman, 79–92. New York: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Zimmerman, Don H.
    1998 “Identity, Context and Interaction.” InIdentities in Talk, ed. byCharles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe, 87–106. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.18015.ili
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error