‘Feminism rules! Now,where’s my swimsuit?’ Re-evaluating feminist discourse in print media 1968–2008

Waves of feminism

Because this project spans a 40-year period, encompassing two ‘waves’ of feminist activism, it is fruitful to give a brief account of both waves, and their media representations, before moving on to a discussion of neoliberalism and its relationship to (post)feminism.

Methodology

Using both content and critical discourse analysis (CDA) this article presents the results from 998 news articles on feminism between 1968 and 1982, and 2008 in eight publications. ³ In total, 555 news articles published between 1968 and 1982 were collected from The Times and the Daily Mirror in the UK, and the Chicago Tribune and the New York Times in the US. In 2008, 443 articles were collected from these original four publications, plus four new ones (the Washington Times and Washington Post in the US; the Daily Mail and The Guardian in the UK). ⁴ Newspapers were selected for their range in ideology – from the more conservative Daily Mail, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune and Times (Dean, 2010; Decter, 2002; Edwards, 2002; Jenkins, 1985; Wendt, 1979), to the more liberal Guardian, Daily Mirror, New York Times and Washington Post (Dean, 2010; Edwards, 2002; Sutter, 2001; Taylor, 1993). These newspapers also range from the more populist Daily Mirror and Daily Mail to those aimed at more elite markets such as the New York Times and The Times in order to give a broad spectrum of tone, style and perspectives. Because my findings are limited to only eight publications in two nations, I am aware that the results here represent western shifts which might not easily be transported to other publications or regions.

Although this article employed a content analysis, which has been praised for its ability to identify trends in coverage, symbolic qualities and content (Deacon et al., 1999; Krippendorff, 2004), the results from it are used sparingly throughout the article. Furthermore, only the results from a simple frequency analysis are presented in order to draw attention to the presence or absence of themes, rather than analysing the statistical significance of features of coverage. Content analysis was therefore used as a springboard for more qualitative discussions of feminism. Here, CDA was used to unpack the various themes, discourses and ideologies embedded in coverage (Deacon et al., 1999), achieved through a close reading of each article, paying attention to how language, source use, headlines, story order and genre construct, oppose, support, dismantle and reflect discourses of feminism over time and space. Because CDA is interested in affecting society in some way – whether by ‘empowering the powerless, giving voice to the voiceless, or exposing abuses of power’ (Blommaert and Bulcaen, 2000: 449), I finished by taking an overall look at the article, assessing which ideologies were prioritized, whom the discourse served, what it revealed about the society in which it was produced, and how it helped/hindered the movement and its goals (Richardson, 2007). Consequently, in examining ways feminism is ideologically positioned, this article traces its (changing) representations over time and analyses the various ways news of feminist activism has become largely invisible, de-politicized and subsumed into (neo)liberal ideology.

Feminist activism

Looking at the 555 articles from between 1968 and 1982, one of the most noteworthy trends is the stark decline in reports of feminist activism since that period – both from individuals and groups. This includes stories, features, letters or columns which focus on marches, protests, petitions, conferences, sit-ins, debates, lobbying, boycotts and more. Between 1968 and 1982, 275 articles reported on feminist activism (50 per cent of the sample), and examples of headlines include: ‘Feminists march in Atlanta’ (New York Times, 1976: 28); ‘Taking the bulls by the horn in the name of women’s lib’ (Lennie, 1973: 15); ‘Girls to bring “sex war” to Britain’ (Daily Mirror, 1970: 3); and ‘Liberation movement gets a Chicago voice’ (Dunham, 1975: B4). In 2008 however, despite the fact that feminist activism is alive and well (Redfern and Aune, 2010; Valenti, 2007) if perhaps more fragmented than in the past, only 11 articles (2 per cent of total) specifically focused on organized feminist activism, protests or demonstrations, although a range of others, not quantified by the content analysis, do acknowledge a range of (re)popularized ‘feminist’ activities (e.g. stitch’n’ bitch meetings; go-go dancing groups; baking; revival of the Women’s Institute, etc.). Problematically however, within these activities (which are not necessarily about activism or advancing particular feminist goals), most articles focused on one individual feminist, their lifestyle, beliefs and their pleasure in participating in such activities. Such articles therefore ignore the diverse forms of collective feminist activism and, almost universally, the politics behind their actions. Although I have argued elsewhere that there was a strong focus on individual feminists rather than the women’s movement in the British sample between 1968 and 1982, these articles frequently did focus on politics and/or forms of activism to bring about equality or gender justice (see Mendes, 2011a). Furthermore, I have argued that the focus on the individual in these cases can be linked to the predominance of radical and socialist feminism in Britain, which, unlike its American counterpart (where liberal feminism dominated), tended to reject large, hierarchical organizations and instead comprised smaller, more fragmented groups, who often worked on single-issue campaigns. As a result, the news media between 1968 and 1982 were rarely given access to feminist groups (who frequently produced their own media account of events), and focused on individuals willing to speak to the media (Bouchier, 1983).

