Cover not available
Article published In:
Democracy and Discriminatory Strategies in Parliamentary Discourse
Edited by Karin Bischof and Cornelia Ilie
[Journal of Language and Politics 17:5] 2018
► pp. 594–616

“Behave yourself, woman!”

Patterns of gender discrimination and sexist stereotyping in parliamentary interaction

ORCID logo | Strömstad Academy, Sweden
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.
Keywords: parliament, parliamentary, Prime Minister’s Question Time, gender discrimination, sexist, stereotype, abusive language, identity, Master Suppression Techniques
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Approaches to sexist and abusive language/behaviour
  • 3.Exposing gender bias at the private-public interface
  • 4.Discourse-shaped identity framings
  • 5.Parliamentary usage of Master Suppression Techniques
  • 6.Where does the British parliamentary bully tradition come from?
  • 7.Manifestations of British parliamentary sexist discrimination and bullying
    • 7.1Objectifying women MPs through stereotypically sexist remarks
    • 7.2Patronizing women MPs through derogatory forms of address
    • 7.3Stigmatizing women MPs through abusive labeling
  • 8.Reactions to and actions against male MPs’ sexist and demeaning behaviour
    • 8.1Informal reactions and follow-ups
    • 8.2Online feedback (through Twitter, social media)
    • 8.3Institutional initiatives: Constructive proposals and sanctions
  • 9.Concluding remarks
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18015.ili
References (52)
References
Arneil, Barbara. 1999. Politics and Feminism. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ås, Berit. 1978. Hersketeknikker [Master suppression techniques]. Kjerringråd.Google Scholar
Atanga, Lilan Lem. 2009. Gender, Discourse and Power in the Cameroonian Parliament. Langaa: RPCIG.Google Scholar
Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. 1993. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bou-Franch, Patricia (ed.). 2016. Exploring Language Aggression against Women. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Louise. 2002. Gendering Government: Feminist Engagement with the State in Australia and Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Comparing Political Institutions: Revealing the Gendered ‘Logic of Appropriateness.’” Politics and Gender 2(2): 221–263.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer. 2003. “Address.” In International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. by William J. Frawley, 33–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Duffel, Nick. 2015/2014. Wounded leaders: The Psychohistory of British Elitism and the Entitlement Illusion. Lone Arrow Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 1992. “Think Practically and Look Locally: Language and Gender as Community-based Practice.” Annual Review of Anthropology 211: 461–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan, Miriam Meyerhoff, and Janet Holmes. 2014. Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality. Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Cath. 2011. “Cameron’s ‘Calm down, dear’ is a classic sexist put-down.” The Guardian [online], 27 April 2011.Google Scholar
Fishman, Pamela. 1983. “Interaction: The Work Women Do.” In Language, Gender and Society, ed. by Barry Thorne, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley, 89–101. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Michael, Michael Laver, and Peter Mair. 2011. Representative Government in Modern Europe. McGraw-Hill, London.Google Scholar
Gavison, Ruth E. 1992. “Feminism and the Private-Public Distinction.” Stanford Law Review 451: 1–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gye, Hugo. 2011. “Nadine Dorries storms out of Commons to schoolboy laughter after Cameron quips that she is ‘frustrated’”, Mail [Online], 8 September 2011. Available at [URL] (Accessed 30 May 2018).
Hall, Kira, and Mary Bucholtz (eds.). 1995. Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society 12(4): 451–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holly, Werner. 1994. “Confrontainment: Politik als Schaukampf im Fernsehen.” In Medienlust und Mediennutz: Unterhaltung als offentliche Kommunication, ed. by Louis Bosshart and Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem, 422–434. Münich: Ölschläger.Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2000. “Cliché-based Metadiscursive Argumentation in the Houses of Parliament.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 10(1): 65–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Unparliamentary Language: Insults as Cognitive Forms of Confrontation.” In Language and Ideology, Vol. II: Descriptive Cognitive Approaches, ed. by René Dirven, Roslyn Frank, and Cornelia Ilie, 235–263, Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Discourse and Metadiscourse in Parliamentary Debates.” Journal of Language and Politics 1(2): 269–291.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Insulting as (Un)Parliamentary Practice in the British and Swedish Parliaments: A Rhetorical Approach.” In Cross-cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. by Paul Bayley, 45–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010a. “Analytical Perspectives on Parliamentary and Extra-parliamentary Discourses.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(4): 879–884. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010b. “Strategic Uses of Parliamentary Forms of Address: The Case of the U.K. Parliament and the Swedish Riksdag.