Abstract
While feminism is a heterogeneous and complex ideological perspective, mainstream news media have routinely portrayed it in simplistic terms and as social deviance. Within a context of increasing visibility of public women in the political arena in the United States – many of them self-proclaimed feminists – this study examines and illustrates the ideological struggle for defining ‘feminism’ in mediated discourse. A textual analysis of more than 200 US news websites stories from 2007 to 2011 shows how this struggle for meaning centers on women in the political public sphere. In doing so, this article addresses the consequences of such coverage for women and gender equality.
In contemporary US culture, defining feminism is difficult. Those familiar with the term and history of feminism understand that it represents varied ideological perspectives and is better understood in plural form. Feminisms became especially visible after critique that the so-called second wave feminist movement in the United States represented the views of White middle- and upper-class women and ignored issues of race and class. Today those familiar with feminist discourse point to various tenets under the basic notion of gender equality, including liberal feminism, post feminism, radical feminism, and Black feminism. News media content about feminism, however, has long told a different story – one of a monolithic group of women (e.g. Ashley and Olson, 1998; Barker-Plummer, 2010; Bradley, 2003; Lind and Salo, 2002; Mendes, 2012; Rhode, 1997).
While journalists and their sources have long linked former US Secretary of State and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton to feminism (e.g. Burns, 2008), the increasing prominence of conservative US female political candidates such as Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, and Christine O’Donnell in the public sphere has generated a battle to (re)define feminism, and it is playing out in US media. Whether it is politicians self-identifying as feminists or journalists and columnists debating the meaning of a feminist, the mediated discourse on the subject has been lively. This commentary reflects on the analysis of over 200 news articles discussing female politicians and feminism from popular mainstream news websites from 2007 through 2011. The purpose is to investigate and illustrate how the term ‘feminism’ and the feminist movement are central in an ideological struggle for meaning – a struggle currently taking place in the US cultural and political sphere and illustrated in mediated discourse.
Sense-making, feminist identity, and media
Actors in the public arena struggle over the right to define and shape issues, as well as the discourse surrounding them. Cognitive linguistics research has attempted to explain this sense-making and definition struggle. Scholars like Lakoff and Johnson (1980, 1999), for instance, have stressed the use of metaphorical reasoning for understanding political processes, public affairs and social movements. Lakoff has also argued that all thought and reasoning is based on conceptual structures. His basic premise is that we think through frames, or ‘mental structures that shape the way we see the world’ (Lakoff, 2004: xv).
One main element in Lakoff’s frame theory is that the world does not necessarily fit the words we use to describe it. He argues that words have meanings – and we may try giving them dictionary definitions, but they do not always have the same meanings for everybody. More importantly, where their meanings differ, those differences are accounted for by differences in worldview (Lakoff, 1996). This is because words do not have meanings in isolation – they are defined relative to a conceptual system (Lakoff, 1996; see also Lakoff, 2006), and more specifically, all words are defined with respect to frames. These are ‘mental structures of limited scope, with a systematic internal organization’, that ‘characterize ideas’ and ‘include specific knowledge’ (Lakoff, 2006: 10–11). In other words, a frame is a thought organizer that highlights certain events and facts as important and renders others invisible.
Our notion of feminism is one such frame. In this regard, scholars investigating media coverage of the US feminist movement have found plenty to critique (e.g. Ashley and Olson, 1998; Bradley, 2003; Lind and Salo, 2002; Rhode, 1997), including mainstream journalists’ framing of feminism as a social deviancy. This kind of portrayal of the feminist movement and its participants has endured and contributed to perceptions of feminists outside of media representations (Mendes, 2012).
Recent US news coverage about feminism and women in the political sphere, however, seems to be changing or at least it is receiving an unusual amount of attention. A struggle to both define and, more importantly, identify feminism is at the core of that discourse. Elements of identity politics have long been linked to feminism, both in terms of what constitutes the category of women and the signifier of ‘feminist’ (e.g. Barker-Plummer, 2010; Cirksena and Cuklanz, 1992; Harp, 2008; Ross, 2009). Feminist identification, thus, has to do with the articulation of women’s understandings and experiences – which are politically laden and resulting from social injustice (Barker-Plummer, 2010; Van Zoonen, 1994). Diverse individuals share these distinctive experiences, even if not easily defined as a whole, and their identity stems from the common meaning behind their circumstances.
Given the gendered underpinnings of political institutions (Gallagher, 2003), what news texts say about female politicians and feminism is relevant and consequential. Female politicians and officials are still scarce, so they are perceived as representatives of the larger female population (Rakow and Kranich, 1991), which could explain the news media’s tendency to link women in politics to feminism, as though females in the political arena necessarily embody feminist ideals and principles.