When examining the data from 2008 however, it is clear that feminism in both Britain and the US has become constructed as something deeply individualized and personal, and often conducted independent of others. Such sentiments are echoed by scholar Angela McRobbie when critiquing the closure of women’s studies degrees in the UK: ‘Often it seems feminism has become a kind of private passion, a way of working through the intractable issues of the day in regard to sexuality, and the requirement to fulfil so many normative expectations’ (2008: 30). Following on from this, only a small number of articles throughout the 2008 sample focused exclusively on feminist organizations and their various forms of activism, as opposed to a handful of individuals within such organizations, or their personal beliefs on what feminism meant. These range from feminist ‘victories’ such as women’s newfound freedom to go topless in Danish pools (Oscarsson, 2008) to Swedish women’s right to strip off their tops after scoring in soccer matches (Daily Mirror, 2008).

Other articles, such as those found in Britain’s The Guardian – a publication known for its historic support of feminism (Cochrane, 2010; Dean, 2010; Stott, 1989), discussed how those women sick of lads magazines and sexism could use ‘random acts of feminism’ to ‘fight back’ and make the world a better place (Roby, 2008: G2 16). This particular feature provides a list of suggestions on how to combat the misogyny women encounter in their lives, including calls to place magazines like Good Housekeeping in front of lads magazines at newsagents, or delivering feminist reading material to local doctors’ offices and clinics. Another Guardian feature focused on the emergence of various feminist networks in cities like Bristol, London and Glasgow (Norris, 2008: G2 14). The article highlights how these networks offer unique spaces ‘where women can talk freely about how discrimination affects their daily lives, and work out how to change this’. This is one of only a handful of articles in the entire 2008 sample which overtly addresses feminism as a coherent movement with explicitly political goals (such as combating sexist images through media monitoring; protesting outside of pornography shops; organizing Take Back the Night marches). Furthermore, in tracing various forms of activism, it emphasizes women’s (collective) power to achieve these goals. As one member of the London Feminist Network explained: ‘The power of being in touch with over 600 feminists means that if we want something to happen, we can spread the word about an event or an issue, and make it happen’ (Norris, 2008: G2 14).

While the increased individualization of feminism is worrying, so too is the de-politicization of feminist goals – a trend which Michelle Lazar (2011) argues is part of the widespread disavowal of feminism. Although ‘political’ topics such as equal rights, sexual discrimination and oppression against women are notably present throughout both samples, ⁵ by 2008 there is also a marked increase in stories on ‘softer’ issues such as fashion, leisure and popular culture (115 articles or 26 per cent of total sample). For example, one Times feature celebrated the ‘new face of the WI [Women’s Institute]’, emphasizing how it ‘straddles the divide between cosy domesticity and modern urban feminism (with a dash of politics thrown in for good measure)’ (The Times, 2008: 4). Although better known for its promotion of crafts than women’s rights, there exists an academic debate on whether the WI could be considered a feminist organization (see Andrews, 1997). In this article, however, it is clear that even though the WI isn’t labelled as a feminist network per se, one particular branch is comprised of women who display their femininity and commitment to feminism through performing tasks such as knitting, baking and sewing. Little further discussion is provided, however, to indicate what other political aims such crafts help women achieve. Instead, while once critiqued as signs of women’s oppression, such domestic activities are now reclaimed as ‘subversive’ because they provide a temporary escape from women’s hectic lives and are performed out of ‘choice’ (see also Hollows, 2006: 106). By recasting domestic tasks as inherently feminist, such articles ignore the historically gendered and classed nature of such tasks while simultaneously maintaining domestic work as a feminized activity. While I am not suggesting that feminists should not be able to knit, bake or sew, or that the popular be ignored as a political site for negotiation, the suggestion that there is something innately feminist in the mere act of performing such tasks requires interrogation. Furthermore, the more serious ‘issues of the day’ raised at these meetings are said to range from discussing ‘icons to conspiracy theories’ – hardly the type of political activism necessary to eradicate systemic oppression against women. Therefore, if this is what feminism has succumbed to, it has little chance of equitably redistributing social power, or recognizing that there is a power imbalance to restore in the first place.

