The Senate Sisterhood Speaks:
An Analysis of Gendered Rhetoric in Floor Speeches
of the 113th Senate
By:
Angela Smith
Capstone Project for M.A. in Political Communication
American University, School of Public Affairs
Advised by Professor Leonard Steinhorn
April, 2014
1
Abstract:
The 2012 election saw more women entering national politics than ever before. The 113th Senate
included 20 women in 2013, a record 1/5 of the Senate. The difference in male and female
rhetoric has always been apparent, but as more women enter the Senate more political speeches
adopt a more feminine rhetorical style. An analysis of floor speeches on a number of different
issues show that gendered rhetoric is not as stark as it was once considered, and is actually more
of a continuum where both male and female politicians can more from one side to the other.
Gender plays an important factor in political discourse, and women now have the opportunity to
shift the discourse community. While there is still work to be done, the “Senate Sisterhood” is
making leaps and bounds to make politics more gender neutral and inclusive.
2
Introduction
It is no secret that women in power work differently than men in power. The Senate
chamber of the 113th Congress is currently putting this theory to the test and showing that not
only do men and women lead differently, but women might just lead more effectively. With a
record number 20 women currently serving, these women have had an influence on almost all
legislation passed during this session. Even the male Senators are singing their praises: Senator
John McCain said, “I am very proud that these women are stepping forward…Imagine what they
could do if there were 50 of them.”1
An excellent example of the leadership these women are providing in the Senate was
evident during the government shutdown of 2013. While male and female Senators alike were
lobbying for bi-partisanship and an end to the shutdown, the women and men went about it in
different ways. During the early stages of the shutdown male Senators were generally pointing
fingers. In contrast, the women were calling for bipartisanship to work together to end the
debate. This is typical of male and female leadership styles.
The Military Pay Act that was passed right before the shutdown is a good illustration of
this. The Senate unanimously passed the bill, but in interviews afterwards men and women
talked about it in very different ways. Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) released a news statement
announcing merely that he voted to pass the bill to ensure that pay to active duty service
members would be uninterrupted, and that he would not accept a salary during the shutdown
either.2 Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the Senator who was the catalyst for the shutdown, spoke on
1
Newton-Small, Jay. “Women are the Only Adults Left in Washington.” Time. (2013)
“Senator Brown Statement on Government Shutdown.” Sherrod Brown: Senator for Ohio. United States Senate.
(October 1, 2013)
2
3
the Senate floor praising the senate for not holding soldiers hostage.3 Both men spoke of the
sacrifices service members make when discussing the bill.
In contrast, women were more likely to speak out and say that this is not enough. In
general, women are more likely to bring up personal aspects of any military issue, and this time
was no exception.4 Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations
Committee, brought up the fact that many employees of the Department of Defense still won’t be
paid. Mikulski was influential in helping this bill get to the Senate floor, but was quick to point
out its inadequacies. Similarly Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who serves on the Armed
Services Committee, barely mentioned the bill in her statement; instead she talked about the
families and seniors that are supported by paychecks that would still not be coming.5
Women and men speak about the same issue in different ways; while this is not any
groundbreaking news, in the Senate it poses a unique opportunity for women to portray a larger
leadership role because of their effective rhetoric. This project will take what we know about
male and female rhetoric, as well as what we know about political rhetoric and women in
politics, and use that information to analyze Senator’s speeches and statements on certain issues.
It will compare the difference between men and women, while attempting to control for regional
and party differences.
The focus will be on the following five issues: the economy, healthcare, foreign policy,
crime, and immigration. There will be issues within some of these main issues; for example, the
shutdown would fall under the economy. Some issues garnered more attention and thus more
speeches than others in the past year, but all of these issues were major topics in Congress this
3
Cruz, Ted. “Continuing Appropriations.” (October 1, 2013)
Swers, Michelle. Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate (2013), 7.
5
“Claire McCaskill Blasts U.S. House for Shutting Down Government” Claire McCaskill, U.S. Senator for
Missouri (October 1, 2013)
4
4
session. Further, major legislation on all of these issues – with the exception of immigration –
were co-authored by at least one woman.
It will give us a clear idea of how men and women Senators tackle different issues, and
who is more effective. Despite the fact that the number of women in politics is growing, women
are still the overwhelming minority, and thus need to make sure they are speaking with the most
authority and effectiveness to maximize their leadership and influence.
Background
Rhetorical Differences
Deborah Tannen is the foremost scholar on the topic of gendered rhetoric. Dr. Tannen
draws extensively from this field’s foundational text: Language and Woman’s Place by Robin
Lakoff. Lakoff asserts that all rhetorical differences between men and women stem from the
unequal roles they have in society.6 Girls are taught at a young age to use a non-forceful style,
which stays with them for the rest of their lives. This has led to the development of what Lakoff
calls “women’s language” which is considered weaker.7 Some characteristics of women’s
language are the use of weaker expletives, trivializing adjectives, questions to express opinion,
and mitigate requests. For example, a man might say “open the door” while a woman would
phrase it “would you please open the door?” Or, a woman would use the word divine to describe
something a man would describe as great. It was thought that women were more likely to use
tentative, indirect language to save face and appear subordinate to men.8 This rhetorical style
denies women power.
6
Lakoff, Robin. Language and Woman’s Place. (1975)
Lakoff, Language and Woman’s Place
8
Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen & Heidi Hamilton. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis (2001), 549
7
5
Tannen expands on this phenomenon in her first book You Just Don’t Understand. It is
important to understand how men and women view the world differently, and how that effects
their rhetoric. Men consider themselves as an individual in a “hierarchical social order” where
they use language and interaction to either get or maintain the upper hand.9 Women, on the other
hand, are much less adversarial. Women consider society to not be as hierarchical, but rather
view it as a network of connections. In this type of community women use language to reach
consensus: they try to “seek and give confirmation and support.”10 This is not to say that women
are not concerned with achieving status like men are, women are just more likely to pursue that
goal in the pretense of connection.
Once we understand how men and women view the world, it is easier to understand the
major differences in rhetoric. Men are more attracted to public speaking instead of private
speaking because it gives them more of an opportunity to show and maintain their status. Men
are more likely to engage in what Tannen calls “report talk” where they show how much they
know and keep the attention on them.11 Women are more likely to engage in “rapport talk”
which establishes connections and networks. This type of rhetoric places a large emphasis on
similarities and experiences.
Usually, women are most comfortable talking in a smaller group setting because it is
easier to form these bonds and connections. When approaching public speaking, women are not
looking to take center stage and impart knowledge like men do. Women approach public
speaking in the same way they approach public speaking: they are more likely to give a speech
using personal examples and stories. When speaking persuasively a woman is most effective in
persuading other women because she is “observing and integrating her personal experience and
9
Tannen, Deborah. Gender and Discourse (1994), 15
Ibid
11
Tannen, Deborah. You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation (1994), 77
10
6
drawing connections on the experience of others.”12 Another woman, who is also seeking to
make connections, will understand this and respond better than a man who might be confused
and uncomfortable that public speaking is different than what they are used to.
Similarly, women seem to avoid conflict while men thrive on it. To men, conflict is
essential to negotiating status where women view conflict as a threat to their network and avoid
it. Female rhetoric is focused more on intimacy and uniting the speaker with the audience, while
male rhetoric is more antagonistic and focused on independence.13 Because men are socialized to
thrive in a conflict situation, women are more likely to adopt men’s style of speaking in a maledominated arena such as the Senate. Tannen found that when men and women got together in a
professional setting women followed the linguistic style of men, and talked about different issues
in different ways than when only women were brought together in a similar setting. 14 Men and
women both make conversational adjustments in these settings, but women make more in an
effort to be heard and understood.
Some women tend to feel ignored and overlooked in this type of setting. This is because a
more forceful linguistic style is necessary to capture and maintain attention, a style often
employed by men.15 Women are at a disadvantage because they are more likely to phrase their
ideas as questions, as opposed to men who state their idea forcefully and often in a long-winded
way. Women are also more likely to take up less time with their question, maybe not
commanding as much attention. Anyone who does not speak with a typically masculine style is
at a disadvantage and has to adapt in mixed gender group settings.
12
Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand: Men and Women in Conversation, 92
Schiffrin, et al. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 553
14
Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand, 236
15
Tannen, You Just Don’t Understand, 239
13
7
All of these differences make communication between men and women inherently
difficult because they do not understand each other. It is the result of living in a society where
men and women are not considered equal. The Senate serves as the perfect place to look at and
analyze these differences. However, it is important to remember that no two women or men are
exactly the same as we have to control for race, age, region, beliefs, etc.16 While we will try to
control for some of these factors as best we can, it is necessary to have a large body of analysis
in order to find patterns to make a general statement concerning men and women.
Political Rhetoric
When analyzing political rhetoric it is important to remember that political speeches
leave much up to the interpretation of the audience. John Wilson said that studying political
discourse “draws on a wide range of analytic methods.”17 This is important because we cannot
analyze a political speech in a vacuum. Information is conveyed on two levels in these speeches:
the literal linguistic meaning of the speech and the political beliefs that are evoked by the
language used.18 History, current events, and party identification are just some of the factors that
shape political speech.19 These factors must all be considered in addition to gender when we are
looking at the Senator’s speeches.
