“Playing the gender card”: Media representations of Julia Gillard’s sexism and misogyny speech

Abstract

What is at stake for women who challenge sexism? In October 2012, Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, delivered a speech in Parliament in which she accused the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, of sexism and misogyny. The speech attracted local and international media coverage, and sparked widespread debate about precisely what constitutes sexism and misogyny, and whether the accusation was justified. This study adopts a discursive psychological approach to analyse a corpus of 216 articles published in the Australian print media in the week following the speech. The analysis identifies common discursive patterns and resources used to construct and represent sexism and examines the ways in which this accusation of sexism was dismissed, minimised and undermined. The analysis also demonstrates how Gillard’s identity was negatively constructed and problematized, and the implications this may have for other women who wish to confront sexism. Finally, the analysis suggests that silence is privileged over speaking up against sexism, and provides evidence for the existence of an ideological dilemma – in which speaking up against sexism is considered “dangerous”, but failing to do so is to tolerate an injustice.

Keywords

sexism misogyny postfeminism new sexism gender card political leadership critical discourse analysis

In June 2010, Julia Gillard became Australia’s first female Prime Minister. Despite the controversy surrounding her entry into the position,¹ a great deal of attention was paid to the historic nature of the event and its wider social significance (Hall & Donaghue, 2013). From the outset of her elevation to Prime Minister, Gillard was reluctant to draw attention to her gender, instead insisting that she wanted to be judged on her merits. Gillard was also careful to manage the meaning of her success to women as a group, and actively distanced herself from feminism (Hall & Donaghue, 2013). This changed dramatically on 9 October 2012, when the Prime Minister delivered what became known as her “sexism and misogyny” speech in the Australian Parliament. In what was described as an “extraordinary” (Baird, 2012) and “furious attack” (Shanahan, 2012), Gillard accused the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, of sexism and misogyny. During the speech, Gillard listed several occasions on which she had been “offended” by Abbott’s behaviour, including when he described abortion as “the easy way out”, and his appearance in front of demonstrators bearing signs referring to Gillard as a “bitch” and a “witch”. The speech attracted local and international media coverage and sparked widespread debate about the nature and extent of sexism and misogyny in Australia and whether it was appropriate for a woman of Gillard’s standing to make such an accusation in the most public of institutional settings, the Australian Parliament.

The aim of this paper is to examine public understandings and constructions of sexism in public discourse through an analysis of newspaper responses to Julia Gillard’s sexism and misogyny speech. It identifies common representations of sexism and misogyny to understand how competing and contested meanings around these categories make accusations of sexism and misogyny a morally accountable matter, not only for the accused but also, paradoxically, for the accuser. By analysing ways in which sexism is constructed in this very public context, our analysis will demonstrate what is at stake for women who confront sexism and will examine how such challenges are dismissed, minimised, and undermined.

Gender inequality and sexism in a postfeminist era

The elevation of a woman to the office of Prime Minister is symbolically important for gender politics (Hall & Donaghue, 2013), and undoubtedly contributes to the view that women have come a long way in the battle for equality. Indeed, given the social and cultural change that has occurred since the 1970s and the subsequent improvement in many aspects of gender equality, some have argued that equal opportunity has been achieved, and a postfeminist era has arrived (Gill, 2007a). Postfeminism is a contested term (Gill, 2011) that has been variously understood as the “pastness” of feminism (Tasker & Negra, 2007), a backlash against feminism (Faludi, 1991), and a distinctive sensibility linked to neoliberal ideologies of individualism and choice (Gill, 2011). Analysts of postfeminism argue that “it is by virtue of feminism’s success that it is seen to have been superseded” (Tasker & Negra, 2007, p. 5), and that feminism itself has therefore become increasingly irrelevant to contemporary society (McRobbie, 2009).

The claim that gender equality has been achieved appears premature, however, in light of statistics which demonstrate that economic, professional and social disadvantage still exists for women relative to men. For example, in Australia, women earn less than men (Short & Nowak, 2009), and their workforce participation is often restricted due to insufficient childcare, inflexible workplaces, and a lack of support within the home (Stone, 2007). Women who work full-time still perform the majority of unpaid domestic work and childcare (Craig, Mulland, & Blaxland, 2010). Sexual harassment and gender discrimination remain prevalent (Rospenda, Richman, & Shannon, 2009), and domestic violence persists (Alhabib, Nur, & Jones, 2010). Indicators such as appointments to CEO positions, seats on corporate boards and election to parliaments also demonstrate a disadvantage for Australian women (Kee, 2006). However, despite the continuing presence of structural gender inequality, contemporary Australia fosters an ideological climate in which equality is often assumed.