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(4): 885–911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Representing Gender in Parliamentary Dialogue: Are There Any Cross-cultural Stereotypes?” In (Re)presentations and Dialogue, ed. by François Cooren and Alain Letourneau, 59–82. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Gendering Confrontational Rhetoric: Discursive Disorder in the British and Swedish Parliaments.” Democratization 20(3): 501–521. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Parliamentary Discourse and Deliberative Rhetoric.” In Parliaments and parliamentarism: A comparative history of disputes about a European concept, ed. by Pasi Ihalainen, Cornelia Ilie, and Kari Palonen, 133–145. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 2005. “Language, Gender and Politics: Putting “Women” and “Power” in the Same Sentence.” In The Handbook of Language and Gender, ed. by Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 161–178. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 2012. “Prime Minister’s Questions as Political Ritual.” British Politics 7(4): 314–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni, and Azza Karam. 2005. “Women in Parliament: Making a Difference.” In Women in Parliament: Beyond Numbers, ed. by Julie Ballington and Azza Karam, 187–198. Stockholm: IDEA.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Maltz, Daniel N., and Ruth A. Borker. 1982. “A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication.” In Language and Social Identity, ed. by John J. Gumperz, 196–216. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally, Ruth Borker, and Nelly Furman (eds). 1980. Women and Language in Literature and Society. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2003. ““What’s in a Name?” Social Labeling and Gender Practices.” In The Handbook of Language and Gender, ed. by Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 69–97. Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pateman, Carol. 1983. “Feminist Critiques of the Private-Public Dichotomy.” In Public and Private in Social Life, ed. by Stanley I. Benn and Gerald F. Gaus, 281–303. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Pérez de Ayala, Soledad. 2001. “FTAs and Erskine May: Conflicting Needs? – Politeness in Question Time.” Journal of Pragmatics 331: 143–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Puwar, Nirmal. 1997. Reflections on Interviewing Women MPs. Sociological Research Online 2(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies out of Place. Oxford, UK and New York, USA: Berg.Google Scholar
Ross, Karen. 1995. “Gender and Party Politics: How the Press Reported the Labour Leadership Campaign, 1994.” Media, Culture and Society 17(3): 499–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shackle, Samira. 2011. “PMQs Review: Same Old Insults, but Little Real Substance”, New Statesman [online], 9 March 2011.Google Scholar
Shaw, Sylvia. 2002. Language and Gender in Political Debates in the House of Commons. PhD thesis, The Institute of Education, University of London.Google Scholar
Slack, James. 2009. “Why Jacqui Smith was out of her depth and never up to the job of Home Secretary”, Daily Mail [online], 4 June 2009.Google Scholar
Sones, Bonnie, Margaret Moran, and Joni Lovenduski. 2005. Women in Parliament: The New Suffragettes. London: Politicos.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1994. Talking from 9 to 5: Women and Men in the Workplace: Language, Sex and Power. New York: Avon.Google Scholar
Thorne, Barrie, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley (eds). 1983. Language, Gender and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Walsh, Clare. 2013. Gender and Discourse: Language and Power in Politics, the Church and Organisations. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
West, Candace. 1995. “Women’s Competence in Conversation.” Discourse and Society 6(1): 107–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1983. “Small Insults: A Study of Interruptions in Cross-sex Conversations between Unacquainted Persons.” In Language, Gender and Society, ed. by Barrie Thorne, Cheris Kramarae, and Nancy Henley, 102–117. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. 2003. “Multiple Identities: The Roles of Female Parliamentarians in the EU Parliament.” In The Handbook of Language and Gender, ed. by Janet Holmes and Miriam Meyerhoff, 671–698. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa and Joan Manes. 1980. “Don’t “dear” me!” In Women and Language in Literature and Society ed. by Sally McConnell-Ginet, Ruth A. Borker and Nelly Furman, 79–92. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Don H. 1998. “Identity, Context and Interaction.” In Identities in Talk, ed. by Charles Antaki and Sue Widdicombe, 87–106. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Kostovicova, Denisa
2024. Discursive Interaction and Agency in Transitional Justice: A Conversation Analysis Perspective. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Miller, Cherry M.
2023. Between Westminster and Brussels: Putting the “Parliament” in Parliamentary Ethnography. Politics & Gender 19:2 ► pp. 533 ff. DOI logo
Tyrkkö, Jukka & Haidee Kotze
2023. Perspectives on parliamentary discourse. In Exploring Language and Society with Big Data [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 111], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Tanaka, Lidia
2021. Japanese politicians’ questions in parliament. In Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 323], ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.