{shortcode-1cac51db824a079277d640672caa1aef39b55306}

Amanda McBaine and Jesse Moss’s newest film, “Girls State,” is a welcomed companion to their 2020 documentary, “Boys State.” Although similar in plot — both follow teenagers as they build a simulated government from the ground up — the two films couldn’t be more different.

Obvious distinctions aside — the participants’ gender and its geographical switch from Texas to Missouri — this Girls State, for the first time ever, takes place at the same time and on the same campus as Boys State. This is incredibly consequential for the documentary, as it makes room to constantly draw contrasts between both programs, despite the film’s title and even if the counselors assert that they are “incompatible for comparison.”

The ensued proximity allows both viewers and the young women in the program to observe firsthand how gender dynamics play out in early politics, offering a glimpse into their inevitable futures. While the neighboring Boys State probes themes of competition, ambition, and leadership, the Girls State conference largely discusses dress codes, required buddy systems, and surface-level ideas of female empowerment.

As a result, the “Girls State” documentary spends a significant amount of time examining its discrepancies between Boys State. This poses the question: Is it possible to talk about Girls State without Boys State? In short: Absolutely not, and it’s not for the reasons one might believe.

The documentary begins by introducing several of the girls in the program: Emily, Maddie, Nisha, Tochi, Faith, Brooke, and Cecilia. Each has their own aspirations and challenges, and their storylines are woven together as they run against each other and work together to build their government.

In the program, the highest office is governor, which Emily, Faith, and Cecilia intend on running for. While it is evident that the documentary has a clear narrative preference for Emily — following her campaign from conception to conclusion — it makes a significant effort to humanize each girl and highlight the group’s efforts as both politicians and friends.

Due to the amplified amount of screentime, one might anticipate that Emily would win the role of governor. This expectation, though, shifts when her confidence begins to waver and her speech falls flat in comparison to Faith and Cecilia’s strong rhetoric of female empowerment. Fortunately, Emily’s loss allows her to commit more time to investigative journalism, where she writes about the striking disparities between Boys State and Girls State. Her storyline exhibits the resilience of many girls in the program and serves as a vehicle to highlight the need for gender equality in government.

Throughout the film, these differences are often seen through stark contrasts between the conversations the girls are having and the change the boys are making. For example, one scene depicts the girls being lectured about the clothes they are allowed to wear. They are quick to question why the boys are allowed to have their shirts off, while the girls must have strict dress codes.

The counselor tries to guide their conversation away from Boys State, judgmentally and misguidedly saying, “You guys can talk about Boys State now if you want to. Talk about government!” The people in leadership perpetuate these double standards — pushing sexist regulations that distract from actually talking about government — until their authority is being challenged.

The very next scene shows Boys State involving themselves in debates, drafting legislation, being sworn into their positions, and participating in traditional ceremonies. Despite the programs’ surface-level similarities, it is clear that while boys are encouraged to engage in meaningful governmental work, the girls are often sidelined to making arbitrary rules and judgements.

As the girls idled in conversations about what they must wear, the boys ironically engaged in lively discussion about how women’s bodies must be regulated. The documentary’s timing in relation to Roe v. Wade’s overturning is striking, particularly in a red state like Missouri where young girls with political platforms yearn to talk about the policies directly affecting them. It’s touching to see change be made by women and for women, yet it’s heartbreaking to realize that just six days after the conclusion of Missouri Girls State, the Supreme Court overturned the landmark case.

Circling back to the initial question, the reason Girls State cannot stand on its own is because it is part of a greater societal issue. There is no way to talk about women’s rights without addressing the broader context of systemic sexism and the patriarchy. The documentary is just a microcosm of the gender inequalities women face, illustrating the pervasive nature of these issues across various facets of society. “Girls State” doesn’t stand on its own because, today, women are yet to be awarded the justice to stand on their own.