Are Backbenchers' Interventions Gendered?

• Author: Schwenk, Alison

When women backbenchers participate in Question Period and Private Members' Business, are their interventions gendered? Are they more likely than men to address stereotypically feminine issues and less likely to address stereotypically masculine issues? In this article, the authors investigate these questions by analyzing all of the interventions in Question Period and Private Members' Business by backbenchers in the 42nd Parliament between September 16 and December 13, 2018. Using software to code the interventions, they determined that the gendered division of labour on stereotypically feminine issues was much more evident in Question Period than Private Members' Business. While women were no less likely than men to address stereotypically masculine issues, they were more likely than men to intervene on matters considered stereotypically feminine. The authors conclude that judging what these patterns of gendered interventions mean for our political culture and institutions depends on a person's perspective.

Introduction

Even as more women are elected to parliaments around the world, legislatures may remain gendered institutions. (1) There is ample evidence that women are more likely than men to serve on parliamentary committees that deal with stereotypically feminine issues, such as health, social welfare and education, and less likely to be on committees that deal with stereotypically masculine issues, such as the economy, finance and defence. (2) There is also evidence that they deliver fewer speeches in parliament than men. (3) In this article, we look at another form of gendering and ask whether women backbenchers in Canada's Parliament are more likely than the men to address stereotypically feminine issues and less likely to address stereotypically masculine issues when they intervene in Question Period and Private Members' Business.

Gender and Speech-Making

There are a number of reasons to expect that backbenchers' interventions in these venues will be gendered. First, there are career incentives. Numerous studies have shown that voters are apt to attribute issue competencies on the basis of a politician's gender. (4) Women are assumed to be more competent in dealing with stereotypically feminine issues whereas men are presumed to have greater competence when it comes to stereotypically masculine issues. Accordingly, the party leadership may have a strategic incentive to encourage women members to intervene on stereotypically feminine issues in more public arenas in order to demonstrate the party's competence in handling these issues. Conversely, women members may be less likely to be selected to intervene on stereotypically masculine issues on which they may be presumed to have less competence. Given the degree of party discipline in Canada's Parliament, women backbenchers have strong incentives to comply with the wishes of the party leadership. If they value career advancement, they will not want to risk possible sanctioning or being overlooked when it comes to choosing backbenchers to serve in key positions. As a former MP has explained, "A loyal MP can be made a committee chair, House leader, a parliamentary secretary or a Cabinet minister. Insubordinate MPs can be relegated to the backbenches, refused authorization to travel abroad, thrown out of caucus or barred from running in the next election." (5)

We should not assume, though, that the women necessarily need either carrots or sticks to intervene on stereotypically feminine issues. Rather than being the result of pressure from the party leadership, it could be a matter of choice. The women may feel that they have a duty to speak on issues that are thought to be of particular concern to women. These issues extend beyond what are conventionally considered "women's issues" (such as reproductive choice, violence against women and sexual harassment) to include stereotypically feminine issues such as health, social welfare and education. Women may even fear electoral punishment if they fail to live up to constituents' expectations regarding the issue competencies and priorities of women politicians. (6) They may also be more apt to prioritize these issues because they are more likely than the men to have come to politics from fields such as health care, social work and education. Gendered socialization and life experiences may also play a role. (7)

It is possible, of course, that backbenchers' interventions in Question Period and Private Members' Business are not gendered. Women backbenchers may be as likely as the men to address stereotypically masculine issues, just as the men may be as likely as the women to raise stereotypically feminine issues. (8) The women may face a difficult trade-off. To advance in their parliamentary careers, they also need to get re-elected. This may give them an incentive to address stereotypically masculine issues in order to...