In addition to the view that feminism has become increasingly irrelevant, Swim, Aikin, Hall, and Hunter (1995) found that many people believe that sexist attitudes are no longer an issue. As many scholars have argued, sexism has not disappeared, but has taken on new forms in a postfeminist climate, where sexist images and remarks are frequently deployed in an ironic way, or as “a joke”. Women are relatively disinclined to recognise such expressions of modern sexism as prejudicial (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005), and according to Gill (2007a, 2011), women who are offended by such “jokes” are perceived as uptight and humourless, and risk being associated with the pastness of feminism. Thus, in contemporary society, “the potency of sexism lies in its very unspeakablity” (Gill, 2011, p. 63).

Confronting sexism

The prevalence and harm of sexism has been widely documented by psychological research (e.g. Barreto, Ryan, & Schmitt, 2009; Rudman & Glick, 2009; Swim & Hyers, 2009), and several studies have demonstrated that the majority of women will experience sexism at some point in their life, primarily in the form of differential treatment due to gender, sexist remarks, and offensive stories or jokes (Brooks & Perot, 1991; Fitzgerald et al., 1988). When faced with sexism, a woman must decide whether or not to confront sexist behaviour and attitudes. Individual and situational factors, such as the familiarity and status of the perpetrator, are significant when the costs and benefits of complaining are evaluated (Ayres, Friedman, & Leaper, 2009; Kowalski, 1996). The potential costs of confronting sexism include retaliation, being considered a complainer, being disliked, or having one’s claims dismissed (Shelton & Stewart, 2004). It has also been argued that women might not confront sexist behaviour for fear of being perceived as impolite or overly aggressive, and as a result of the social pressures against identifying oneself as a feminist (Swim & Hyers, 1999).

Laboratory-based research has demonstrated that confronting sexism does lead to predominantly negative perceptions of the women who do so. For example, Dodd, Giuliano, Boutell, and Moran (2001) found that a woman who reacted to a male’s sexist remarks was “liked less” by male perceivers when she expressed dissatisfaction than when she did not. Shelton and Stewart (2004) found that the more often women confronted a male interviewer who asked sexist questions, the more they were perceived as “complainers”.

These findings demonstrate the social cost for women who confront the prejudice they face and help elucidate why the overwhelming response of women who experience sexism is not to confront the perpetrator (Shelton & Stewart, 2004). Research also demonstrates that not confronting prejudice leads to negative social and psychological outcomes. For example, Czopp and Monteith (2003) reported that perpetrators are more likely to continue behaving in prejudiced ways if they are not confronted, and Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, and Hill (2006) found that women who felt that they “should” confront sexism, but did not, subsequently reported increased negative self-directed affect, including feelings of shame and guilt.

Despite the potential psychological, emotional and social cost to women who do not confront sexism, many women choose not to because they believe that doing so is “risky” (Swim & Hyers, 1999). Additionally, they are concerned that they will be disbelieved, humiliated or perceived as a “troublemaker” (Kowalski, 1996). Such fears of personal denigration are also evidenced by anti-racist critics who speak up against racism. For example, van Dijk (1992, p. 90) found that, “Accusations of racism… tend to be seen as more serious social infractions than racist attitudes or actions themselves”. The findings from these studies highlight the predicament that women face when subjected to sexist attitudes and behaviour, and underscore the need to strengthen social norms against sexism. In a climate where the costs of speaking up against prejudice are high, many women – and men – may believe that they can ill-afford to challenge sexism.

Although this tradition of laboratory-based research provides substantial empirical evidence emphasising the dilemmas women face in experiencing and challenging sexism, sexism is rarely displayed or experienced in the straightforward ways it is examined in such experimental settings (Korobov, 2004). How sexism is oriented to and managed in naturalistic settings and in everyday social interaction has received less detailed empirical attention.

Discourse, gender inequality and “new sexism”

The complex, contradictory and strategic ways in which sexism is both constructed and denied in everyday discourse and social interaction have been the focus of constructionist discursive work. Previous research in discursive psychology (DP), for example, has found that a pervasive feature of contemporary “gender talk” is that it is strategically organised to deny sexism through the flexible deployment of rhetorical arguments premised on liberal notions of egalitarianism and meritocracy (Riley, 2002; Weatherall, 2012; Wetherell, Stiven, & Potter, 1987). Wetherell et al. (1987), for example, found university students deploying a principle/practice dichotomy in their discourse on gender that enabled them to explicitly endorse equal opportunity for men and women in the workplace but at the same time emphasise the practical constraints of childbearing and parenting that prevent this from becoming a reality for women. Thus, contradictory notions of equality and pragmatism were mobilised by speakers, enabling them to endorse gender equality in principle whilst denying that women were systematically disadvantaged in the workplace.