Generational conflict

Although it has long been journalistic convention to base news stories around conflict (Galtung and Ruge, 1965; Gans, 1979), there has been a noticeable shift in feminism’s ‘enemy’ from the height of the Second Wave to 2008. Where older news stories were likely to pit ‘radical’ and ‘non-radical’ feminists against one another (Mendes, 2011a; van Zoonen, 1992), the emphasis in 2008 is on (apparently irreconcilable) differences between Second Wave feminists and their Third Wave counterparts (see also Dean, 2010; Douglas, 2010). While the former is more likely to be derided as ‘retro’ or ‘old-school’ (Letter to the editor, 2008; Palmer, 2008; Williams, 2008), the latter is frequently referred to as ‘modern,’ ‘fun,’ and ‘sexy’ (Groskop, 2008a, 2008b; Jones, 2008; Valenti, 2008; Weldon, 2008). Furthermore, in many instances, women identified themselves as being part of the ‘new’ (as opposed to ‘old’ Second Wave) feminist movement. As one source articulated: ‘I am a new feminist. New feminists feel we are the same as men, but we have something men do not – our femininity’ (Pool, 2008: G2 21). Consequently, in addition to the general erasure of political, collective discussions about feminist activism, the 2008 sample witnessed the widespread dismissal and rejection of Second Wave feminism as a credible, successful social movement, thereby post-ing it. As one New York Times columnist argued:

Some women in their 30s, 40s and early-50s who favour Barack Obama have a phrase to describe what they don’t like about Hillary Clinton: Shoulder-pad feminism.

They feel that women have moved past the men-are-pigs, woe-is-me, sisters-must-stick-together, pantsuits-are-powerful era that Hillary’s campaign has lately revived with a vengeance.

And they don’t like Gloria Steinem and other old-school feminists trying to impose gender discipline and a call to order on the sisters.

As a woman I know put it: ‘Hillary doesn’t make it look fun to be a woman. And her “I-have-been-victimized” campaign is depressing.’ (Dowd, 2008: A23)

Through labelling the Second Wave ‘old-school’, the discourse not only argues that something new and modern is needed (after all, perhaps it is), but that whatever develops needs to be radically different from the past; that is, rather than being angry, shrill or radical (as these are the bulk of the charges against the Second Wave), feminism today should be modern, fun, and not take all the old gender politics too seriously (see also Douglas, 2010). Furthermore, it is frequently stressed that to be a Second Wave feminist, one must conform to the party line, whereas contemporary feminism can be individualized according to one’s own interests and concerns. As a self-identified Third Wave feminist argued in a Times feature:

In the past, you had to subscribe to a whole set of beliefs to be a feminist, including how you should look and behave. But Noughties women have made it their own. It’s like a pick-and-mix feminism, where you can choose the bits you care about yourself. (Soames, 2008: 17–18)

This focus on the individual is a common neoliberal trope used to discourage groups from forming collective recognition of their oppression, and the know-how to resist it.

Another common sentiment found throughout the sample was that in addition to picking the ‘bits’ one cares about, unlike the Second Wave, contemporary feminism therefore should not be about what one can’t do, but what one can. As Third Wave feminist Jennifer Baumgardner argued:

Assumptions about [Second Wave] feminism were that you wouldn’t get married or you wouldn’t take your husband’s name, that your kids wouldn’t play with a Barbie doll. We [Third Wave feminists] were like – that’s not the point. There isn’t a laundry list of things you do. Even being pro-choice – I don’t think you need to be pro-choice to be a feminist. It’s not the decision you make but the ability to make that decision. (Bowers, 2008: G2 16)

While this individualized ‘can do’ attitude is understandably appealing, more often than not, what one can do in these articles is frequently restricted to demonstrating one’s femininity, flaunting one’s sexual power, or purchasing goods which will either lead to empowerment or are signs of its achievement. Therefore, although it is fair to say that there are some very real political and theoretical differences between the feminist waves which can – and have led to tension (see Henry, 2004), much of the recent criticism directed towards the Second Wave is part of the continued backlash against feminism (Faludi, 1992). Not only is it becoming ‘common sense’ for the mass media and popular culture more generally to convince women they were better off before feminism (or now that it is over), but radical, socialist or even liberal feminist critiques are being replaced with new neoliberal feminist values which refocus women’s attention towards purchasing and sexual power, as opposed to political and economic power (Douglas, 2010; Lazar, 2011). ⁶ As a result, they discourage a ‘collective sensibility about pushing for changes that would help all women’ (Douglas, 2010: 16).