According to many, political speeches are just a form of propaganda. George Orwell, for
example, famously objected to the doubletalk he felt was present in political speech saying,
“Political language – and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to
16
Tannen, Gender and Discourse, 15
Schiffrin, et al The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 398
18
Geis, Michael. The Language of Politics (1987), 7
19
Schiffrin, et al The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 404
17
8
Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”20 While it is true
that political speeches have an unconscious influence on the audience, they are not simply a way
of influencing the audience and discouraging from thinking. Peter Lawler and Robert Schaefer
argue that political rhetoric gives the audience an argument, moves them to understand the
situation and then let these free people act accordingly.21 Political rhetoric is a way for the
governing body to reach out to each other and to the constituents to make arguments and attempt
to persuade one another.
The unifying part of any speech is the overarching theme that the speaker relies on. In
political speeches, Geis argues, there are three mythical themes that are commonly used.22 The
first is the idea of the conspiratorial enemy, or the mob at the gates. Politicians will often refer to
the idea of a hostile outside group that threatens the American way of life. The group is often
portrayed as very different from American ideals and has the power to commit harmful acts
against the majority group. Another theme commonly used is the “valiant leader.” The leader is
portrayed as being courageous and competent at protecting people from danger. Often America
is portrayed as the leader in an abstract way, and America is considered a force for good. This is
especially true when discussing foreign policy, as often the idea of America’s responsibility to
protect the international community is discussed. The third theme that Geis talks about is the idea
of united we stand. This is the idea that a group can only achieve victory by working together.
Typically this theme is used by politicians calling for bipartisanship and cooperation on an issue.
There are other cultural themes that reappear in political speeches as well. One being the
idea of the American dream; if you come to America and work hard you will rise to the top of
the economic ladder. While this is not always true, it is still a popular theme that we use. Another
20
Geis, The Language of Politics, 3
Lawler, Peter Augustine and Robert Martin Schaefer, American Political Rhetoric (2005), 8
22
Geis, The Language of Politics, 26
21
9
is the idea of the shining city on a hill; originated by John Winthrop it was popularized by John
F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. It refers to American exceptionalism. The language chosen for
the speech evokes these common themes, which can help influence behavior by evoking
emotions and background assumptions in the audience in a way that ordinary language cannot do
its own.23
Effective Speech
According to Robert Lehrman, the most effective and persuasive political speeches
follow Monroe’s motivated sequence.24 This method of speech focuses heavily on a call to
action, emphasizing what the audience can do. A speech should start getting the attention of the
audience; this is usually accomplished through a dramatic statistic, or shocking story, or
quotation. You want to then explain the issue and the need for a solution, tell how you will solve
the issue, and then tell them what will happen if the solution is or is not implemented. Finally,
and what Lehrman argues is the most important part of political speech, the speaker should tell
the audience what specifically they can do to be a part of the solution. This call to action should
be clear and persuade the audience.
Lehrman also refers to the “LAWS” of political speeches, or elements that can be used to
help make a speech effective. The speech should feature language that is both easy to understand
and to remember; Lehrman cites that the average American reads at a seventh grade reading
level, so a speech should not be overly complex that people will not be able to understand it.25
The speech should incorporate anecdotes or stories to evoke emotion from the audience.
Politicians can use wit to show their lighter side, and also sometimes poke a little fun at the
23
Geis, The Language of Politics, 26
Lehrman, The Political Speechwriters Companion: A Guide for Writers and Speakers (2010)
25
Ibid
24
10
opposition. Most importantly, a good political speech features support for the main point in the
form of examples, statistics, or testimonials. Incorporating these four elements into any speech
and following Monroe’s motivated sequence, a political speech will be persuasive and thus
effective.
Women in Politics
The 113th Congress saw more women in national politics than ever before. Politics,
especially the Senate had often been viewed as an old boy’s club. Historically, political
leadership was considered a masculine trait.26 The trend of more women entering the Senate
began fairly recently; as of 1991 women made up only 2% of the Senate compared to 22 years
later when women composed 18% of Congress overall and 20% of the Senate.27 Despite this
recent growth in the number of female politicians, there is still resistance evident in our society.28
There is a cultural assumption that femininity and assertiveness are mutually exclusive; we want
leaders to be dominant and assertive, and there are certain expectations imbedded in our
organizations, our society and our psyches that female leaders cannot have the traits because they
are considered inherently masculine.
Because of this cultural resistance, women in politics are more likely to conform to a
more masculine rhetorical style. Some feel that in order to make meaningful contributions to the
political culture, their voice must be heard and the only way for that to be achieved is to speak in
the same manner as those assertive male politicians.29 Lockhart’s analysis of Geraldine Ferraro
and Sarah Palin’s speeches show that women on the national political stage do tend to employ
26
Lockhart, Michele and Kathleen Mollick, Political Women: Language and Leadership (2013)
Swers, Women in the Club
28
Lockhart and Mollick, Political Women
29
Ibid.
27
11
more assertive and direct language typical of male politicians. Lockhart argues that Ferraro and
Palin’s discourse needs to be analyzed in context with the political discourse community at the
time; in their cases the Presidential campaigns. As more and more women enter the political
arena and join the political discourse in the Senate, the discourse community will shift and more
Senators will be inclined to adopt a more feminine style of rhetoric in their speeches.30 It is also
the hope that less women will be concerned about the male culture that characterizes the Senate
right now and will be more willing to run for office, and then once in office take initiative on a
variety of policy issues.31
Which issues women speak about is also a gendered issue. In a study of the 106th Senate
(1999-2000) it was found that the nine women serving did express a policy preference compared
to their male colleagues.32 Women do tend to represent women’s interests in the Senate, focusing
more on policy concerns that relate to women such as women’s health and family issues. There
is a stereotype that constituents tend to trust female Senators more on these social issues, while
they trust male Senators more on defense issues.33 Michelle Swers studied the 112th Senate and
found that women do tend to focus more on social issues, even in more typically “hard” policy
arenas. For example, when looking at defense issues women would be more likely to advocate
for an increase in benefits. Swers argues that this is a result of their experiences: many female
Senators being wives and mothers. She says that all Senators draw on their personal experiences
when advocating for policies, and that this is what causes a significant amount of gender
disparity within the Senate, because men and women obviously come to the floor with different
30
Lockhart and Mollick, Political Women
“Men’s Club No More – Our View: With 20 Women in the Senate, America Wins” St. Louis Dispatch (2012)
32
Osborn, Tracy and Jeanette Morehouse Mendez, “Speaking as Women: Women and Floor Speeches in the
Senate” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy (2010)
33
Swers, Women in the Club
31
12
experiences.34 Women then also refer to these personal experiences in their speeches usually, as
a way to establish their connection to the issue and with the audience. It is important to keep
these factors in mind when analyzing the rhetoric of women in the Senate.
Methodology
When looking at these speeches we want to only compare the difference in rhetoric
between genders. That being said, it is necessary to control for a number of factors including
ideological or party differences as well as regional concerns. To control for both of these factors
when looking at speeches on an issue it is necessary to study at least four speeches (ideally eight
or twelve) on one issue. Of these four speeches, one should be by a Democratic woman, one by a
Republican woman, one by a Democratic man, and one by a Republican man. The men should
also be from roughly the same region (or have the same regional concerns) as the female
counterpart from their party. These are two important factors that can change the results of the
analysis.
Almost every Senator brings up stories from their home states in their floor statements,
and the concerns of constituents of one state might be vastly different than the concerns of those
in another state. Immigration is a great example of why this control is necessary. Senators from
inland states are mostly concerned about the labor market and how immigration impacts the
economy of the state. While Senators from border states are also thinking about that, they are
also concerned with the issue of border protection. It would be impossible to make a fair
comparison between a male and female Senator who come from two completely different
regions, as they would both have different concerns which could change their rhetoric.
34
Ibid
13
We also need to control for party differences between the Senators. Just as regional
concerns impact how a Senator speaks on a topic, ideological differences have as much or an
even larger impact on a Senator’s rhetoric. This is a difficult thing to control for however,
because there are only four Republican women in the Senate: Senator Collins, Senator Fischer,
Senator Ayotte, and Senator Murkowski. Because Republicans make up only 20% of women in
the Senate, and these Republican women are only 4% of the entire Senate, finding multiple
Republican women speaking on the same issue is not always possible. On the issue of
immigration, only five women in total gave speeches and only two Republican women. As a
result, it is more difficult to make broad generalizations based on these comparisons. Finding
multiple men of either party speaking on the same issue is less difficult.
The five broad issues that this study focuses on are: the economy, healthcare,
immigration, foreign policy, and crime. Some of these issues are then broken down further to
better compare speeches. Foreign policy can be divided into the two major foreign policy issues
of 2013: sexual assault in the military and Syria. These two issues are spoken about very
differently by both men and women, and it would not make sense to compare them as the same.
Similarly, the economy has one sub-issue: the government shutdown. While the economy and
the budge are always issues that the Senate deals with, the government shutdown of 2013
provided an opportunity to talk about these issues in a different way and thrust the female
senators into the spotlight as the champions of bipartisanship. Because it is such a unique
situation it would not be reasonable to compare these speeches to other speeches on the economy
in a more general sense.
Once the speeches were chosen using this framework, each speech was coded for several
different markers determined by general patterns in gendered speech discussed previously.
14
Looking at the stylistic choices made by the speaker, each speech was first coded for the use of
adjectives. Speeches were also compared to see who used questions more than declarative
statements; listening to speeches in addition to reading transcripts when possible is helpful in
coding for this marker. The use of stories was also analyzed, coding for stories about constituents
vs. personal stories about the Senator. Stories about constituents or experts were also coded for
any personal connections the Senator made while telling the story. The speeches were coded for
argument style, specifically if deductive or inductive reasoning was used to make a point.
Finally, each speech was analyzed for common themes. Once these markers were coded they
were compared based on gender, party, and region to develop a pattern and argument.