The complex rhetorical management of talk about gender inequality has been termed “new sexism” (Gill, 1993) and shares features of the denial of prejudice in “new racism” (Barker, 1981). Collectively, this research demonstrates that in contrast to traditional arguments used to justify gender inequality, a key feature of the social reproduction of new sexism is the rationalisation of sexist views in complex and contradictory ways that primarily function to deny prejudice and justify the existence of inequality whilst presenting one’s views as fair, rational and reasonable (Augoustinos & Every, 2010).

The present study

To date, there has been no discursive research that has investigated “what happens” when a woman confronts sexism. Julia Gillard’s sexism and misogyny speech is a rare example of a public confrontation of sexism and provides an opportunity to examine how sexism and accusations of sexism are constructed and debated in a naturalistic “real world” setting. It also provides an opportunity to examine constructions of those who challenge sexism, particularly in an ideological climate in which gender equality is assumed.

Through an examination of newspaper reporting of the speech, the present study extends recent discursive research examining media representations of the first female Prime Minister of Australia (Hall & Donaghue, 2013) and investigates how her identity was problematized for publicly challenging and speaking up against sexism.

Analytic method and data

This paper adopts an approach to the analysis of discourse that is informed by DP. DP is primarily concerned with how versions of the social world are situationally constructed in discourse to perform social actions such as persuading, defending, blaming, etc. (Edwards & Potter, 1992). One strand of inquiry in DP focuses on the identification of interpretative repertoires defined as recurrent patterns of talk, metaphors, arguments and terms used to describe particular events, actions or groups (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). This approach is aligned with Billig’s rhetorical psychology and incorporates the notion of ideological dilemmas (Billig et al., 1988). These integrative concepts allow for an exploration of how accounts are rhetorically and argumentatively organised, how identities are constructed, and how versions of people, events or states of mind are often contradictory and inconsistent (Billig, 1999).

Another strand of DP focuses on the role of descriptions and the management of accountability in discourse. A key feature of this approach is the analysis of descriptions in terms of how they are assembled to appear “factual” or objective (Potter, 1996). Given that competing interests often result in different accounts or versions of the same person or event, speakers and writers counter alternative versions by constructing their descriptions as literal, solid and independent. In doing so, people manage the “dilemma of stake or interest” (Edwards & Potter, 1992) and attend to the concern that their account may be viewed by others as interested.

The present study adopts a synthetic approach (Wetherell, 1998) to data analysis in order to examine the ways in which versions and accounts are constructed at both the micro level – such as how “facts” are constructed and how identity is managed in discourse – as well as at the broader macro level of shared and pervasive repertoires of sense-making. This approach is sometimes conceptualised as critical DP, and seeks to overcome the limitations associated with employing a single analytical method in isolation (Wetherell, 1998).

The data corpus

The data corpus comprises all articles published about Julia Gillard’s sexism and misogyny speech in the Australian mainstream press in the week following the delivery of the speech in Parliament (10 October to 16 October 2012, inclusive). The time period was chosen in order to focus specifically on the media’s immediate response to the speech. A search of 11 state and national newspapers using the Factiva database, with the search keywords “Gillard and (sexism or misogyny or gender)” retrieved 251 articles. Removal of duplicates and letters to the editor resulted in 216 original articles: 114 news reports, 71 commentary/opinion pieces and 31 editorials.

Newspapers were selected on the basis of circulation data, and to represent a mix of ownership. In addition to all major broadsheets, the highest circulating tabloid in each mainland state was included. The newspapers from which the data were drawn include: The Australian; The Sydney Morning Herald; The Age; The Australian Financial Review; The Daily Telegraph; The Herald Sun; The Advertiser; The Courier Mail; The West Australian; The Sunday Times; The Sunday Mail.

Our analysis was guided by three major research questions: How is sexism constructed? How is making an accusation of sexism constructed? How is the identity of a woman who confronts sexism constructed? The main analytic objective in the first stage of analysis was to identify the predominant interpretative repertoires and rhetorical strategies used across the corpus to formulate these constructions and to explore their implications. Exemplar data extracts were then selected to illustrate the most pervasive of these global patterns. These extracts were the focus of in-depth analysis and are presented in the analysis below.

Analysis and discussion

Constructions of sexism

One of the most pervasive features of the corpus was writers’ orientation to the issue of sexism itself. Two recurrent patterns of accounting were evident in the data: sexism was constructed as either irrelevant or something that should be ignored. A third pattern of accounting in which writers oriented to what constitutes “real” sexism and misogyny – and what does not – was also evident, but is not the focus of the present analysis.