This research sheds light on exactly what this contemporary mediated feminist discourse conveys about a social and political movement rooted in equality.
Methods
Methodologically, this study relied on Stuart Hall’s (1975) description of textual analysis to provide the guide for uncovering the ‘latent meaning of the text’ and to understand ‘why-the-content-is-like-that’ (p. 16). Three researchers analyzed 246 news articles and posts from news websites with the highest traffic in the United States: The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and the Los Angeles Times. Given Hillary Clinton’s historical and viable bid for the presidency and the growing notoriety of conservative female leaders in US politics, our analysis focuses on stories published between 20 January 2007 – the day Clinton officially announced her intention to get the Presidential Democratic nomination – to 31 August 2011 – 2 months after US House Representative Michele Bachmann confirmed her intention to become a Republican nominee for the 2012 presidential election.
To collect our sample, we first used the search feature in each of the websites listed above to gather all the stories that contained the keywords ‘feminist’ or ‘feminism’, and then selected the articles with mentions of a female in the political arena, such as Hillary Clinton, Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, or Michele Bachmann. Our goal was to examine how feminism was constructed in the news discourse surrounding women in the world of politics and public affairs.
In our analysis, three distinct themes surfaced. Among the mediated conversation was a lively debate about who has the authority to define feminism. Second, the discussion concentrated on a comparison over an old and outdated feminism and new feminism. The third prominent theme reduced feminism to an identity – resulting in a superficial discourse that rarely addressed issues of equality and greatly simplified the social movement. As for the sourcing of the discourse specifically discussing the definition of feminism, it was often the articles’ authors – whether staff writers or invited contributors – who used the keywords feminist or feminism, and usually in reference to another individual.
The authority to define
In August 2008, Sarah Palin tweeted, ‘Who hijacked term: feminist? A cackle of rads who want 2 crucify other women w/whom they disagree on a singular issue; it’s ironic (& passé)’ (Sanchez, 2010: para. 9). In response to Palin’s accusation of the group that hijacked the term ‘feminism’, Anna Holmes and Rebecca Traister (2010) claimed that this accusation goes both ways: ‘Palin’s infuriating ability to put a new twist on feminism allows her to both distance herself from and accentuate the movement’s maligned reputation’ (para. 6).
The recent coverage of feminism in the news media websites highlighted the struggle over authority to define feminism. Two groups (simplified as liberals and conservatives) are now caught in a tug-of-war to define what feminism means. Kathleen Parker (2010), a syndicated columnist, wrote, ‘proving one’s feminist bona fides has become the latest challenge for women aspiring to public office’ (para. 1). Parker (2010) questioned the definition of a ‘real’ feminist versus one who is a ‘faux’ feminist (para. 2). Finally, she reduced it simply to one sentence: ‘A pro-life woman can’t really be a feminist’ (Parker, 2010: para. 3). Jessica Valenti (2010) in a Washington Post op-ed piece titled ‘The fake feminism of Sarah Palin’ claimed, ‘conservatives are trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric’ (para. 4). On the other hand, Marjorie Dannenfelser (2010) posited in Fox News that women such as Palin and Bachmann who strongly oppose abortion are the ones who are practicing ‘real feminism’ (para. 9). According to the conservatives, liberals have for so long dominated the definition of feminism, but now, with the emergence of conservative female political candidates such as Bachmann, the right is ‘destroying the left’s definition of feminism’ (Sekulow, 2011: para. 1).
In an interview, Eve Ensler refuted the new feminism that the right is claiming saying that ‘everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to feminism …’ (Schnall, 2008: para. 16). In The Huffington Post, Adele Stan (2008) also argued that Palin is definitely not a feminist. Stan (2008) listed out five points – ranging from a woman’s lack of choice in determining what happens to her body to unequal pay for the same work to drive her point across that Palin and all who support her simply cannot be deemed feminists (para. 2). Yet individuals such as Rebecca Walker (2008) observed that so far it has been ‘feminist think-tanks, powerful feminist icons, and the leadership of major, national women’s organization [that] have done the dirty business of policing feminism’ (para. 1). Walker (2008), in her article on The Huffington Post, suggests that it is time feminism became more inclusive of a diverse range of beliefs – even ones that oppose the traditional liberal stance.