Analysis
The Economy: Government Shutdown
The shutdown provides an interesting case study because the women of the Senate are
largely credited with beginning negotiations to end the shutdown. Senator Collins (R-ME) was
the first Senator to introduce a bill that would effectively end the shutdown. Collins did not place
blame on either party – a common theme that had been present during discussion of the
shutdown – and instead offered a clear plan to re-open the government. On the floor she was
supported by her female colleagues, who had helped her formulate the bill.35 Women’s rhetoric
was particularly powerful on this issue because they emphasized the emotional component
attached to the shutdown.
Senators seemed to utilize one of two main themes when speaking about the shutdown.
Many Senators used the idea of the mob at the gates, placing blame on one party. In these
speeches the one party is made into an enemy who had endangered our American way of life.
35
Newton-Small, Jay, “Women are the Only Adults Left in Washington”
15
Senators Toomey (R-PA) and Cornyn (R-TX) were adamant in casting Senate Democrats as this
mob.36 They repeatedly blamed the Democrats for the shutdown, saying that the House
Republicans had passed many bills that the Senate Democrats refused to even consider. These
two Senators utilized many declarative statements in their speeches. They did not ask any
questions and for the most part avoided using extraneous adjectives. Their speaking style was
characterized by the clear call to action that they both provided. Neither used personal stories to
try and make their point. Cornyn used statistics and passages from the Congressional Budget
Office to try and persuade people, but any stories that either Senator utilized were grounded in
the legislative process: reiterating what the House Republicans and Senate Democrats had both
done since the shutdown began.37 Both Senators tried to utilize the bully pulpit, but neither was
particularly effective.
In comparison, both Senators Landrieu (D-LA) and Senator Mikulski (D-MD) placed the
blame on Congressional Republicans and cast the GOP as the mob at the gates in their speeches.
Landrieu and Mikulski have similar regional concerns as Cornyn and Toomey, respectively. All
four of these Senators employed partisan language in their speeches, casting the opposing
ideology as an enemy to democracy. Instead of using declarative statements to support their
argument, both Landrieu and Mikulski took a more inductive approach to their argument. They
told specific stories to prove their points, something that was lacking from the speeches of the
two men.
Both women told stories of agencies that were closed and employees that were
furloughed as a result of the government shutdown. Landrieu talked about an employee that
36
37
Toomey, Pat “Continuing Appropriations” (October 2, 2013)
Cornyn, John “Continuing Appropriations” (October 7, 2013)
16
worked at a Louisiana air base that the shutdown had forced to close.38 Not only did she discuss
what the closed airbase meant to Louisiana – tracking a tropical storm that could potentially turn
into a hurricane and wreak havoc on the coastal state – but she also talked about what it meant
for the employees. Using an employee’s name and personal story she relayed to the senate that
the shutdown meant that he was not going to get paid, but that his bills would still come. She
used quotes from the employee and his wife, and highlighted the conversation she had with them
when they called her office. Telling a story and adding her personal connection to the story
makes her speech more credible and persuasive.
Similarly, Senator Mikulski spoke about the debilitating effects that the shutdown was
having on Federal agencies. She discussed the National Institute of Health, which is located in
her home state of Maryland and also does contract work around the country.39 In addition, her
speech references the Center for Disease Control and Social Security. The stories she told were
all success stories from these agencies, with the disclaimer that these agencies were no longer
fully functioning and thus would not be able to help the American people in the same way. She
highlighted the disease outbreaks that could happen, the research that was halted, and the checks
that would not go out. Her argument was rooted in the fact that this shutdown had much more far
reaching effect than people realized. She also mentioned that she had spoken with and visited
employees of these agencies that were now no longer able to work. She established her personal
connection with these employees and then blamed the Republicans for laying them off; saying
“furlough is just a nice word that means lay off.” She emphasized the need for Republicans to
compromise and re-open the entire government, and called them out for cherry picking certain
things to keep open to save face after forcing the shutdown.
38
39
Landrieu, Mary “Continuing Appropriations” (October 5, 2013)
Mikulski, Barbara “Continuing Appropriations” (October 2, 2013)
17
While Mikulski argument was very strong, it did not have the strong call to action that
Toomey and Cornyn utilized in their speeches. Mikulski, and Landrieu to a lesser extent, asked
several rhetorical questions in their speeches, whereas Toomey and Cornyn both asked no
questions and instead used declarative statements. Landrieu only twice made a statement seem
like a question, speaking with an upwards inflection at the end of her sentence. Mikulski, on the
other hand, asked 17 questions during her speech. Most of her questions could have been
replaced with a statement or eliminated. Of the eight speeches analyzed, all four women utilized
questions like Mikulski, while three of the four men used only declarative statements in their
speech.
Senator Harkin (D-IA) asked 11 questions during his speech.40 The stories in his speech
were similar to Mikulski’s speech. He discussed all the good that come from various federal
agencies, and the benefits that the American people would no longer see if the shutdown
continued. He often used rhetorical questions when discussing what would happen now that
these agencies were shut down; what would happen to the employees, as well as what would
happen to their constituents. Most of these questions were open ended and he did not give an
answer, but the tone of the speech answered them for him. When he did answer a question he
often went to the extreme; for example, he said, “How many miners will have their health
affected or will be injured? I certainly hope not die, but you never know.”41 Unlike Mikulski,
Harkin used these questions more for dramatic effect instead of replacing a declarative statement
with a question.
Harkin also cast the Republicans as the enemy, however his speech also focused much
more on the theme that America is a nation of doers. He discussed the need to get the agencies
40
41
Harkin, Tom “Continuing Appropriations” (October 9, 2013)
Ibid
18
open again and get the employees back to work, citing the importance to our economy and to
society as a whole. However, Harkin did not supplement these stories with a personal connection
like Mikulski and Landrieu did. A speech that was able to effectively demonstrate personal
connections with the examples would have a much bigger impact, especially when he is talking
about getting America back to work. Putting a face and a story to those employees would have
been more persuasive. Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) was able to do this.
Like Harkin, Blumenthal’s speech focused on both the mob at the gates theme as well as
the nation of doers theme. Blumenthal repeatedly called out Republicans for shutting down the
government and halting the progress of the American worker.42 He cited the necessity of having
a productive workforce and said that our country was built on the premise of hard work. He
talked about the ripple effect the shutdown would have on our economy: not only were federal
agencies closing and federal employees out of work, but smaller local offices that rely on the
federal government in some capacity would be hurt as well. In his call to get America back to
work he talked about the employees that he visited who had been laid off, and the local offices in
his home state that had reached out to him for help. He never told a story without mentioning his
personal connection to the people the story was about. He also avoided using questing and
extraneous adjectives so his call to action was a clear and definitive statement. He repeatedly
used the term “inexcusable” to describe the situation. While his speech was similar to Harkin’s
the personal connections made his speech more persuasive. Blumenthal was able to combine
typically male and typically female rhetorical patterns to create the most effective speech.
Senator Ayotte (R-NH) had similar regional concerns as Blumenthal. Her speech placed
no blame on one party; as an outspoken opponent of the Affordable Care Act Ayotte merely said
that the health care plan was not effective, but it was still put in place while the government was
42
Blumenthal, Richard “Continuing Appropriations” (October 3, 2013)
19
shut down.43 She said that this was not the way to combat Obamacare, but never placed blame on
her own party or the other for causing the shutdown. Instead, she called for a bipartisan
agreement to reopen the government and get furloughed employees back to work. She talked
about taking calls from constituents who were upset, and detailed her conversation with them.
Her stories were not as effective as Mikulski’s or Blumenthal’s because they were not as
emotional, but they connected back to her main point and made her seem sympathetic. She used
mostly declarative statements, although a few times she turned her statements into questions
when she was delivering them. Ayotte also frequently used the word “very” to emphasize her
points, which is often considered a weak adjective. Her tone was positive, calling for
bipartisanship to help get America back to work and do what they do best.
Senator Fischer (R-NE) employed a similar tone as Ayotte, placing no blame but instead
discussing what the government could do if the shutdown ended. She cited the conversations she
had with constituents and what was important to Nebraskans.44 The shutdown, she said, went
against the way of life that they had established in Nebraska to work together to get things done.
Fischer asked five rhetorical questions throughout her speech, some were for dramatic effect but
others were used in the place of declarative statements which could have made her speech
stronger. The strongest piece of Fischer’s speech though was her argument that she needed to
bring some Nebraska values to the Senate and that might get the government reopen.
The government did eventually reopen. Male Senators, however, are credited with
finalizing the deal to reopen the government because of the strong calls to action. Female
Senators took a more feminine rhetorical approach and focused on the stories of those effected,
which encouraged people to look at the human effects of the shutdown but might not have
43
44
Ayotte, Kelly “Continuing Appropriations” (October 2, 2013)
Fischer, Deb “Continuing Appropriations” (October 9, 2013)
20
necessarily persuaded them to act. Thus, a mix of male and female rhetoric on an issue like this
would be the most effective.
Healthcare
The signature piece of the Affordable Care Act legislation was the implementation of the
exchanges where Americans would be able to purchase insurance. In October, 2013 the online
exchanges were opened to the public. The website that hosted the exchanges, healthcare.gov, had
major software issues and a large number of people were unable to purchase insurance. At the
same time, other parts of the bill were taking effect and the American people were starting to feel
the real-life implications of Obamacare. While the Senate discussed healthcare and Obamacare
throughout the year, in November the Senate Republicans came together to discuss the impact
that the bill was having on the American people.45 Senate Democrats then followed with their
own speeches on the same topic. While no major legislation on healthcare was debated on the
floor of the Senate, these speeches were the ones that focused solely on healthcare.
