In today’s democracies, disempowered group members are no longer formally barred from the political arena. However, there is a concern that the historical memory of political inequality and exclusion remains as internalized cognitive dispositions, shaping behavior even after laws are changed. Focusing on the legacy of women’s political exclusion from the public sphere, I consider whether internal exclusions undermine women’s ability to influence political discourse even under conditions of formal political equality. All else being equal, do women and men in Western democracies have the same discursive influence? Are women particularly sensitive to men’s discursive authority? I help answer these questions using an experimental research design. The results of my study offer evidence that people are more willing to revise their opinions after hearing a man’s counterargument than after hearing a woman’s identical counterargument. This pattern appears to be driven by the way women respond to a man’s counterclaim. I discuss how gendered discursive inequities reinforce existing patriarchal structures, and the role that women inadvertently play in their own subjugation. I conclude by offering suggestions for better approximating the ideal of discursive gender equality.
AllportG.1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.
2.
AndersenK.MillerE. D. 1997. “Gender and Student Evaluations of Teaching.” PS: Political Science & Politics30 (2): 216–19.
3.
AndersonE.2010. “The Fundamental Disagreement between Luck Egalitarians and Relational Egalitarians.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy40 (1): 1–23.
4.
ArendtH.2013. The Human Condition. 2nd ed.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
BächtigerA.ParkinsonJ. 2019. Mapping and Measuring Deliberation: Towards a New Deliberative Quality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BaldwinT.BlattnerN. 2003. “Guarding against Potential Bias in Student Evaluations: What Every Faculty Member Needs to Know.” College Teaching51 (1): 27–32.
7.
BarabasJ.JeritJ. 2010. “Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?” American Political Science Review102 (2): 226–42.
8.
BeauvaisE.2018. “Deliberation and Equality.” In The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy, edited by BächtigerA.DryzekJ. S.MansbridgeJ.WarrenM. E., 144–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
BeauvaisE.2019. “The Gender Gap in Political Discussion Group Attendance.” Politics & Gender, 1–24.
10.
BeauvaisE.BächtigerA. 2016. “Taking the Goals of Deliberation Seriously: A Differentiated View on Equality and Equity in Deliberative Designs and Processes.” Journal of Public Deliberation12 (2): Article 2.
11.
BeauvaisE.WarrenM. E. 2018. “What Can Deliberative Mini-Publics Contribute to Democratic Systems?” European Journal of Political Research58:893–914.
12.
BennettW. L.EntmanR. M. 2001. Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
BertrandM.MullainathanS. 2004. “Are Emily and Greg more Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” American Economic Review94 (4): 991–1013.
14.
BlakerN. M.RompaI.DessingI. H.VriendA. F.HerschbergC.Van VugtM. 2013. “The Height Leadership Advantage in Men and Women: Testing Evolutionary Psychology Predictions about the Perceptions of Tall Leaders.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations16 (1): 17–27.
15.
BleidornW.ArslanR. C.DenissenJ. J.RentfrowP. J.GebauerJ. E.PotterJ.GoslingS. D. 2015. “Age and Gender Differences in Self-Esteem—A Cross-Cultural Window.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology111 (3): 396–410.
16.
BottgerP. C.1984. “Expertise and Air Time as Bases of Actual and Perceived Influence in Problem-Solving Groups.” Journal of Applied Psychology69 (2): 214–21.
17.
BourdieuP.2000. Pascalian Meditations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
18.
BourdieuP.2001. Masculine Domination. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
19.
CarliL. L.2001. “Gender and Social Influence.” Journal of Social Issues57 (4): 725–41.
20.
ChambersS.1996. Reasonable Democracy: Jürgen Habermas and the Politics of Discourse. Volume 11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21.
CollinsP. H.2000. “Mammies, Matriarchs, and Other Controlling Images.” In Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment, edited by CollinsP. H., 69–96. New York: Routledge.
22.
CuratoN.BökerM. 2016. “Linking Mini-Publics to the Deliberative System: A Research Agenda.” Policy Sciences49 (2): 173–90.
23.