The problem with this discourse is that rather than a matter of identification with certain experiences and its contexts (e.g. women’s oppression), feminism becomes an associational label for any woman to claim – with little room, for instance, for male feminists. The debate rests primarily on who has the authority to claim the term feminism and has resulted in conservative-identified women accusing ‘old’ feminism as being one that is irrelevant and outdated. In an attempt to be the new authority in defining feminism, the conservative voices are creating definitions of feminism that fit their beliefs. The debate simplifies feminism by presenting it in dichotomous terms of either/or and neglects a richer discussion of feminism that contextualizes this struggle and the many women who identify with various forms of feminism. This old versus new definition in the discourse yielded a second theme.
Old versus new
Much of the discourse concentrated on the struggle between an older definition versus a newer, and apparently, more relevant feminism. The ‘old’ feminism is consistently defined as belonging to liberals and is represented almost always by feminist icon Gloria Steinem. Conversely, the ‘new’, ‘modern’, and ‘updated’ feminism headed by politicians such as Palin and Bachmann is heralded as the fresh face of feminism. This 21st century, broader feminism, however, does not deal with issues of power or status.
For example, in The New York Times, Judith Warner (2008) reported that McCain claimed Palin to be the ‘perfect representation of the post-feminist woman as she marks the end of the old liberal feminist agenda and beginning of one that is more inclusive of all women’ (para. 11). Rebecca Walker (2008) of The Huffington Post observed that ‘Sarah Palin is being presented as the new and improved moose-hunting Gloria Steinem’ (para. 1). The New York Times reported that, ‘Ms. Palin is fashioning a new style of feminism … offering a triumphalist message of spirited hope and fight that seems to be finding a new audience’ (Torregrosa, 2010: para. 19). The new feminists such as Palin are also said to be responsible for an ‘emerging, conservative, feminist identity’, which empowers women instead of the old feminist, accused of hindering women’s growth by claiming that choosing to have children instead of an abortion will ruin their success (Gardner, 2010: para. 1).
The discourse is not entirely one-sided, however, as there are voices vehemently opposed to this new definition of feminism and discussed it outside of simple representation. Taylor Marsh, from The Washington Post wrote, ‘You simply can’t be a feminist if you don’t support a woman’s individual rights. Announcing a “new conservative feminist movement” without acknowledging the individual freedoms of women won’t cut it’. Marsh continued to say that anything less than supporting a woman’s complete individual rights ‘renders one a pretender, a fake, a feminist fraud’. Sam Bennett (2010) claimed the feminism people such as Palin and Bachmann are championing – the ‘conservative feminism’ – is an oxymoron: ‘Sarah Palin calling herself a conservative feminist is like BP calling themselves a corporate environmentalist. You don’t get to just pick up that word and use it the way you want it’ (para. 2). Cathleen Falsani (2011) said that Bachmann and Palin representing a new breed of feminism is simply ‘horse feathers’ (para. 5). Falsani (2011) addressed this, writing that feminism is often misunderstood as women’s desire to be ‘the same’ as men (para. 10): ‘Rather feminism asserts that women should not be limited, marginalized, oppressed, discounted or dismissed solely because of their gender’ (Falsani, 2011: para. 10).
Falsani is right in that feminism is often misunderstood. Feminism is a political movement, which at its core is focused on gender equality. It is a complicated movement with a long history in the United States. Throughout the years, feminism’s goals have evolved and the movement has become increasingly fractured. The earliest US feminist movement focused on the right for women to vote while today feminists unite for various causes. This new feminism coined by conservatives has offered sound bytes rather than identifiable concepts related to gender equality, oppression, or marginalization. In fact, those speaking from this new feminist perspective seem only to talk of equality issues when pointing to traditional feminists as oppressing and marginalizing women.
Reduced to an identity, not a movement
The third theme from the textual analysis illustrated news media’s typical simplification of information. The coverage of feminism was reduced to simple identities – mostly personal identities – and not contextualized as an ongoing movement with a complex history and agenda. In other words, women alone came to represent feminism more so than issues. Susan Kaiser Greenland (2008) in The Huffington Post accurately described that, ‘feminism is not a badge but a way of life’ (para. 3), before stressing that simply being a woman does not make one a feminist or is even ‘a prerequisite to being one’ (para. 3). However, the news media analyzed consistently framed feminism as an identity that one could opt to put on. The coverage, however, was even more simplistic as the available feminist identities typically came in two forms: a pro-choice identity and anti-choice identity. Feminism was thus reduced to a personal stance regarding abortion, with no discussion regarding gender equality – or how abortion might factor in women’s status.