It is important to note that all of these speeches contain stories of the Senator’s
constituents, and that almost all of the Senators telling these stories emphasized their personal
connection with the constituents. Inherently, all these Senators adopted a more feminine rhetoric
because they were attempting to make an emotional plea. The government had just been reopened when these speeches were given and it seems that many people were reluctant to use the
male rhetoric that had dominated the speeches of those who wanted to shut down the
government.
45
Durbin, Richard “Obamacare” (November 14, 2013)
21
When Senator Collins (R-ME) gave her speech she told the stories of three different
constituents who had found themselves with higher premiums as a result of the ACA.46 Even
when she told these stories she did not emphasize her personal connection with the people they
were about; she was mainly telling the stories of Mainers that she had heard. Her main concern
with the legislation was budgetary, and she often cited that it was not actually “affordable.”47
Collins favored declarative statements, calling for a replacement to Obamacare. She repeatedly
referred to the hardworking middle class, and said that the ACA would more than likely cripple
these people financially instead of helping them. She employed a more masculine rhetoric
because she was attacking the ACA; she may have thought that this was a stronger speech.
Senator Murkowski (R-AK) adopted a similarly masculine style for her speech as well.
She told only one story of a couple who’s premiums were raised, and her only personal
connection during the story was to say that she received a letter from them.48 Murkowski did ask
one rhetorical question during her speech, but for the most part she relied on declarative
statements and statistics to help prove her point. She repeated a couple times that the President
promised premiums would not go up, and used the word “harsh” to describe the plan. Collins and
Murkowski’s similar tone highlight their party similarities, as well as the spirit of independence
that is shared by both constituencies. Unlike Collins, Murkowski did not call for a replacement
for the ACA. Instead, Murkowski merely attacked the healthcare bill. These declarative
statements were more useful in a blunt attack like this because she was not trying to persuade
people.
Senator Flake (R-AZ) also repeatedly called on President Obama’s promises regarding
the healthcare bill. Not only did Flake focus on rising premiums, but he also discussed the
46
Collins, Susan “Obamacare” (November 14, 2013)
Collins, Susan “Obamacare” (November 14, 2013)
48
Murkowski, Lisa “Obamacare” (November 14, 2013)
47
22
cancellation of policies that happened once Obamacare took effect.49 Like Murkowski and
Collins he told the story of constituents, naming them by name and discussing the specifics of
their issues with the bill. Flake was quick to point out that they were his neighbors, and he was
able to use even more personal details to make the story even more emotional than his
colleagues’. Flake also used more rhetorical questions that Murkowski or Collins, but that is not
difficult considering that in both speeches only one question was asked. The questions were
effective when he was telling the story of his neighbors, however in his attack he utilized short
assertive sentences. He also did not suggest a replacement for the ACA.
Senator Durbin (D-IL) admitted the shortcomings of the ACA that the Republicans
brought up, however he maintained that it was the best possible healthcare option they had.
Durbin broke down the bill and explained each component of the act while also highlighting
stories of the people each part helped.50 He even discussed how he and his wife were impacted
by one of the components. Some of his other stories even came from states where the Senator
had spoken out about Obamacare, including Kentucky where both Senators had spoken out
against the bill. Durbin was also one of the only Senators to discuss how women specifically
benefit from the ACA. He repeatedly used rhetorical questions during these stories as well.
Overall, his rhetorical style did not need to be as assertive or masculine because he was not
fighting against something. Instead, he was trying to showcase the emotional component of the
success of the ACA.
Similarly, Senator Boxer (D-CA) also spoke of her own experience with the ACA. She
said that she and her husband were going to sign up for insurance on the online exchanges.51 She
also cited statistics from California as well as other states to show how the exchanges were
49
Flake, Jeff “Obamacare” (November 14, 2013)
Durbin, Richard “Obamacare” (November 14, 2013)
51
Boxer, Barbara “Obamacare” (November 14, 2013)
50
23
already working, and read some testimonials from Californians who were happy with their new
insurance. When she attacked the Republicans she also pulled quotes from speeches and
statements from the party in the past. She relied heavily on these stories and quotes to help make
her point. Boxer did not adopt an overly-masculine tone in her speech, nor did she take an overly
feminine rhetoric. She asked very few questions and stayed away from using excessive
adjectives. Boxer seemed to blend the styles that the Republicans had used with the style
implemented by Durbin.
Senator Murphy (D-CT) also used testimonials in his speech like Boxer did. He also used
constituents’ stories and talked about his personal connection to these constituents, mostly
through visits with them and phone calls.52 However, Murphy used these stories to emphasize
how the previous healthcare system lacked and implored the Senate to not go backwards. He
used two different examples to highlight two different components of the legislation, and was
sure to emphasize the hard work of these middle class people just like Collins. One of his stories
focused on a family whose son was diagnosed with cancer while the father was transitioning
from one job to another, when they attempted to sign up for insurance with his new company
they were unable to because of the son’s now pre-existing condition; Murphy pointed out that
with Obamacare the family would have been able to get insurance now.53 Murphy did use a
rhetorical question when telling each of these stories to try and drive his point home. Much like
Durbin, Murphy did not use these questions during his call to action, which was strong and
declarative.
It seems that with this issue, the difference in rhetoric was more split along party lines
than along gender lines. The female Republican Senators adopted a more masculine rhetoric
52
53
Murphy, Chris “Obamacare” (November 14, 2013)
Ibid
24
while the male Democratic Senators spoke with a more feminine style. The mix of masculine and
feminine that the Democrats employed made their stories more emotional, yet did not take away
from their call to action. The Republicans had attempted to put an emotional spin on the failure
of Obamacare; however their assertive tone made it seem like a competition to win an argument
and took away from the personal connection component of their speeches.
Foreign Policy: Sexual Assault in the Military
During this session a record seven women sat on the 26-member Armed Services
Committee and they helped garner attention for the issue of sexual assault in the military,
especially during testimonials before the committee on the issue.54 All 20 women then stood
together to support a bill attached to the National Defense Authorization Act that would help to
curb sexual assault while also increasing the reporting of any assault or harassment in the
military. There was one major difference: Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) introduced a bill that
would remove the handling of sexual assault cases from the chain of command. This provision
was first authored over the summer when the women of the Senate first came together on this
issue – all 20 women supporting reform, and 16 supporting Gillibrand’s plan. Senator McCaskill
(D-MO) authored an alternate provision that was 95% similar to Gillibrand’s, but McCaskill kept
the handling of the cases in the chain of command.
The media was then quick to portray this as a women’s issue and to portray the debate
between the two Senators as a cat fight, something that the women of the Senate took offense to.
Senator Mikulski (D-MD) - dean of the Senate women - said, “I say to the press: we know you
like conflict, we know you like controversy. You particularly want to see it among the
women…I’m proud of what we’re going to do with the reforms that are there. I’m proud of the
54
Newton-Small, Jay “Senate Women Tackle Sexual Assault in the Military” Time, (November 19, 2013)
25
way we’ve gone about it. And if we disagree on some matters here or there, that’s what debate,
rigor and civility will be all about.55” When the bills were debated on the Senate floor in
November there was no one who stood in opposition to reforming the system, the debate was
between the two bills authored by Gillibrand and McCaskill. For the most part, all the speeches
had the same underlying message and it was the rhetorical choices the speaker made that made
the biggest difference.
Senator Gillibrand’s bill enjoyed the support of most women and Democratic Senators.
In her speech she repeatedly highlighted the themes of justice and equality. She often used short
sentences to make her point and reinforce these main themes; for example Gillibrand said at one
point, “Justice is blind. It is fair. It is impartial. It is objective.”56 This was not the only time she
spoke with this style. She also asked rhetorical questions, 12 in total, generally before answering
them with short, declarative statements. Gillibrand wove stories of sexual assault, reading letters
and testimonies from victims in to her speech. When retelling these stories, the Senator did not
shy away from repeating the details of the assault, sometimes using graphic language to describe
the assault. While she did not describe any personal connection to the issue, Gillibrand did use
the phrase “I think” or “I believe” after recounting these stories, adding her personal opinions to
these stories. Despite the lack of personal connections, Gillibrand’s speech had a mostly
feminine tone.
Senator Blumenthal (D-CT) also used the theme of justice to speak about this issue.
Blumenthal did not use any rhetorical questions, unlike Gillibrand. However, Blumenthal did
make excessive use of adjectives such as “outraged,” “abhorrent,” and “heinous.”57 He relied on
the story and support of the nominee for secretary of defense who spoke out for the bill.
55
Ibid
Gillibrand, Kirsten “Military Justice Improvement Act” (November 14, 2013)
57
Blumenthal, Richard “Military Justice Improvement Act” (November 14, 2013)
56
26
Blumenthal’s strongest argument for the bill was when he recounted his experience as a
prosecutor. He said that he understood the process, and realized how difficult it is to make a
decision to charge someone with a crime; through this logic he said it would be even more
difficult to have to charge someone within your chain of command with a crime.58 Blumenthal
proved that he was a strong advocate for this issue, and specifically Gillibrand’s amendment. His
personal story, coupled with strong language, mixed masculine and feminine styles to better
persuade his colleagues.
Senator Collins (R-ME) did not make as strong of a personal argument. She talked about
her personal experience combating this issue in the past ten years, including the legislation she
had previously authored and voted for.59 Collins acknowledged the step forward that this
legislation would be, and broke down several different provisions in the bill focusing on the
theme of justice while describing each part. She used some rhetorical questions: while three were
written in her speech her speaking style lead to more statements being phrased like questions.