Empowerment is so empowering

In addition to the focus on (generational) conflict between feminists used to dismiss serious discussions about sexism, politics or inequality, there was a clear focus on rhetoric of empowerment and choice in the 2008 sample, which has been briefly touched upon so far. While data from the content analysis reveal that liberal notions of feminism were dominant between 1968 and 1982 (226 articles or 41 per cent of total), there is a marked change in focus in 2008 towards neoliberal beliefs and values. Where articles once stressed women’s right to be granted equal social, political, legal, sexual and economic rights, by 2008 it was frequently assumed women were already equal, and the focus was now moving towards women’s endless range of (personal) choices. While in some cases this notion of choice was directed towards more ‘serious’ issues of women and politics (women’s power to elect either Hillary Clinton for President or Sarah Palin for Vice-President in the 2008 US Presidential elections), more often than not discourses of power and choice were used regarding ‘softer’ issues of popular culture, lifestyle and leisure (see also Douglas, 2010; Lazar, 2011). One excellent example illustrating this point emerged in the British press regarding the creation of a Miss University London beauty pageant, which a Daily Mail columnist satirized through a ‘Dear Non-Domestic Goddess’ agony aunt exchange:

Dear Non-Domestic Goddess, The organisers of Miss London University [beauty pageant] say it ‘empowers’ all the women taking part. Is this true, do you think?

ALTHOUGH women were once empowered primarily by the assertion of reproductive rights and workplace equality, it seems possible for a woman today to be empowered by almost anything.

Indeed, as Susan Brown, Professor of Empowerment at the London School of Economics, told us: ‘From what she decides to wear for the day through to the way she plumps her sofa cushions, today’s women live in an almost constant state of empowerment.

‘For example, women who go shoe shopping a lot will call that empowering, just as women who have Botox call that empowering.’ As it is, I just sneezed and found that thrillingly empowering.

When asked if ‘empowerment’ had become overused and meaningless, Dr Brown said she would have to get back to us later ‘as I have a beauty pageant here at the university to attend. As a Professor of Empowerment, I can’t begin to tell you how empowering that is.’ (Ross, 2008: 55)

Although this column presents a satirical take on women’s supposed empowerment through apolitical and mundane tasks, many others are quite serious in their assessments. For example, a fellow Daily Mail columnist argued that empowered women ‘are supposed to be able to do whatever they want to express themselves and their bodies. If that involves wishing for world peace while wearing a push-up bra, then so be it’ (Moir, 2008: 30). Similarly, one Guardian feature writer shared her increased sense of empowerment achieved when wearing high heeled shoes, noting that despite research showing their harmful effects on women’s posture: ‘Feminism counts for nothing if it is not a guarantee of choice.… What heels inhibit in terms of speed, they restore by means of swagger’ (Betts, 2008: G2 10). This swagger then is presumably the key to her empowerment.

This focus on choice (frequently the choice to look beautiful or sexy, or engage in traditionally feminine activities) emerged time and time again throughout the sample, and is also a staple in what has become known as ‘girl-power’ or ‘commodity’ feminism (Goldman, 1992). Here, although women are encouraged to identify both as feminine objects and as powerful feminist agents (Zazlow, 2009), there is little awareness of how conflating the two can be problematic. Furthermore, as scholars have noted, such sensibilities require little to no investment in social change (Douglas, 2010; McRobbie, 2009), and instead focus on improvements to one’s appearance, wardrobe and sexual availability. As feminist writer Natasha Walter argued: ‘by co-opting the language of empowerment, our culture creates smoke and mirrors that prevent people from seeing how limiting so-called choices can be’ (2010: 37). Many feminist scholars have consequently remained critical of ‘choice’ and ‘empowerment’ narratives, which they argue undo feminism, while ‘simultaneously appearing to be engaging in a well-informed and even well-intended response to feminism’ (McRobbie, 2004: 255; Tasker and Negra, 2007). For example, rather than trying to define what Third Wave feminism stands for, writer Amy Richards argued that: ‘Each woman wants different things; thus the feminist goal should be figuring out what you want’ (cited in Miller 2008: M30). Here, women’s right to please oneself forms a central tenet of the current postfeminist sensibility (Gill, 2007), and according to the news media, being a modern feminist requires only the ability to make (self-gratifying) choices while the consequences or politics of such choices remain irrelevant or un-discussed.