For example, in a Washington Post article titled, ‘Michele Bachmann shattering stereotypes of conservative women’, Sekulow (2011) wrote that Bachmann has a ‘titanium spine’ and one who is also ‘ardently pro-life, evangelical, conservative, tea party-leaning, mother of five (foster mom of 23)’ who is representing the new feminism and reaching out to younger Americans and ‘exposing liberal hypocrisy’ (para. 2). Greta Von Susteren (2008), of Fox News, noted that the original feminists hate Palin because she is ‘not the Stepford wife’, or the ‘demure, man-pleasing, self-effacing woman’ which apparently liberal feminists imagine conservative women to be (para. 18). Bill O’Reilly claimed that feminists hate Palin because ‘she is a pro-life, pro-gun, conservative woman’. In another example, an article states that the new feminism encompasses women who ‘embrace feminine equality while rejecting the idea that the unborn must be sacrificed’ (Dannenfelser, 2010: para. 7). Palin was reported as saying that there is a new conservative feminist movement identified simply as one that opposes abortion.
In an MSNBC article about Nancy Pelosi, the journalist asked the then Speaker of the House how her Catholic faith allowed her to be a feminist. In a subhead titled, ‘Pro-life feminism and the Catholic Church’, Pelosi discussed how there were other issues besides abortion that framed the feminist movement (Henneberger, 2010: para. 15). But in the entire article and as was typical in the articles, the journalist failed to address other issues of equality in the feminist movement, or even discuss how feminism is a movement. The journalist rather focused on the difference of identities between pro-choice and anti-choice to understand feminism (Henneberger, 2010). In an article titled ‘Sarah’s Story’, Palin was again heralded as the new style of feminist and stressed her role as a mother and more importantly her decision to carry to term her baby who has Downs Syndrome (Kilpatrick, 2009: para. 4). Palin, an anti-choice woman, is again identified as the ‘new’ face of feminism. In another news article, Palin was identified as one who has demonstrated the way to practice real feminism, as she is one who is ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-children’ (Dannenfelser, 2010: para. 10).
The lack of depth in covering feminism as a movement dismisses the effort and progress the feminist movement has achieved through the decades. By reducing feminism to simple identities based on who is pro-choice versus who is anti-choice makes light of the fight for gender equality the feminist movement has tirelessly fought for.
Who talks about feminism?
Our second layer of analysis investigated sourcing to determine who was speaking about and defining feminism. We found mostly women discussed feminism, and they ranged from college professors to newspaper columnists and staff writers.
Not surprisingly, in 90% of the articles that contained the keywords ‘feminist’ or ‘feminism’ the terms were used and introduced by the author; and just 10% of these terms came from a quote or were attributed to a source – political or otherwise. For example, Sarah Palin’s statement that she was a pro-life feminist was cited regularly, as well as Michele Bachmann’s assertion that rather than feminist, she was ‘pro-woman’. Moreover, feminism was mostly presented as a description of someone else (41.9% of the stories), defined through multiple labels (22.6%), and rarely an author or source’s self-description (5%). One-third of the stories dealt with a combination of these.
Defining feminism
The renewed interest in discussing feminism and its tenets in the news outlets analyzed here gave way to several labels attempting to constrain feminism into specific categories. While often these stories mentioned feminism in generic terms, half of the articles attached a specific label when describing it. The most common one was liberal (sometimes called ‘mainstream’) feminism (28.9%), which was often juxtaposed to labels such as evangelical/Christian feminism (24.4%), conservative/Tea Party’s feminism (20%), pro-life feminism (11.1%), and new/modern feminism (8.9%).
The stories discussing feminism tended to present it in neutral terms (43%). Another 28% framed it positively, and 13% of the articles portrayed it negatively, were it feminism in general, liberal feminism or, more often, evangelical feminism. Almost 16% of the stories described feminism in both negative and positive terms – usually, when contrasting two types of feminism. In addition, a breakdown by news outlet shows that The Washington Post (61.9%) and The New York Times (41.7%) were more likely to use a neutral frame when discussing and defining feminism, whereas The Huffington Post favored a positive frame (39.4%) in its stories. Conversely, Fox News stories were more likely to discuss feminism in negative terms, with almost half of them (44.4%) adopting this tone.
A further breakdown by news outlets reveals significant differences in mediated discourse. Thus, the so-called new brand of feminism heralded by conservative political women is mostly labeled as ‘conservative/Tea Party’s’ in The New York Times, ‘evangelical/Christian’ in The Washington Post, and ‘pro-life’ in Fox News. The struggles for defining feminism are such that, for instance, the frame of the discussion – whether feminism is presented in positive, neutral, or negative terms – varies from one news medium to the other, depending on the type of feminism under consideration. Thus, in the Los Angeles Times, invited columnists portrayed liberal feminism negatively, whereas staff writers from The Washington Post and CNN favored a neutral description of evangelical/Christian feminism.