This was the most typical feminine stylistic choice of Collins’ speech.
Senator Murkowski (R-AK) also gave a speech that had some traditionally feminine
rhetoric, but also tended to be slightly masculine as well. Like Collins, Murkowski highlighted
her personal connection to the issue by discussing the work that she had done to combat sexual
assault in the military, specifically by listing and describing the amendments that she had offered
to the bill being debated.60 She used very few adjectives or rhetorical questions in her speech;
she merely explained the issue and how this bill would help solve the problem. In a masculine
rhetorical choice Murkowski used very little description. However, she did describe the assault
and harassment of serviceman Danny Chen; when telling Chen’s story, Murkowski opted to use
58
Blumenthal, Richard “Military Justice Improvement Act” (November 14, 2013)
Collins, Susan “Sexual Assault in the Military” (November 19, 2013)
60
Murkowski, Lisa “Sexual Assault in the Military” (November 19, 2013)
59
27
much more descriptive and graphic language than she had employed elsewhere in her speech.61
She was able to mesh her more feminine language with her more masculine theme of American
and military values.
Senator Reed (D- RI) also repeated the theme of American and military values,
specifically honor. Reed had served in the military during the time of integration, and used this
personal connection to the military to explain his position on the issue and why he supported
McCaskill’s amendment.62 He spoke highly of the chain of command, and of the honor
servicemen and women are bound to uphold. He called for dignity and respect to be restored to
the military, and said that the best way to do it was through this legislation. Reed used 7
rhetorical questions in his speech – almost 2/3 of the amount that Gillibrand utilized. His
rhetorical questions were grouped together, and he used them to highlight the strengths of the
chain of command; Reed said that the chain of command wards off confusion and the questions
were meant to simulate the extra confusion a victim would feel if the chain was removed.63 Reed
also read some testimonials from commanders and higher up within the chain of command about
how dedicated they were to removing this issue. He followed up these testimonials and his own
stories often with the phrase “I believe.” With his personal stories, as well as his strong opinion,
Reed’s speech was dependent on personal connections, however during his speech he never
strayed far from a characteristically assertive tone.
Senator Grassley (R-IA) also talked about military values, specifically the idea of
working together. Grassley admitted that he had not served in the military, but he discussed his
children and his grandchildren who did.64 He repeatedly discussed the idea of the unit and having
61
Ibid
Reed, Jack “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014” (November 19, 2013)
63
Ibid
64
Grassley, Chuck “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014” (November 120, 2013)
62
28
each other’s backs and focused on the theme united we stand, an idea that the military prides
itself on. He then went on to use statistics to show that, at least in regards to assault, the military
is not acting based on the ideals that it perpetuates. He constantly called the reform “common
sense” and called for the Senate to act. His lack of rhetorical questions made his calls to action
stronger.
Senator Cruz (R-TX) also used statistics as his main evidence for his argument. Cruz said
that he had listened to testimony, but unlike many of his colleagues Cruz did not read or describe
any testimony from victims.65 Cruz highlighted the theme of commitment: the commitment that
men and women make when they join the military and the commitment that we then make to
honor them for their service. Using the word “unacceptable” several times to describe the
situation, Cruz urged his colleagues to pass the reform and rid the military of these crimes. He
also discussed his history in law enforcement working on sexual assault cases, making an
emotional plea to end cases like this. Cruz argued that as a father he would want his daughters to
be as safe as possible if they chose to join the military, a statement that probably effected all the
parents in the room. He mixed logic-based arguments with emotional ones, in an effort to reach
as many people as possible.
Senator McCaskill used her personal experience as a prosecutor to make her argument for
the best way to handle cases like this.66 McCaskill is confident when talking about her
experiences, saying that she has more knowledge and experience handling issues like this than
anyone. Speaking with confidence about one’s qualifications is more typical in men’s speeches
(because women are hesitant to alienate other by seeming more qualified), but McCaskill
balances this masculine rhetoric with conditionals and statement that begin with “I think”
65
66
Cruz, Ted “Military Justice Improvement Act” (November 14, 2013)
McCaskill, Claire “Sexual Assault in the Military” (November 19, 2013)
29
throughout the speech which are both styles more consistent with women’s speeches. She also
discussed her conversations with victims and officers, highlighting her personal connections to
these stories and also attempting to make the listener understand the situation these people are in.
She focuses her speech on the idea of helping those who need it, and says that she knows the best
way to do so. She is fiercely confident in herself, but also gives a rather emotional speech. She
employs a strong, yet also feminine rhetoric.
In the debate between McCaskill and Gillibrand’s separate bills, Gillibrand was unable to
garner the 60 votes needed to avoid a filibuster. McCaskill’s bill was the one that was voted on
and it was passed unanimously with 97 votes in favor and no Senators voting against it.67 The
women of the Senate, particularly Gillibrand and McCaskill themselves, were very supportive of
the bill and highlighted the fact that the bills were mostly the same and that reform was the
ultimate goal. The women were also quick to point out that Gillibrand was not the “loser” in this
scenario because she did put in a lot of hard work to get the legislation passed and put this issue
in the forefront of people’s minds. This issue had been characterized as a “woman’s issue”
despite the fact that the women of the Senate did not see it that way, many women adopted a
more masculine rhetoric when discussing the issue in an attempt to break away from that
stereotype. While male Senators such as Cruz, Grassley, and Blumenthal spoke using a more
feminine style, the women did not want to be pigeon-holed. By speaking with less emotion and
more assertion they were trying to add legitimacy to the issue and their speeches.
Foreign policy: Syria
67
Newton-Small “Senate Women Tackle Sexual Assault in the Military”
30
Throughout 2013 a civil war was waged in Syria. The United States and the United
Nations were aware that the Syrian government had possession of chemical weapons.68 On
August 21, 2013 several opposition-controlled areas were struck by rockets containing a
chemical agent. It then became apparent that the attack was carried out by forces of Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad. President Obama then went to Congress and asked for the authority
to respond to this use of chemical weapons and use military force against the government of
Syria. Only one Republican woman, Senator Collins, spoke when the issue was being debated on
the floor of the Senate. Senator Fischer and Senator Ayotte both released statements on the issue,
but neither gave a floor speech. At the same time, few Democratic women gave speeches as well.
Senator Begich (D-AK) was one of the first to come to the Senate floor calling for action
against Syria. Begich gave his speech right before the attack by Assad. He called for the Senate
to put sanctions on Syria, and to cease relations with the weapons company that was supplying
weapons to Syria via Russia.69 He reminded the Senate that America is a force for good, and
encouraged the need to show that to Syria and Russia and other nations. Relying on statistics of
injured and killed Syrians he tried to remind the Senate of the atrocities that Assad had been
committing for some time. Begich used some emotional language; however his speech contained
more assertive statements than descriptive language or personal connections. His call to action
was clear and there was no question what Begich supported: he was very clear that he did not
want to engage in military involvement at any point in Syria. Begich’s speech was more
masculine; even the adjectives that he chose to use such as “brutal” were more characteristic of
male rhetoric.
68
69
Begich, Mark “Syria” (August 1, 2013)
Begich, Mark “Syria” (August 1, 2013)
31
Senator Menendez (D-NJ) adopted a similarly masculine tone when he gave his speech.
He also used no rhetorical questions, favoring declarative statements instead. Menendez spoke
out in favor of the President’s plan of using limited military force in Syria, calling back to the
same theme that America is a force of good. He looked back at Syria’s use of chemical weapons
in recent history, giving a timeline of the civil war conflicts.70 Menendez then referred to the
images and stories that had come out of the August 21 attack, calling them “sickening.” For the
most part, though, his speech did not feature many descriptions or emotional pleas. His call to
action was one made to the entire group, and he repeated the phrase “let us” attempting to
convince his colleagues.71 Like Begich, Menendez tried to combine traditionally feminine and
masculine styles to deliver an effectively persuasive speech. Menendez’s most powerful
argument was when he called for the Senate to not repeat history and ignoring these blatant
crimes against humanity.
Senator Inhofe (R-OK) spoke out against the President’s plan, but also introduced an
amendment to strengthen the military if action was taken against Syria.72 He adopted a tone that
was both feminine and masculine throughout his speech. The speech featured only one rhetorical
question (not including the rhetorical questions that were in a quote Inhofe read), but Inhofe did
use many conditional statements, saying “if” over ten times. He also repeated statements such as
“I wish” and “I think” throughout the speech. Emotional and descriptive language was used
when Inhofe described what he called the “human dimension” to war.73 He said that we like to
think of our military as being strong, but he highlighted all the ways that the military had been
weakened. Inhofe highlighted his visits and conversations with commanders whose budgets had
70
Menendez, Robert “Authorizing the Limited and Specified Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Syria
– Motion to Proceed” (September 9, 2013)
71
Ibid
72
Inhofe, James “Syria” (September 9, 2013)
73
Ibid
32
been cut, and recounted their unease with entering into another conflict. The unease of the
military was further demonstrated when he read aloud a letter from two military wives, who
highlighted the services that were lacking at their home base while also reminding everyone that
there is no such thing as a war without soldiers. He assured the Senate that America should be a
force for global good, but we should make sure the military is strong enough to be such a force
before attempting that. The emotional component of his speech reminded people more of the
military service members suffering here as opposed to the people suffering in Syria; this evokes
a patriotic element which can be particularly effective in persuading people on these issues.
Senator Collins (R-ME) also adopted a much more masculine rhetoric in her speech.