“It is irrelevant”

Several articles constructed Gillard’s speech and sexism more broadly as an issue that is unimportant and “irrelevant” to the majority of Australians. Contrast structures were frequently used to position other issues, such as the economy, as more important to “ordinary Australians”. Similar constructions were found in accounts that worked to position those who are interested in the issue of sexism (e.g. “the sisterhood”) as irrelevant to mainstream Australia. Writers attended to concerns that such accounts may be perceived as problematic or prejudiced and worked to present their views as reasonable and rational. In doing so, they explicitly counter potential accusations of prejudice, which is typically associated with irrationality and unreasonableness (Billig, 1991). As Edwards (2003) notes, an effective way of achieving this is to present one’s views as reflecting the external world rather than reflecting one’s own (potentially prejudicial) perspective. Extract 1 demonstrates how an account of sexism is built to not only present the writer’s views as reflective of the external world, but also to present those views as disinterested and consensual.

Extract 1, The Courier Mail, 13 October 2012 1 Unedifying would be a good way to describe events in Federal Parliament in 2 the past few days. Unedifying and, for the vast majority of Australians just 3 trying to get on with their lives in uncertain times, somewhat irrelevant and 4 disconnected from the cares and concerns of the real world

10 It is irrelevant that sections of the international media were captivated by the 11 spectacle of Prime Minister Julia Gillard's 15-minute polemic in which she 12 sought to slice and dice Tony Abbott over perceptions that he is a misogynist. 13 It is overreach in the extreme to suggest Mr Abbott is a woman-hater. At the 14 same time it is also over-reach and poor form to bait the Prime Minister with a 15 repetition of the now-infamous “died of shame” remark.

16 The voting public – and that is the great mass of people who don't necessarily 17 flood social media platforms with their views and sometimes their venom – are 18 heartily sick of the whole debacle. 19 The entire Australian political class spent much of last week completely 20 distracted by what is in reality a tawdry sideshow, brimming with confected 21 outrage and affront, while once again the business of actually governing 22 seemed to come a distant second on the priority list.

27 Get over it, and instead get on with the business of delivering economic 28 growth and stability; of actually delivering on big-ticket policy agenda items 29 such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the education reforms 30 proposed by the Gonski review. (Fagan, 2012)

Notable in this extract is the use of gender-neutral terms such as “the vast majority of Australians” (l. 2), “the voting public and… the great mass of people” (l. 16). In constructing a version of this event which positions sexism as “irrelevant” (l. 3) and “disconnected from the cares and concerns of the real world” (l. 4), the use of gender-neutral consensus warrants has a dual focus. Not only do they work to distance the writer from the views expressed and thus build the account as factual and disinterested (Potter, 1996) but also to position sexism as irrelevant to a gender-neutral society. As Riley (2002) has noted, the rejection of social categories (such as age, sex or ethnicity) in favour of category-neutral terms works to mask the potential common experience that members of a social category might share. In this case, such terminology also works to undermine an alternative version – that women in Australia do indeed view the issue of sexism as important and relevant. In doing so, this account works to reduce the legitimacy of treating women as a separate category with specific interests.

Another notable feature of this extract is its lack of detail. The specific content of Gillard’s speech (and accompanying parliamentary debate) are systematically and negatively glossed as “events in Federal Parliament” (l. 1), a “debacle” (l. 18), a “spectacle” (l. 11), and a “tawdry sideshow” (l. 20). The repeated deployment of performance metaphors such as “spectacle” and “sideshow” constructs the speech as a theatrical display further positioning what was said about sexism and misogyny as irrelevant.

The construction of the speech and the issue of sexism as irrelevant are bolstered through the corresponding negative construction of those whose accounts contradict this version of events. In describing sections of the international media who were “captivated” by the speech as “irrelevant” (l. 10), and referring to the (positive) views expressed by people via social media as “venom” (l. 17), the writer works to counter these alternate versions and further builds his account as rational and reasonable.

After working up a version of sexism as unimportant and irrelevant to the majority of Australians, a contrast structure is used to define issues that are important, such as the economy, health and education (ll. 27–30). Inclusion of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) in a list of “big-ticket policy agenda items” (l. 29) serves to highlight a form of discrimination that – unlike gender discrimination – is deemed worthy of redress. In its entirety, this account makes available the implicit rhetorical question: what reasonable, rational Australian who cares about important issues such as the economy, education and the NDIS would care about sexism? This account thus works to categorise sexism as an issue that exists beyond the cares and concerns of ordinary Australian women and men.