CuratoN.HammondM.MinJ. B. 2018. Power in Deliberative Democracy: Norms, Forums, Systems. Cham: Springer.
24.
DavisA. Y.1981. Women, Race, & Class. New York: Random House.
25.
DavisK.2008. “Intersectionality as Buzzword: A Sociology of Science Perspective on What Makes a Feminist Theory Successful.” Feminist Theory9 (1): 67–85.
26.
DruckmanJ. N.KamC. D. 2009. Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the “Narrow Data Base.” Number WP-09-05 in Working Paper Series, Institute for Policy Research Northwestern University, Evanston.
27.
DruckmanJ. N.GreenD. P.KuklinskiJ. H.LupiaA. 2006. “The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science.” American Political Science Review100 (4): 627–35.
28.
EgolfD. B.CorderL. E. 1991. “Height Differences of Low and High Job Status, Female and Male Corporate Employees.” Sex Roles24 (5–6): 365–73.
29.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. 2011. “Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women’s Equality in Electoral Politics.” American Journal of Political Science55 (1): 59–73.
30.
FoxR. L.LawlessJ. L. 2014. “Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition.” American Political Science Review108 (3): 499–519.
31.
FungA.2013. “The Principle of All-Affected Interests: An Interpretation and Defense.” In Representations: Elections and Beyond, edited by NagelJ. H.SmithR. M., 236–68. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
32.
GainesB. J.KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J. 2007. “The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined.” Political Analysis15 (1): 1–20.
33.
GibsonJ. L.1981. “Personality and Elite Political Behavior: The Influence of Self Esteem on Judicial Decision Making.” The Journal of Politics43 (1): 104–25.
34.
GoffmanE.2009. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
35.
GoodinR. E.2007. “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.” Philosophy & Public Affairs40:40–68.
HabermasJ.1990. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.
38.
HabermasJ.1998. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
39.
HainmuellerJ.HiscoxM. J. 2010. “Attitudes toward Highly Skilled and Low-Skilled Immigration: Evidence from a Survey Experiment.” American Political Science Review104 (1): 61–84.
40.
HamstraM. R.2014. “‘Big’ Men: Male Leaders’ Height Positively Relates to Followers’ Perception of Charisma.” Personality and Individual Differences56:190–92.
41.
HastieR.PenrodS.PenningtonN. 1983. Inside the Jury. Union, NJ: Lawbook Exchange.
HonnethA.1995. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity.
44.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. 1993. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly46 (3): 503–25.
45.
JacksonS. M.HillardA. L.SchneiderT. R. 2014. “Using Implicit Bias Training to Improve Attitudes toward Women in STEM.” Social Psychology of Education17 (3): 419–38.
46.
JacobsL. R.CookF. L.Delli CarpiniM. X. 2009. Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
JardinaA.2019. White Identity Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. 2004. “A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo.” Political Psychology25:881–919.
49.
KirchlerE.DavisJ. H. 1986. “The Influence of Member Status Differences and Task Type on Group Consensus and Member Position Change.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51 (1): 83–91.
50.
KlingK. C.HydeJ. S.ShowersC. J.BuswellB. N. 1999. “Gender Differences in Self-Esteem: A Meta-analysis.” Psychological Bulletin125 (4): 470–500.
51.
LakoffG.1990. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
52.
LawlessJ. L.2015. “Female Candidates and Legislators.” Annual Review of Political Science18:349–66.
53.
LeeperM. S.1991. “The Impact of Prejudice on Female Candidates: An Experimental Look at Voter Inference.” American Politics Quarterly19 (2): 248–61.
MacRaeD.Jr.1993. “Guidelines for Policy Discourse: Consensual versus Adversarial.” In The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, edited by FischerF.ForesterJ., 1–17. Durham: Duke University Press.
56.
MansbridgeJ.2010. “Deliberative Polling as the Gold Standard.” The Good Society19 (1): 55–62.
57.
MansbridgeJ.2015. “A Minimalist Definition of Deliberation.” In Deliberation and Development: Rethinking the Role of Voice and Collective Action in Unequal Societies, edited by HellerP., 27–50. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.
58.