Collins did not tell many stories in her speech, and none of the stories that she told featured a
personal connection.74 The speech relied heavily on hypotheticals: Collins detailed the different
outcomes that would probably happen if the United States did or did not act with military force.
She called for peace, especially among the international community. Collins repeated this theme
of the international community several times, expressing her desire for the U.S. to instead work
with other countries to find a solution to the issue and a suitable punishment for the Syrian
government: united we stand.75 She did not use much descriptive language, opting instead to use
a more masculine tone because her speech was so grounded in exposition as opposed to
depiction.
Senator Boxer (D-CA) similarly discussed the international community using the united
we stand frame, highlighting the very real impacts Syria’s actions had and calling for the U.S. to
work with other allies. Boxer, though, put more responsibility on the U.S. to act for the greater
good of the international community than Collins did. Boxer consistently referred to the
74
75
Collins, Susan “Syria” (September 11, 2013)
Ibid
33
collective group, using the word “we” 100 times in her speech.76 She highlighted her work with
previous groups to act on issues of chemical weapons, but her personal stories were
overshadowed by the emotional stories she recounted of what had happened in Syria. She did not
go into great detail, or tell specific stories, but she did generally describe the images people had
been seeing in the news. Boxer then used these stories to try and persuade the Senate to act with
her and pass the President’s plan, repeatedly urging her colleagues to “not look away.”77 In
addition to these pleas, Boxer asked 10 rhetorical questions and made almost 20 conditional
statements. In an effort to persuade people to work together, Boxer took a more feminine
approach than her Republican colleagues.
Senator Mikulski (D-MD) used an even more feminine rhetorical style than Boxer.
Mikulski detailed constituents’ correspondence with her, the vast majority of which was against
any sort of military force being used in Syria.78 Mikulski detailed some of their passionate please
while she also talked about her own knowledge of the situation by describing briefings that she
had attended and documents that she had reviewed. She did shy away from the descriptions of
what had happened in Syria beyond generally mentioning some of the images that had come
from there. Repeatedly the use of chemical weapons was referred to as both “grim” and
“ghoulish.”79 More frequently though, Mikulski used the phrase “I worry,” and asked 10
questions throughout her speech. She argued that America needed to use military force for good
in Syria, and her speech was more persuasive in nature than declarative.
76
Boxer, Barbara “Authorizing the Limited and Specified Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Syria –
Motion to Proceed Continued” (September 10, 2013)
77
Boxer, Barbara “Authorizing the Limited and Specified Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Syria –
Motion to Proceed Continued” (September 10, 2013)
78
Mikulski, Barbara “Authorizing the Limited and Specified Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Syria –
Motion to Proceed” (September 9, 2013)
79
Ibid
34
Senator Coats (R-IA) was the male Senator who actually employed the most feminine
style in his speech. Like his colleagues, Coats’ speech relied on the theme of a force for good,
however Coats admitted that he was still undecided about how he would vote on the President’s
plan so he was not as reliant on this theme as other were.80 Instead, Coats talked about his
constituents’ thoughts, saying that he had visited with many of them and were taking their
opinion into consideration. He then used these stories to explain that he needed to weigh all his
options before making a decision. It was Coats’ intention to use his speech to lay out these
options and implore the Senate to also consider all options before voting. He used 14 rhetorical
questions during his speech, as well as 13 conditional statements. Coats also repeatedly
described the situation as “horrendous.”81 Overall, he made an emotional appeal, which is typical
of feminine rhetoric.
At the end of the day, military force was not used in Syria. Being that the issue combined
two typically male issues – the military and foreign policy – it is not surprising that some women
took a more masculine tone in their speeches in an effort to seem tougher. The emotional
component of the issue seemed to drive many people’s decision though, and thus they adopted a
more feminine style to discuss the issue and try to persuade their colleagues.
Crime: Gun Control
After the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012, gun control was a
huge issue for the Senate. It was highly contested because of the many different avenues of gun
control: some focused on background checks, some focused on gun trafficking, some focused on
80
Coats, Daniel “Authorizing the Limited and Specified Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Syria –
Motion to Proceed Continued” (September 10, 2013)
81
Coats, Daniel “Authorizing the Limited and Specified Use of the United States Armed Forces Against Syria –
Motion to Proceed Continued” (September 9, 2013)
35
mental health awareness, and some focused on assault weapons bans.82 The gun control debate
also often turned into a debate on Second Amendment rights. In March, the Safe Communities,
Safe Schools Act and Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act were sent from the committee to
the Senate and House and debated on the Senate floor. During this debate only three women
gave speeches on the issues: Senator Collins (R-ME), Senator Gillibrand (D-NY), and Senator
Feinstein (D-CA). All three of these women focused on different facets of gun control. The
threat of a filibuster was also very real and something that the Senators that did rise to speak had
to address.
Senator McCain (R-AZ) spoke as a Senator who had recently experienced gun violence
in his home state. McCain told the story of the Tucson shooting, highlighting the injuries to
Representative Gabrielle Giffords as well as the death of Congressional Staffer Gabe
Zimmerman.83 He also mentioned the tragedies in Newton, Connecticut, and Aurora, Colorado,
as well as other acts of gun violence. He made an emotional statement, saying that his heart went
out to the families of the victims, but that no one could understand the pain of a tragedy like this
if they did not experience it first-hand.84 McCain made an attempt at a personal connection, but
clarified it which gave him even more credibility. McCain then shifted to discussing the theme of
individualism, highlighting all that he had done to preserve those rights. McCain’s support of this
bill seemed uncharacteristic because of all that he had done to fight gun control in the past, and
he acknowledged this before qualifying how the amendment he supported would make guns
safer while preserving the individualism of the Second Amendment. He quoted both the
Constitution and the Supreme Court to prove his point. For the most part, McCain used a
typically masculine rhetoric to make his case, even when he was making emotional pleas.
82
Feinstein, Diane “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” (April 17, 2013)
McCain, John “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” (April 17, 2013)
84
Ibid
83
36
Senator Toomey (R-PA) introduced an amendment reforming the background check
mandates for purchasing guns with Senator Manchin (D-WV). The amendment garnered
bipartisan support, but was especially popular with Senate Republicans. Toomey defended the
Second Amendment several times throughout his speech, even reading directly from his pocket
Constitution at one point.85 He gave a speech focused on the theme of individualism. He
identified himself as a gun owner, making his authorship of the amendment seem more credible
and reasonable to those staunchly opposed to gun control reform. The speech contained 7
questions, but Toomey stayed away from using adjectives or any sort of emotional language.
Even when he was discussing the school shooting in Virginia Tech Toomey did not make an
emotional plea; he used declarative statements and talked about the tragedy in a practical way to
say that it could have been prevented. This masculine rhetoric was used because Toomey wanted
to show that he was in charge: that this was his amendment and he was trying to educate people
about it.
Senator Collins (R-ME) also took a similar no-nonsense approach to her speech. Like
Toomey, her speech also focused on the idea of individualism, a theme that best expressed the
culture of Maine according to Collins.86 In northern Maine everyone owns a gun according to the
Senator, and she said that her family owned one just like her neighbors. Collins called for
compromise, frequently calling the bill and the amendment “commonsense” and “reasonable”
reform.87 She was strong on this issue, using no questions and little descriptive language. Collins
did not detail any tragedy, staying away from emotional appeals. She did say that she met with
different groups on all sides of the issue to fully understand the bill; however, she did not re-tell
85
Toomey, Pat “Gun Safety” (April 15, 2013)
Collins, Susan “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” (April 17, 2013)
87
Ibid
86
37
any stories that she had heard during these meetings. Her rhetoric was masculine and assertive
much like Toomey’s.
Senator Leahy (D-VT) also referenced the culture of Northern New England in his
speech. Leahy discussed his large number of constituents who own guns, and also identified
himself as a gun owner.88 Unlike his Republican colleagues, Leahy did not focus on
individualism; he instead discussed the responsibility of the Senate to act. His speech was a call
to action, so he used very little descriptive language or adjectives and asked not even one
question. The call to action was to vote on the issue: to not filibuster or debate endlessly, but to
send a message to the American people that the Senate heard their concerns and was acting on
them.89 Leahy’s speech was dominated by assertions – a typically male rhetorical device. The
families and victims of the Newtown and Aurora shootings were mentioned, and Leahy said that
his heart went out to them, but he did not use any of their specific stories. The only story Leahy
did feature in his speech was an article from the Washington Times about current gun
regulations. Leahy’s speech was definitely a masculine speech; while he did not share the same
party identification as Collins and Toomey the three do share regional similarities which could
account for the similar tone in their speeches.
Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) also relied on the theme of responsibility to call the Senate to
act on legislation. Gillibrand had submitted an amendment that would curb illegal weapons
trafficking, but also voiced support for other legislation. Her speech called for Democrats and
Republicans to put aside differences and focus on the victims of violence, including victims from
Newtown and other tragedies.90 Parts of Gillibrand’s speech focused on statistics; when she was
discussing these statistics Gillibrand was assertive with her facts and her call to action. She
88
Leahy, Patrick “Gun Violence” (April 9, 2013)
Ibid
90
Gillibrand, Kirsten “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” (April 17, 2013)
89
38
repeatedly used the term “senseless” when speaking about the current gun legislation. Gillibrand
also told the story of Nysia, a victim of gun violence in New York: she went on to recount her
promise to the family and friends of the victim that she made them to make sure no one else
would suffer like Nyasia did. When talking about her personal connection to the issue, Gillibrand
was much more descriptive and used a more feminine style of speaking. Gillibrand struck a good
balance between the two rhetorical styles.
