Hyper-masculinity in Brexit is stopping us from finding another way forward When negotiations are set out to be confrontational, traditionally masculine traits become idealised

Evidence of the deeply gendered nature of the Brexit process is starting to emerge, from the lack of engagement with social policy matters in the EU Referendum campaigns to the impact on women’s maternity rights.

Brexit has exacerbated the highly confrontational nature of political debate. It has brought to the fore significant divisions in British society and politics.

The conduct of political leaders and MPs in Parliament has to raise questions about whether there is a better way of doing politics.

i's opinion newsletter: talking points from today Email address is invalid Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing! Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.

‘Power brokers’

Much of the reporting on Brexit over nearly three years has focused on trade, finance, security and migration. The commentary has therefore consistently focused on the “power brokers” at the national and European level.

Theresa May is leading the UK government, but women have been consistently marginalised in this debate and the negotiations. Recent research has found the dominance of men in the Brexit process reproduces gender bias in politics and decision-making processes.

The fact that the UK has a female Prime Minister only accentuates women’s marginal position in the Brexit process. The PM was the only woman attending the 24 March meeting at Chequers, and those who were present and driving the discussions are unlikely to advocate for the concerns of traditionally marginal and under-represented groups.

Consequences for women

Parliament has come to symbolise a highly confrontational form of politics based on a zero-sum game where winners take all.

This is evident in the way individuals perform in political debates and negotiations, as well as the way in which discussion, debate and negotiation are structured. The focus on individual performance, power and reputation at the expense of a more inclusive approach not only has an impact on the way individuals conduct themselves, it also limits the possible outcomes.

There is a growing body of research pointing to implicit bias in the way women are perceived in politics and the economy. When negotiations are set out to be confrontational, traditionally masculine traits become idealised, as the process is supposed to produce “winners” and “losers”.

Media framing which focuses on the Brexit divorce narrative reinforces the “zero sum game” approach. Negotiations, therefore, become a site for the performance of hyper or toxic masculinity. Compromise and cooperation, often associated with feminine traits, are portrayed as weakness and to be avoided at all costs.

May’s performance over the last two weeks highlights the double bind she faces in Parliament and at the European level. Her handling of the meaningful vote over the Withdrawal Agreement illustrates the “zero-sum” trap. From this position, there can be only one winner. It is May’s Deal or No Deal.

This is the inevitable conclusion of a process predicated on binary positions and which started with the Referendum itself. It is a limited approach that lacks nuance. It is based on the assumption that the national interest is (gender) neutral, and revolves around the pursuit of high-level games. As much of the work conducted by the Fawcett Society and the Women’s Budget Group demonstrates, these kinds of political games produce “winners” and “losers”.

Hyper masculinity

From the Referendum campaign to the “end game” that is the final weeks of Brexit, the dominance of hyper masculinity has limited the opportunities to explore alternatives. Under-represented groups remain exactly that.

In order to shift this position, a new approach is required that in places an ethic of care to the forefront of the discussion. Acknowledging the interests of under-represented groups requires empathy, something that has been sadly lacking throughout the Brexit process and is unlikely given who is driving the process. Uplifting social policy to the top of the policy agenda would provide a platform for a different set of concerns, associated with our everyday lives, to influence the process.

The way Brexit has turned Parliament into political theatre and the highly charged nature and tone of the debate is unlikely to provide space for a discussion of the impact of Brexit on different socio-economic groups.

This failure to encourage an inclusive political culture will ultimately have an impact on the socio-economic and political settlement to emerge out of this process.

Although there is a lot of focus on the “will of the people” in this debate, failing to adhere to an ethic that focuses on the common good and caring for others, particularly under-represented groups, in the conduct of the negotiations will not allow our political leadership to acknowledge and address the grievances of different under-represented groups.

Professor Roberta Guerrina is university director for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion at the University of Surrey