In 2020, filmmakers Jesse Moss and Amanda McBaine took a deep dive into the world of Gen Z politics with their critically acclaimed documentary “Boys State,” which followed 1,000 teenage boys who gather at a week-long summer camp in Texas to form a mock government.
Ahead of a critical presidential election, Moss and McBaine are back with a timely followup called “Girls State,” which was released recently on Apple TV+. The new documentary follows 500 Missouri teenage girls, from wildly different backgrounds, as they gather for a week-long immersion program, where they build a government from the ground up, campaign for office and form a Supreme Court to weigh in on the most divisive issues of the day, including abortion, gun violence and climate change.
Moss said adults can learn a lot from giving teenage girls the mic.
“Perhaps we can learn a lot but not only listening more to this generation but watching them model a politics of civility, something our adult politicians seem to have a hard time doing,” he said.
Know Your Value recently chatted with Moss and McBaine about their documentary, what they learned about female leadership, how young voters will shape the upcoming presidential election and more.
Below is the conversation, which has been edited for brevity and clarity:
Tell us why you decided to do a follow up to “Boys State”? And why did you pick Missouri?
Jesse Moss: We always knew we would make “Girls State.” It was never a matter of why, just a matter of when, where and how. “Boys State,” an inspiring and terrifying meditation on electoral politics and what it means to win at all costs, had satisfied our curiosity about how young people were taking in the political behaviors of the “Adult State.” We did not want to make the same film starring girls. We were curious, would girls do government differently?
Missouri Girls State offered a new dynamic. During the week, citizens build a third branch of government, the judicial branch. Citizens would not only be competing for governor, they would also compete to be a justice on the Supreme Court and decide one momentous case at the end of the week.
We were also drawn to the magnitude and vibrancy of the large Missouri Girls State organization and the political and cultural diversity of the state. With “blue” cities and “red” suburbs and rural communities, Missouri is home to both conservative Senator Josh Hawley (author of the recent book, “Manhood: the Masculine Virtues America Needs”) and liberal ‘squad’ member Rep. Cori Bush. In some ways, this mid-western state is emblematic of the country as a whole, of its problems and its strengths.
The film follows the high school girls through a week-long immersive experiment to build a government from the ground up. What do you think the biggest takeaways were about female leadership?
Amanda McBaine: Representation matters in a representational democracy. The new dynamic to the girls program that we did not explore in the boys program was representation. How had girls internalized the inequity of female representation in government?
As one of the counselors says in the opening meeting “We have a lot in common. We have never seen a female president. What do we do? We step up!” In an all-female space, there was no shortage of stepping up. It was noteworthy that hundreds of girls competed for the position of Supreme Court justice whereas fewer competed for governor. We can only think that has to do with what they see modeled in the real world: a court with four female justices.
At the time of the filming, the leaked US Supreme Court document suggested that the constitutional right to an abortion was about to be overruled. How did this affect the dynamic and storyline?
Amanda McBaine: Shortly after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case in Dec 2021, we began our casting process, where we met on Zoom with hundreds of high school juniors headed to the Girls State program that summer. They had a lot to say!
In a state like Missouri, where in 2019 the 72 percent male state legislature passed a trigger law banning all abortion unless a medical emergency, the stakes for a potential federal ban were very high. It felt very special to speak with a group of young women who would be most directly affected by this law but who had had the least say about its making, and to whom very few had asked—how do you feel? The conversation was not so much about the moral rights and wrongs of the issue as much as the legal conversation about body autonomy. This was notable to us in such a red state. There was truly an eagerness to talk about it.
Then, just weeks before the girls convened that early June for the Girls State session, the leaked opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade became public. Understandably, this cast a pall over the ceremonies. But it made gathering together to process even more necessary. At the end of the week the Missouri Girls State Supreme Court heard an abortion case about privacy that had worked its way through the lower courts—Amelia vs. The State of Missouri. And for one brief moment the conversation was being had by only young women.
What were the main differences in leadership styles you saw when you were filming “Girls State” versus “Boys State”?
Jesse Moss: The main difference we could see is that the dynamic at Boys State became much more tribal much more quickly. It is impossible to say whether the reason for this is gender related or program related. Missouri Girls State operates more slowly at first, with inspirational speeches and ice breakers. They do not break into their two parties until days into the session.
There were other striking differences. The [girls] were also much harder on themselves. Perfectionism seemed to be a real challenge. They genuinely wished each other well. The seven Supreme Court justices—all who had won a rigorous three stage competition to get the seats—held hands in a circle before going onstage to hear their final case.
That said, there were so many similarities to the boys of Boys State. These young people seemed to desire community and dialogue. They value listening. They value each other as human beings. Perhaps because they haven’t yet had to check a box on a ballot, they don’t see two rigid sides of a political divide. Their politics are more a la carte. We might argue that the bigger divide is not young men and women but what makes young people lead differently than adults in the Adult State.
Based on your experience directing “Girls State,” how do you think young voters will approach the 2024 election? What issues matter most?
Amanda McBaine” We do not have a crystal ball, but we felt very optimistic but the level of engagement of the Gen Z generation. They are a large and diverse group. They are not naive or apathetic about the existential threats they face. Based on how resilient most of the kids are that we feature in both films, we have hope. Some of them are already working in government. Most of them are already engaged in activism. They all see the value in voting. This is the power of play-acting democracy before engaging in the “real thing”. You understand the value of participation. As one of the counselor’s at Boys State says “democracy is not a spectator sport.”