While I stand by my critiques of the articles discussed above, it is also worthwhile to acknowledge that some ‘softer’ news stories on feminism in 2008 were political and/or critical of neoliberal (feminist) values. Consequently, it is not the topic or mode of address that is necessarily problematic here, but the ideologies through which issues are addressed. Fashion for example can of course be a political issue, particularly if discussing the political or economic forces behind its production, sales and marketing. Feminist groups such as the punk Riot Grrrl movement in the 1990s, or the more recent Slut Walk marches protesting the continued blaming of women for sexual crimes committed against them, for example, also used clothes (T-shirts with ‘Slut’ written on it) as a form of political protests. So, while fashion can be a feminist issue, the point here is just to state that freely choosing to conform to a particular fashion (high-heels vs. flats) doesn’t necessarily make one a feminist, or their decision particularly empowering. Instead, as Douglas argued, much of the messages purported by the media instead present ‘fantasies of power’ (2010: 9) which need to be interrogated.

Conclusion

Through employing a content and critical discourse analysis of 998 news articles in eight British and American newspapers over a 40-year period, this article has focused on the various ways news (and discourses) of feminism have shifted over time. Although feminism has remained a newsworthy topic between 1968 and 1982, and again in 2008, both my British and American news samples witnessed a general erasure of (radical) feminist concepts, language, critiques, and news of its activism. Instead, over time, feminism has largely become understood through a (neo)liberal postfeminist sensibility vis-a-vis the news media which renews ‘the pressure on women to inhabit the domestic realm productively and without complaint’, and which encourages women to prioritize consumer practices and maintenance of their own appearances (sexual attraction, fighting ageing, staying slim), ‘above action in the fields of work, politics or public culture’ (Biressi and Nunn, forthcoming). Although there is evidence of discourses which challenge(d) such (neo)liberal rhetoric, such critiques became less evident over time, and were limited to a handful of publications (The Guardian in 2008, the Chicago Tribune and The Times between 1968 and 1982), raising serious concerns about the news media’s ability or willingness to facilitate more challenging feminist ideologies.

When examining coverage longitudinally, it becomes clear that where feminism was once constructed as an organized social movement (particularly in the US), by 2008 it was hegemonically constructed as a set of personal beliefs. And while feminist scholars have long identified the importance of individual experience, personal disclosure, and critical reflection in the theorization of and resistance to women’s oppression (Al-Ani, 1990; Marciniak, 2008), also needed is a sense of collectivism in the ‘ongoing engagement with the inequities that structure and often undermine women’s lives’ (Biressi and Nunn, forthcoming).

Instead, by 2008, the prevailing sensibility was that (western) women are now equal, and anyone who argues otherwise is personally responsible for their own failure – after all, with equality legislation firmly in place in both nations, any woman who has not made it to the top of her field or enjoyed professional and personal success is constructed as either having not worked hard enough, or as having made poor personal life ‘choices’ and should blame no one but herself (see also Gill, 2009; McCarthy, 2007). Alternatively, when women speak out about patriarchy, sexism or discrimination (as many Second Wave feminists have done), they are constructed as whiners or as jealous of other (mainly younger) women’s success. Consequently, not only are their grievances dismissed, but they also become labelled old-school or retro. Even more worrying, throughout the entire sample period, black women, older women, lesbian or bisexual women, women of colour and women with disabilities were almost universally ignored by the mainstream press. Feminism therefore, is in absentia, constructed as not being of any relevance to them, when in fact it is these women who are the most structurally marginalized.

What this study, among other critiques of popular culture, has identified is that, in emphasizing women’s ‘gains, attitudes, and achievements’, the media further entrench the belief that women have achieved complete freedom and equality, thereby making it culturally acceptable to return to an age of ‘enlightened sexism’, where misogynistic, racist and heterosexist views are perpetuated under the guise of irony (Douglas, 2010; Gill, 2007; McRobbie, 2009; Walter, 2010). So, as witnessed in this sample, the return of beauty pageants is applauded; women are encouraged to conform to limited notions of (white, middle-class) female beauty; consumption is seen as the quickest (and most satisfying) route to empowerment; and being a sex object is ‘liberating’.

So, what does this tell us about British and American culture, and the status of feminism today? To begin, it is abundantly clear that society’s values have shifted over time. While the news media in both countries once promoted liberal (feminist) values, in line with other social movement study research (Dean, 2010; Freeman, 2001; van Zoonen, 1992), there has been a shift in the last 20 years to neoliberalism, emphasizing consumer capital, little third-party interference in work or home life, and the importance of the individual in achieving and maintaining personal and professional success. Public constructions of feminism are consequently in serious need of revising so as to focus on its aims as a political project, before there is any hope of liberating women. Educating the public, and particularly news workers, about feminism’s history, goals, and political origins and differences is an important first step in this process.