The roots of adult civic and political participation originate in pre-adult experiences (Verba et al. 1995) and high school extracurricular activities offer students opportunities to develop interpersonal and leadership skills. In this research, we ask whether adolescents also learn gendered norms of political discourse through extracurricular activities. This project assessed gender differences in participation at the 1999 Model United Nations of the Southwest (MUNSW) at the University of Oklahoma. Important differences in participation were observed in the number and character of speaking turns taken by male and female delegates. We find that contextual factors, such as the sex of the committee chair, the issue areas addressed by the committee, and the timing of the session in the conference significantly influence who participates in the discourse, but the percentage of female participants surprisingly does not. The character of the political discourse suggests norms dominated by masculinity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Broughton, Sharon. 2000. “Leadership is a Feminist Issue: Do Women in the Australian Parliament Make a Difference?” Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Government, University of Queensland.
2.
Drass, K. A.1986. “The Effect of Gender Identity on Conversation. Social Psychology Quarterly49: 294-301.
3.
Edelsky, Carole. 1993. “Who’s Got the Floor?” In Deborah Tannen., ed., Gender and Conversational Interaction, New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
Hale, Mary. 1999. “He Says, She Says: Gender and Worklife,”Public Administration Review59: 5-5, 410-424.
5.
James, D., and J. Drakich. 1993. “Understanding Gender Differences in Amount of Talk: A Critical Review of Research.” In Deborah Tannen, ed., Gender and Conversational Interaction. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Kanter, R. M.1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
7.
Kathlene, L.1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policy Making: The Interaction of Gender and Power in Committee Hearing Debates.”American Political Science Review88 (3): 560-576.
8.
Kathlene, L.1995. “Position Power Verses Gender Power: Who Holds the Floor?” In G. Duerst-Lahti and R. M. Kelly, eds., Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
9.
Kenney, S.1997. “New Research on Gendered Political Institutions.”Political Research Quarterly49 (2): 445-466.
10.
Kollock, P., P. Blumstein, and P. Schwartz. 1985. “Sex and Power in Interaction.”American Sociological Review, 50: 34-47.
11.
Lakoff, R. T.1990. Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. New York: Basic Books.
12.
Leet-Pellegrini, H. M.1980. “Conversational Dominance as a Function of Gender and Expertise.” In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson, and P. M. Smith, eds.,. Language: Social Psychological Perspectives, Oxford: Pergamon.
13.
Levy, Dana, Charles Tien, and rachelle Aved. 20001. “Do Differences Matter? Women Members of Congress and the Hyde Amendment.”Women & Politics23 (1/2): 104-128.
14.
Mahoney, P.1985. Schools for the Boys? Co-education Re-assessed. London: Hutchinson Publishing Group.
15.
Mattei, L. W.1998. “Gender and Power in American Legislative Discourse.”Journal of Politics60 (2): 440-461.
16.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
17.
Polsby, Nelson W.1968. “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives,”American Political Science Review62: 44-68.
18.
Ridgeway, C., and J. Johnson. 1990. “What is the Relationship Between Socioemotional Behavior and Status in Task Groups?’American Journal of Sociology95: 1189-1212.
19.
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1998. When Women Lead. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
Schlozman, K. L., N. Burns, S. Verba, and J. Donahue. 1995. “Gender and Citizen Participation: Is There a Different Voice?”American Journal of Political Science39 (2): 267-293.
21.
Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and Charles Brody. 1989. “Interruptions in Group Discussions: the Effects of Gender and Group Composition.”American Sociological review54: 424-435
22.
Smith-Lovin, Lynn, and D. T. Robinson. 1992. “Gender and Conversational Dynamics.” In Cecilia L. Ridgeway, ed., Gender, Interaction, and Inequality. New York: Springer-Verlag.
23.
Sigel, Roberta S.1989. Political Learning in Adulthood: A Sourcebook of Theory and Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Swann, J.1988. “Talk Control: An Illustration from the Classroom of Problems in Analyzing Male Dominance of Conversation.” In Jennifer Coates and Deborah Cameron, eds., Women in Their Speech Communities. London: Longman.
25.
Tamerius, K. L.1995. “Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Representation of Women.” In Georgia Duerst-Lahti and Rita Mae Kelly, eds., Gender Power, Leadership, and Governanc,. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
26.
Verba, S., K. L. Schlozman, and H. E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
27.
Walsh, Katherine Cramer. 2002. “Enlarging Representation: Women Bringing Marginalized Perspectives to Floor Debate in the House of Representatives.” In Cindy Simon Rosenthal, ed., Women Transforming Congress. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
28.
Zimmerman, Don H., and Candace West. 1975. “Sex Roles, Interruptions, and Silences in Conversation.” In Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henly, eds., Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
