英国议会两百年的性别歧视：对Hansard语料库中女性代表性的计算分析
Two Centuries of Sexism in British Parliament: A Computational Analysis of Women's Representation in the Hansard Corpus
- Rochester Institute of Technology（罗切斯特理工学院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。
AI总结：
本研究通过分析英国Hansard语料库的6531篇议会演讲，利用大语言模型发现反对女性参政的演讲性别歧视比例更高，支持选举权的性别歧视多为善意，且男女议员支持女性权利的比例存在差距，验证了矛盾性别歧视理论。
AI中文摘要：
立法机构用于辩论女性权利的语言，即便持支持态度，也蕴含着跨越两个世纪持续存在的系统性性别歧视模式。本研究分析了1803年至2005年英国议会辩论（Hansard）中200年间的6531篇演讲，利用大语言模型对演讲者关于女性选举权与政治代表性的立场进行分类，并从矛盾性别歧视量表（Ambivalent Sexism Inventory）的视角分析议会中的性别歧视言论。研究还发布了该议会数据集，这是公开Hansard语料库经过整理、丰富元数据的版本，专为计算社会科学研究优化，包含120万场辩论中的670万篇演讲，下议院议员的演讲性别匹配率达89%。研究发现，54%反对女性参政的演讲包含性别歧视内容，而支持女性参政的演讲中这一比例为21%，且双方使用的性别歧视类型截然不同：反对选举权的言论结合了敌意与善意框架，而支持选举权的性别歧视则绝大多数为善意。女性议员支持女性政治权利的比例为93%，男性议员为70%，该差距仅在女性获得选举权后缩小。研究结果表明，敌意与善意性别歧视在不同修辞语境中被使用，与矛盾性别歧视理论一致。
英文摘要：
The language a legislature uses to debate women's rights, even in favour of them, encodes systematic patterns of sexism that persist across two centuries. In this work, we analyse 6,531 speeches over 200 years of UK parliamentary debate (Hansard, 1803-2005) by using large language models to classify a speaker's perspective towards women's suffrage and political representation, as well as analyse sexist speech in parliament from the lens of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. We also release this parliamentary dataset, an organized and metadata-enriched version of the publicly available Hansard Corpus optimized for computational social science research, with 6.7 million speeches across 1.2 million debates, with 89% gender-matching for speeches by MPs from the House of Commons. We find that 54% of speeches opposing women's representation contain sexist content, compared to 21% of speeches that are for the cause, and that the two sides use fundamentally different types of sexism: anti-suffrage rhetoric combines hostile and benevolent framing, while pro-suffrage sexism is overwhelmingly benevolent. Female MPs support women's political rights at 93% compared to 70% for male MPs, a gap that closes only after enfranchisement. Our findings are evidence that benevolent and hostile sexism are used in different rhetorical contexts in a manner consistent with the theory of Ambivalent Sexism.
