This chapter summarises the main findings of the book and indicates future directions for research. The analyses of floor apportionment showed that while gender is salient in the House of Commons, many other factors (such as seniority) also affect the uptake of speaking turns. Adversarial language was used by all groups of politicians to some extent, and it appears to be a common convention of political discourse. The benefits of adversarial language, such as the function of scrutiny, are underlined and ways of categorising more destructive types of adversarial language suggested. The ethnographic descriptions of the devolved institutions leads to suggestions about what makes a political institutions more egalitarian, including an equal distribution of minority groups in all political parties, and informality and flexibility of proceedings. With respect to linguistic analyses, the intertextual mechanisms by which homosocial bonds are formed seems a fruitful area for further research. Finally, the case studies point to sexist attitudes and representations of women politicians, coupled with increasing critical awareness and intolerance of such representations which may improve the conditions of participation for women in politics.

In this second set of case study I examine the performances and representation of Julia Gillard (Australian Prime Minister 2010–2013) and Hillary Clinton (democratic presidential candidate, 2016 US election). I start by analysing adversarial language and sexism in Julia Gillard’s parliamentary performances in the Australian House of Representatives. These highly adversarial exchanges with Tony Abbott are extremely confrontational and adversarial. As with Theresa May, this discussion is developed into an analysis of a critical gendered moments when Gillard delivered her famous ‘sexism and misogyny speech’, which was followed by gendered media representations of the performance, and accusations that she ‘played the gender card’. Secondly, the case study of Hillary Clinton analyses critical gendered moments in the US televised debates against Donald Trump in 2016. Clinton is found to have performed well against Trump, given that she is positioned in gendered ways in relation to his sexist discourses. However, her political success is identified as resting on her ability to negotiate a tightrope of double binds – for example emotionality vs toughness – which mean that she is constantly attending to and negotiating her femininity in terms of both her appearance and her behaviour.