Senator Feinstein (D-CA) offered a different amendment that would outright ban assault
weapons. Feinstein was quick to clarify her support for other amendments; however she asserted
that this would be the most effective way to end gun violence. She cited various statistics,
prefacing each of them with the phrase “we know,” to help prove that an assault weapons ban
would have prevented tragedies such as Sandy Hook; she even went into detail telling the story
of how that tragedy happened and how it could have been avoided.91 This story helped add a
human element to the statistics she was using. Feinstein also talked about her history fighting
against gun violence since 1994, and she talked about the tragedy in California that had inspired
her to take up this fight. She emphasized her personal relationship with the family of the victims
of that tragedy, and her promise to them to end gun violence.92 In addition to this emotional
appeal, Feinstein also read letters from constituents and from the families of victims who
supported this reform. It added an even more emotional component to her speech, which could
be considered more persuasive. Without a question, Feinstein adopted the most feminine
rhetorical devices of all the Senators.
91
92
Feinstein, Diane “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” (April 17, 2013)
Ibid
39
No legislation on gun control was passed in the Senate due to partisan differences. These
partisan differences were more influential on rhetoric than gender was on this issue, especially
because so few women spoke out on this issue.
Immigration
When the 113th session began, comprehensive immigration reform was one of the goals
both parties agreed on. A bi-partisan group of eight Senators were tasked with this overhaul.
Called the gang of eight, this group did not include a single woman. They spent seven months
working on a plan, and in June 2013 they introduced the Border Security, Economic Opportunity
& Immigration Modernization Act. This was the only major piece of legislation passed in the
Senate that was not co-authored by a female Senator.93
As a result, not many women gave floor speeches when this issue was debated. The
women of the Senate did offer a number of amendments: Senator Landrieu introduced an
amendment regarding adoption, Senator Collins spoke about amendments regarding the asylum
program and Operation Stonewall (which secures the northern border), and Senator Hirono
offered an amendment that would make it easier for uneducated women to immigrate to the
United States.94 Most of the speeches on the bill overall however, were given by men. The
women that did speak on this issue tended to take a more masculine approach in their speeches;
many Senators who spoke relied more on statistics than personal connections.
Senator Klobuchar (D-MN) is one of the few women who gave several speeches on
immigration because she is the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee which approved the bill
before it was introduced on the floor, Klobuchar was one of the first Senators to give a floor
93
94
Newton-Small, Jay “Women Are the Only Adults Left in Washington”
Klobuchar, Amy “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (June 18, 2013)
40
speech. Her speech relied on an inductive argument and was based around the theme of the
American Dream. She repeated several stories of the industries of Minnesota that rely on
immigrant workers.95 She also emphasized her personal connections with the issue, talking about
the immigrant families she worked with as a prosecutor in Minnesota. It was her story of her
family’s immigrant history that truly showcased her emotional connection to the bill. The
adjectives she used the most were “incredible” and “remarkable” and she asked only 2 rhetorical
questions throughout the speech. It was her calls for compromise and bipartisanship that were
effective as a result of her personal stories.
Senator Schumer (D-NY) was one of the only other Senators that highlighted his family’s
immigrant history in his speech. Schumer spoke of his grandparents who immigrated to the U.S.
through Ellis Island to follow the American Dream.96 The American Dream is a theme that
Schumer repeated throughout his speech, as is the idea of the shining city on a hill. He said that it
is these ideals that attract immigrants to America in the first place and we have a responsibility to
try and preserve that.97 He emphasized the need for reform based on the 12 years that had passed
since the last time major immigration legislation was enacted. He utilized very few adjectives
and questions, choosing instead to rely on broader metaphors and similes to supplement his
stories. In this sense, Schumer’s speech is considered to be more stylistically feminine than
Klobuchar’s speech. Schumer also referenced that many of the Senator’s families had immigrant
history, specifically Senator Rubio’s story of immigration.
Senator Rubio (R-FL) discussed his family’s move from Cuba to the United States, and
how they were able to succeed in America. Rubio frequently discusses his parent’s immigration
and their achieving of the American dream, so it is no surprise that this was a theme in his speech
95
Ibid
Schumer, Charles “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (June 18, 2013)
97
Ibid
96
41
on immigration. However, Rubio also told stories about Tea Party members and how he spoke
with them about the basic values of the bill.98 These stories were actually featured more
prominently than Rubio’s own story. He used a few rhetorical questions when relaying these
stories, and even less adjectives. Using the Tea Party members and their strong opposition to the
immigration bill, Rubio contrasted their worries by highlighting the bill’s strengths and focusing
on why it was necessary that it be passed. Rubio was assertive in his speech, showing strong
support for the bill he helped author.
Senator Graham (R-SC) also used the theme of the American Dream to prove his point;
however his speech lacked many of the typical rhetorical devices other Senators included in their
speeches. Graham used no questions or adjectives or personal stories to make his point.99 He
instead cited statistics and spoke with confidence about the need for strong border security. His
speech was forceful, using many declarative statements to hammer home his opinion on the
border and how it should be secured.100 For the most part, Graham’s speech merely reiterated
components of the bill, but not in any particularly motivational or persuasive way. He also
thanked several members of his staff and other Senators for helping support the bill, including
Senator Ayotte.
Senator Ayotte (R-NH) also relied on the theme of the American Dream, and referenced
that America is a nation of immigrants in her speech. Ayotte didn’t tell a personal story of her
grandparents or parents immigrating to the United States; instead she generalized, saying things
like “we all have parents or grandparents who are immigrants.”101 Stories about immigrants
coming to America and realizing their American Dream would have been more effective if they
98
Rubio, Marco “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (June 20, 2013)
Graham, Lindsey “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (June 20, 2013)
100
Ibid
101
Ayotte, Kelly “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (June 20, 2013)
99
42
were more specific, and if Ayotte had told her personal connection to the story. While Ayotte
told the stories in her speech in a more masculine way, she turned a lot of statements in to
questions which is a typically feminine rhetorical device. Ayotte also frequently used the phrases
“I think” and “I believe” instead of making declarative statements. Ayotte also used the theme of
a nation of doers to prove her point that we need immigration to grow our economy. Ayotte used
a more masculine tone when she was recounting stories in her speech, however the sections of
her speech that should have been more assertive were less so because of her feminine style.
Ayotte did not find the correct balance between the two like some of her other colleagues had.
Senator Feinstein (D-CA) gave a very similar speech to Ayotte, despite the fact that they
come from different parties and different regions of the country. Feinstein also focused her
speech around the nation of doers theme, and highlighted just how important immigrants were to
the economy of California. Like Ayotte, Feinstein shied away from telling a personal story and
instead discussed the economic impact of immigration.102 She cited statistics and Census
estimates to prove her point. She talked about workers in the agricultural community as
“necessary” and “essential” many times, while also reminding everyone that these people were
part of their community and that their children were DREAMers who had no choice when their
families brought them here.103 Her use of adjectives as well as her use of rhetorical questions
twice made her speech slightly more stylistically feminine, however Feinstein tended to use a
more masculine rhetoric when discussing this issue.
Senator Bennet (D-CO) used the same theme and rhetorical devices as Feinstein. He
talked about the immigrant workers of Colorado and used CBO estimates to show how important
102
103
Feinstein, Diane “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (June 26, 2013)
Ibid
43
immigration is not only to his home state, but to the country as a whole.104 He also discussed the
jobs that it would help – namely the manufacturing industry in his state. Instead of telling a
personal story, Bennet read the story of an immigrant family that was published in the Denver
Post.105 He used very few adjectives and relied mostly on declarative statements calling for
bipartisanship to help pass this reform.
Senator Fischer (R-NE) used the nation of doers theme to express her opposition to the
bill. She said that she was fighting for the taxpayers of Nebraska, and this bill would not help
them; immigration was only hurting them.106 She used bold declarative statements to say that this
bill would not secure the border enough, and that not enough action would be taken to punish
those illegal immigrants already here. She did talk about all the Nebraskans she had spoken with
who felt the bill was not enough, and that it was being passed too quickly. Fischer compared the
bill to the Healthcare bill (which she also opposed). Overall she adopted a very masculine
rhetoric to show her strong opposition.
For the most part, women tended to speak in a more masculine matter about this issue.
The personal connections that have been a standard in female rhetoric were not as prevalent in
these speeches as we have seen in speeches on other issues. Klobuchar and Schumer were the
two Senators who spoke in the most traditionally feminine style. This could be because
Klobuchar and Schumer were both part of the leadership on this bill: Schumer was one of the
gang of 8 and Klobuchar is the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ayotte, Fischer,
Feinstein and the other women who spoke on amendments may have adopted a more masculine
rhetoric to appeal to the all-male leadership guiding this bill through the Senate. The bill was
passed in the Senate on June 27, but failed in the Republican-controlled House.
104
Bennet, Michael “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (June 19, 2013)
Ibid
106
Fischer, Deb “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (June 25, 2013)
105
44
Conclusion
When looking at the floor speeches of the 113th Senate, it is important to recognize that
gender is not the only factor influencing rhetoric. Men and women are not speaking in clearly
defined masculine or feminine styles, but more often than not they are combining the two to
speak in the most effective way possible. It is more advantageous to consider gendered rhetoric
as a continuum as opposed to two distinct categories. Women are not completely abandoning the
rhetorical style characteristic of women, despite the overwhelming pressure to adopt a more
assertive tone similar to masculine rhetoric. While we do see a shift in women’s speeches to this
more assertive style, we also see men speaking in a more intimate style which is something new.