Discussion and conclusion
The analysis of the popular US news websites yielded three dominant discursive themes related to feminism: (1) Who has the authority to define feminism, (2) a clear distinction between an old and new feminism, and (3) a tendency to define feminism as an identity rather than a movement or ideology. Throughout these themes, the discourses revealed a familiar discord in the news media’s coverage of feminism, a story focused on power struggles and animosity toward ‘old’ feminism while a ‘new’ feminism has emerged. That discourse, however, proves complicated and wrought with emotional perspectives while nearly devoid of any notion of feminism as a social movement with goals and political activity. Furthermore, it pits women against women, evoking the traditional trope of the female catfight and in the end portrays feminism in general in a negative light.
While feminism is an ongoing social movement, popular news media devote only sporadic and simplistic coverage to the topic. Over the years, news organizations sparsely covered feminism and typically only when something controversial merited its reemergence – in this case, political figures using and debating the term. This type of sporadic coverage alone sends the message that feminism is not an ongoing struggle for gender equality. In the instance of this research, it is the presence of female politicians in the political sphere that has triggered a renewed interest in the topic. From the contemporary news discourse, however, what seems to be of relevance is how to define feminism and label women appropriately.
While there is no consensus on what feminism means – indeed, there exists a plurality of feminisms – throughout the years in US news media, it has consistently been portrayed in one way in the media – disruptive and negative. The image then of feminism in media and public consciousness has tended to be monolithic and stereotypical; represented by Gloria Steinem and made up of stereotypes – masculinized, man-hating feminazis. Now that the words ‘feminism’ and ‘feminist’ are being used in references to a nonstereotypically feminist woman – female conservative political leaders – the traditional notion of feminism is situated as outdated. These women (and those who label them as feminists) illustrate and value traditional gender relationships, which are based on Christian marital values, while claiming a stake in the movement for gender equality. In turn, the old feminism is placed within the context of an old-fashioned ideological perspective. One might argue that the hegemonic struggle playing out within mediated discourse actually demonstrates how patriarchy is winning in the struggle for feminist meaning. After all, patriarchy is deeply imbedded in Christianity.
With this in mind, this research is especially important. It illustrates a contemporary mediated discursive and hegemonic struggle for meaning over the term ‘feminism’ in the United States during this particular time. Traditional feminist movement is currently being structured in mediated discourse as outdated and old-fashioned. The perfect irony might be just how old-fashioned the ideological tenets of Christianity are when it comes to gender relations, making the term ‘Christian feminist’ seem an oxymoron to some. What is unfortunately missing from most of the discourse is the sense that feminism is a social movement and gender equality is still an important topic. These journalists and columnists missed an opportunity to address feminist issues in their coverage of feminism. Furthermore, this lack of attention in the discourse about what feminism actually means as an ideology or social and political movement allows the notion of Christian feminists to enter into the discourse relatively unchallenged. In other words, real questions and discussion about the contradictions present between conservative values related to traditional gender roles and marriage and traditional feminist goals for equality, not just within the public but the private sphere as well, are absent in the discourse.
It has been argued that news relies on a masculine narrative (Gallagher, 2003; Rakow and Kranich, 1991; Ross and Carter, 2011) and politics is presented in the media as a male pursuit (Ross, 2009). Such gendered categories, posits Barker-Plummer (2010), make news a very difficult medium for critical discourses such as feminism, which seeks to undermine traditional gender divides and inequalities. When framing this so-called new and alternative feminism, feminist ideology and social movement both end up being reduced; feminism is thus presented in a superficial and simplistic way, more as an identity – and thus changeable – than a political movement with specific demands. In other words, the terms ‘feminism’ and ‘feminists’ are being used rhetorically to co-opt feminism. With this, patriarchy wins again. And this means, feminism continues to lose. The consequences of such a simplistic mediated narrative are speculative but likely serious. Feminism loses ground as a movement when it is simplified into an identity and everyone is allowed to claim the term without a critical discussion as to what this new feminism means. Christian feminism, like the term ‘choice feminism’, has become part of the new feminism. A term juxtaposed to an old-fashioned feminism but not critically analyzed. News consumers would do well to understand what these terms mean, and feminist movement might even gain stronger political and social ground if the term and movement were understood. Journalists would be doing a service to their communities, democracy, and the profession of journalism by better covering feminism as a social and political movement.
The stories analyzed here centered more on the dichotomous views of feminism with an either/or script that nearly ignored philosophical and ideological issues that are at the heart of much of the social definition ‘feminism’. This way to frame the discussion – and account for the struggle for meaning – ignores the complexities of the feminist movement. In doing so, the media are failing in their job to enlighten their audiences about the women’s movement and its goals for gender equality.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.