MansbridgeJ.BohmanJ.ChambersS.ChristianoT.FungA.ParkinsonJ.ThompsonD. F.WarrenM. E. 2012. “A Systemic Approach to Deliberative Democracy.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by ParkinsonJ.MansbridgeJ., 1–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
McCallL.2005. “The Complexity of Intersectionality.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society30 (3): 1771–1800.
60.
McDermottR.HatemiP. K. 2011. “Distinguishing Sex and Gender.” PS: Political Science & Politics44 (1): 89–92.
61.
McGuireW. J.1968. “Personality and Susceptibility to Social Influence.” Handbook of Personality Theory and Research2:1130–87.
62.
MendelbergT.2002. “The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence.” Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation6 (1): 151–93.
63.
MendezJ. M.OsbornT. 2010. “Gender and the Perception of Knowledge in Political Discussion.” Political Research Quarterly63 (2): 269–79.
64.
NelsonT. E.ClawsonR. A.OxleyZ. M. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” The American Political Science Review91 (3): 567–83.
65.
NiemeyerS.2014. “Scaling Up Deliberation to Mass Publics: Harnessing Mini-Publics in a Deliberative System.” In Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process, edited by GrönlundK.BächtigerA.SetäläM., 177–202. Wivenhoe Park, UK: ECPR Press.
66.
ParkinsonJ.2012. “Democratizing Deliberative Systems.” In Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale, edited by ParkinsonJ.MansbridgeJ., 151–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
67.
PatemanC.1988. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
68.
RawlsJ.1980. “Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory.” The Journal of Philosophy77 (9): 515–72.
69.
RothA. E.1995. “Introduction to Experimental Economics.” In The Handbook of Experimental Economics, edited by KagelJ. H.RothA. E., 3–109. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
70.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. 1999. “Feminized Management and Backlash toward Agentic Women: The Hidden Costs to Women of a Kinder, Gentler Image of Middle Managers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77 (5): 1004–10.
71.
RudmanL. A.GlickP. 2001. “Prescriptive Gender Stereotypes and Backlash toward Agentic Women.” Journal of Social Issues57 (4): 743–62.
72.
SapiroV.1981. “If US Senator Baker Were a Woman: An Experimental Study of Candidate Images.” Political Psychology3 (1/2): 61–83.
73.
SearsD. O.1986. “College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human Nature.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51 (3): 515–30.
74.
ShorE.van de RijtA.MiltsovA.KulkarniV.SkienaS. 2015. “A Paper Ceiling: Explaining the Persistent Underrepresentation of Women in Printed News.” American Sociological Review80 (5): 960–84.
75.
SnidermanP. M.1975. Personality and Democratic Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
76.
SnidermanP. M.HagendoornL.PriorM. (2004). “Predisposing Factors and Situational Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities.” American Political Science Review98 (1): 35–49.
77.
StathamA.RichardsonL.CookJ. A. 1991. Gender and University Teaching: A Negotiated Difference. New York: State University of New York Press.
78.
StolleD.GidengilE. 2010. “What Do Women Really Know? A Gendered Analysis of Varieties of Political Knowledge.” Perspectives on Politics8 (1): 93–109.
79.
StrandE. A.1999. “Uncovering the Role of Gender Stereotypes in Speech Perception.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology18 (1): 86–100.
80.
TaylorC.1997. “Multiculturalism.” In The Politics of Recognition, edited by GutmannA., 25–74. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
81.
WalzerM.1999. “Deliberation, and What Else?” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, edited by MacedoS., 58–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
82.
WängnerudL.2009. “Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation.” Annual Review of Political Science12:51–69.
83.
WarrenM. E.2017. “A Problem-Based Approach to Democratic Theory.” American Political Science Review111 (1): 39–53.
84.
YaylaciS.BeauvaisE. 2017. “The Role of Social Group Membership on Classroom Participation.” PS: Political Science & Politics50 (2): 559–64.
85.
YoungI. M.1994. “Gender as Seriality: Thinking about Women as a Social Collective.” Signs19 (3): 713–38.
86.
YoungI. M.2000. Inclusion and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
87.
YoungI. M.2011. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
