Male Practices and Discourses as a consequence of Male Political Dominance

Feminist political science has long sought to understand why women are under-represented in political office, providing ample evidence of the hurdles women face at different stages of the political process. This contribution turns this question on its head, evaluating the insights gained from shifting our theoretical and empirical focus from disadvantages for women in politics to advantages for men. Drawing on insights from the field of feminist institutionalism, we explore the institutional and discursive consequences of male political dominance, evaluating the ways in which the ‘masculine blueprint’ in political institutions is constructed through discourse, routine, and everyday practice. Such an approach, we argue, can deliver a more complete picture of the dynamics of not only political exclusion, but also political inclusion – providing insights into the ways in which power advantages are ascribed to men in politics, and offering new ways to interrogate the male norm within political institutions. When masculinity is constructed as a neutral standard and blueprint for conduct, there is a tacit acceptance of hegemonic structures that present themselves as silence on gender or as normalization of masculine-associated practices. At the same time, however, we argue that a shift from looking at women’s disadvantage to male advantage should not come at the expense of ‘women’ – in other words, our focus should be on broadening, rather than narrowing, our scope of theoretical and political enquiry.