Seeing more women in politics has changed the political rhetoric and the discourse
community. The more feminine style of speaking lends more to connections, which can evoke a
more emotional response from the audience. This could be considered a more effective political
speech, which is also why we see a shift in men’s speeches to this more conversational style. The
same style of speech that many people characterize as “weak” could also be seen as a strength
when looked at through this lens.
Looking at this analysis it is also clear that gender is not the most important factor
dictating rhetorical styles. Issues, instead play a much larger role. Of course, current events and
party identification are important factors in any political discourse. However, it has been shown
that the nature of the issue can push the rhetoric from one of end of the continuum towards the
other. When looking at the speeches on healthcare, almost all of the speeches employed a more
feminine style by focusing on the stories of people effected by the law; healthcare is a social
issue that would typically be considered a woman’s issue so that is no surprise. At the same time
45
when we look at the speeches on immigration female Senators adopted a more masculine tone to
appeal to the all-male leadership on this issue. When discussing the shutdown people focused on
different aspects of the issue: those who spoke about the economic impact spoke in a more
masculine tone than those who focused on the social impact. While women and men are tending
to favor feminine rhetoric more than before, it is still dependent on what issues we consider
women’s issues and what issues we consider men’s issues. As the distinction in political rhetoric
is blurred more with the inclusion of females in politics, hopefully the distinction in policy
preference will also blend more. As more women join Congress and the national political scene
we have an opportunity to embrace a new way of thinking about these issues and discussing
them in a way that persuades more lawmakers and constituents.
46
Works Cited
Ayotte, Kelly (NH) “Continuing Appropriations” Congressional Record 159: 134 (October 2,
2013) p. S7131.
Ayotte, Kelly (NH) “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act” Congressional Record 159: 89 (June 20, 2013) p. S4750.
Begich, Mark (AK) “Syria” Congressional Record 159: 113 (August 1, 2013) p. S6191
Bennet, Michael (CO) “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act” Congressional Record 159: 88 (June 19, 2013) p. S4640
Blumenthal, Richard (CT) “Continuing Appropriations” Congressional Record 159: 135
(October 3, 2013) p. S7153
Blumenthal, Richard (CT) “Military Justice Improvement Act” Congressional Record 159:162
(November 14, 2013) p. S8033
Boxer, Barbara (CA) “Authorizing the Limited and Specified Use of the United States Armed
Forces Against Syria – Motion to Proceed Continued” Congressional Record 159: 118
(September 10, 2013) p. S6312
Boxer, Barbara (CA) “Obamacare” Congressional Record 159: 162 (November 14, 2013) p.
S8024
"Claire McCaskill Blasts U.S. House for Shutting Down Government." Claire McCaskill, U.S.
Senator for Missouri. United States Senate, 01 Oct. 2013. Web.
<http://www.mccaskill.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=11998>.
Coats, Daniel (IN) “Authorizing the Limited and Specified Use of the United States Armed
Forces Against Syria – Motion to Proceed” Congressional Record 159: 117 (September
9, 2013) p. S6275
47
Collins, Susan (ME) “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” Congressional Record 159:
52 (April 17, 2013) p. S2709
Collins, Susan (ME) “Syria” Congressional Record 159: 119 (September 11, 2013) p. S6367
Collins, Susan (ME) “Obamacare” Congressional Record 159: 162 (November 14, 2013) p.
S8015
Collins, Susan (ME) “Sexual Assault in the Military” Congressional Record 159: 165
(November 19, 2013) p. S8146
Cornyn, John (TX) “Continuing Appropriations” Congressional Record 159: 138 (October 7,
2013) p. S7257
Cruz, Ted (TX) “Continuing Appropriations” Congressional Record 159: 133 (October 1, 2013)
Cruz, Ted (TX) “Military Justice Improvement Act” Congressional Record 159: 162 (November
14, 2013)
Durbin, Richard (IL) “Obamacare” Congressional Record 159: 162 (November 14, 2013) p.
S8022
Edwards, Janis L. Gender and Political Communication in America: Rhetoric, Representation,
and Display. Lanham, MD.: Lexington, 2009. Print.
Feinstein, Diane (CA) “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act” Congressional Record 159: 95 (June 26, 2013) p. S5241
Feinstein, Diane (CA) “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” Congressional Record
159: 52 (April 17, 2013) p. S2700
Fischer, Deb (NE) “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act” Congressional Record 159: 94 (June 25, 2013) p. S5177
48
Fischer, Deb (NE) “Continuing Appropriations” Congressional Record 159: 141 (October 9,
2013) p. S7342
Flake, Jeff (AZ) “Obamacare” Congressional Record 159: 162 (November 14, 2013) p. S8019
Geis, Michael L. The Language of Politics. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1987. Print.
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY) “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” Congressional Record
159: 52 (April 17, 2013) p. S2714
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY) “Military Justice Improvement Act” Congressional Record 159: 162
(November 14, 2013) p. S8039
Graham, Lindsey (SC) “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Modernization Act” Congressional Record 159: 89 (June 20, 2013) p. S4749
Grassley, Chuck (IA) “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014” Congressional
Record 159: 168 (November 20, 2013) p. S8316
Harkin, Tom (IA) “Continuing Appropriations” Congressional Record 159: 141 (October 9,
2013) p. S7329
Inhofe, James (OK) “Syria” Congressional Record 159: 117 (September 9, 2013) p. S6289
Klobuchar, Amy (MN) “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Modernization Act” Congressional Record 159: 87 (June 18, 2013) p. S4554
Lakoff, Robin. Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper & Row, 1975. Print.
Landrieu, Mary (LA) “Continuing Appropriations” Congressional Record 159: 137 (October 5,
2013)
Lawler, Peter Augustine., and Robert Martin. Schaefer, eds. American Political Rhetoric.
Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005. Print.
49
Leahy, Patrick (VT) “Gun Violence” Congressional Record 159: 46 (April 9) p. S2492
Lehrman, Robert A. The Political Speechwriter's Companion: A Guide for Writers and Speakers.
Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2010. Print.
Lockhart, Michele, and Kathleen Mollick, eds. Political Women: Language and Leadership.
Lanham: Lexington, 2013. Print.
McCain, John (AZ) “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013” Congressional Record 159:
52 (April 17, 2013) p. S2729
McCaskill, Claire (MO) “Sexual Assault in the Military” Congressional Record 159: 165
(November 19, 2013) p. S8150
Menendez, Robert (NJ) “Authorizing the Limited and Specified Use of the United States Armed
Forces Against Syria – Motion to Proceed” Congressional Record 159: 117 (September
9, 2013) p. S6282
"Men's Club No More - Our View: With 20 Women in the Senate, America Wins." St. Louis
Post Dispatch [St. Louis] 09 Nov. 2012: A16. ProQuest. Web.
<http://search.proquest.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/docview/1146125094>.
Mikulski, Barbara (MD) “Continuing Appropriations” Congressional Record 159: 134 (October
2, 2013) p. S7121
Mikulski, Barbara (MD) “Authorizing the Limited and Specified Use of the United States Armed
Forces Against Syria – Motion to Proceed” Congressional Record 159: 117 (September
9, 2013) p. S6277
Murkowski, Lisa (AK) “Obamacare” Congressional Record 159: 162 (November 14, 2013) p.
S8020
50
Murkowski, Lisa (AK) “Sexual Assault in the Military” Congressional Record 159: 165
(November 19, 2013) p. S8148
Murphy, Christopher (CT) “Obamacare” Congressional Record 159: 162 (November 14, 2013)
p. S8021
Newton-Small, Jay. "Senate Women Tackle Sexual Assault in the Military | TIME.com." Time.
19 Nov. 2013. Web. <http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/19/senate-women-tacklesexual-assault-in-the-military/>.
Newton-Small, Jay. "Women Are the Only Adults Left in Washington." Time. N.p., 16 Oct.
2013. Web. <http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/16/women-are-the-only-adults-left-inwashington/>.
Osborn, Tracy, and Jeanette Morehouse Mendez. "Speaking as Women: Women and Floor
Speeches in the Senate." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 31.1 (2010): 1-21. Taylor
& Francis Online. 03 Feb. 2010. Web.
<http://www.tandfonline.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/doi/full/10.1080/15544770903501384#.
U2CAQPldWSp>.
Reed, Jack (RI) “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014” Congressional
Record 159: 167 (November 19, 2013) p. S8153
Rubio, Marco (FL) “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act” Congressional Record 159: 89 (June 20, 2013) p. S4751
Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton, eds. The Handbook of Discourse
Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001. Print.
51
Schumer, Charles (NY) “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration
Modernization Act” Congressional Record 159: 89 (June 20, 2013) p. S4751
"Senator Brown Statement on Government Shutdown." Sherrod Brown: Senator for Ohio.
United States Senate, 01 Oct. 2013. Web.
<http://www.brown.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/sen-brown-statement-ongovernment-shutdown>.
Swers, Michelle. Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 2013. Print.
Tannen, Deborah, ed. Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown
University, 1982. Print.
Tannen, Deborah. Gender and Discourse. New York: Oxford UP, 1994. Print.
Tannen, Deborah. You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. New York:
Ballantine, 1990. Print.
Toomey, Pat (PA) “Continuing Appropriations” Congressional Record 159: 134 (October 2,
2013) p. S7126
Toomey, Pat (PA) “Gun Safety” Congressional Record 159: 50 (April 15, 2013) p. S2637
Udall, Tom (NM) “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization
Act” Congressional Record 159: 89 (June 20, 2013) p. S4743
52