“She should rise above it”

A common repertoire across the corpus – even when writers conceded that Gillard had been the victim of “grossly sexist abuse” – was that speaking up and drawing attention to the issue of sexism is antithetical to women’s interests. These accounts acknowledged sexism as an issue, but simultaneously constructed it as something that should be ignored. What continually emerged from the data is that it is in women’s best interests to ignore sexism – an interpretative repertoire that advocated the need for women to “rise above” the sexism they face.

Extract 2, The Advertiser, 15 October 2012

20 I never heard Thatcher scream out in the House of Commons that her critics 21 were sexist misogynists. She would have thought that sounded weak. 22 In the Thatcher school, any political leader who complained about her critics 23 being mean and unfair was seen as unfit for the job. It displayed a certain lack 24 of conviction. 25 Helen Clark, the former prime minister of New Zealand, certainly campaigned 26 against sexism. In that sense she was quite different from Thatcher. I dealt 27 with her extensively as Australia's foreign minister. She was left wing, strident, 28 determined and, on the whole, pretty effective. She also had her convictions, 29 few of which I shared. But she wasn't a whinger. She knew high office 30 brought with it a fusillade of criticism and she just took it. 31 Like Thatcher, Clark would never have stood up in the New Zealand 32 Parliament and complained that her critics were against her because she was a 33 woman and they were misogynists. She did, no doubt, put up with a fair share 34 of sexist gibes.

61 This is dangerous territory for Julia Gillard. She is our national leader. She's 62 our Prime Minister. We expect her to govern wisely and calmly and to dismiss 63 her critics politely and gracefully. Sure, Tony Abbott can be pretty aggressive 64 but he's the Opposition Leader, not the national leader. It's his job to criticise 65 the Government. 66 Gillard makes two huge mistakes. For one, she never stops complaining about 67 her critics.

72 That's Gillard's first mistake. She whinges about her critics. She's right, by the 73 way. Some of the criticism is unfair and some of it may occasionally be sexist. 74 But she's the Prime Minister. She should rise above that. As Thatcher and 75 Clark did. (Downer, 2012)

In Extract 2, a solid and factual tone is established through category entitlement (ll. 26–27) and historical comparison. The writer constructs two categories of women leaders – those who, in the face of “sexist gibes” (l. 34), behave in an acceptable manner (ignoring or rising above sexism) and those who do not. By acknowledging that there are good women leaders, namely Margaret Thatcher and Helen Clarke, the writer fends off any potential accusations of prejudice that may arise from his criticism of Julia Gillard. The category of “good” woman leader is constructed as a woman who does not complain (l. 22) or whinge (l. 29) about sexist abuse, as this is seen as “weak” (l. 21). In describing Clarke as a left wing politician with different views to himself (ll. 27–29), the writer can also be seen attending to the concern that his version may be discounted as a product of stake or interest. Ultimately, the notion of what constitutes a good woman leader is constructed as her ability to “just take” (l. 30) abuse and criticism without “whinging” or “complaining”.

Alongside the construction of different categories of women leaders, this account also works to contrast differing expectations the public should have of Gillard and Abbott based on their respective roles. Whilst “our Prime Minister” should be “calm”, “polite” and “graceful” (ll. 62–63) – or risk finding herself in “dangerous territory” (l. 61) – Tony Abbot is absolved of his “aggressive” (l. 63) behaviour, which is glossed as simply “doing his job” (l. 64).

In conceding that Gillard has been the victim of sexism (ll. 72–73), the writer further works to establish his version as reasonable and rational, before moderating the concession with the use of “some”, “may” and “occasionally” (l. 73). Here, we see an example of the level of rhetorical flexibility that is present in discourse. Edley and Wetherell (2001, p. 451) found that this flexibility allows speakers and writers to “have it both ways; they can be both ‘pro’ and ‘anti’, in favour and against, both supportive and, at the same time, critical”. By initially building an arguably “pro” account of women leaders whom the writer respects and admires, this description facilitates the construction of the writer’s own identity as fair-minded. However, this acceptance and admiration for women leaders is organised within a complex structure of conditionals and contrasts, and is ultimately made contingent upon their ability to “just take” (l. 30) or “rise above” (l. 74) the sexism they face. Furthermore, the minimisation of the substance of Gillard’s speech through the use of “some”, “may” and “occasionally” works to construct sexism itself as something relatively harmless – and the expectation that recipients “rise above” or “just take” it is thus positioned as reasonable.

This interpretative repertoire that advocates the need for women to rise above sexism is a clear example of how such discourse functions to legitimate gender inequality and effectively support the status quo. The version of social reality constructed here is that sexism is something that should not be spoken about, and that women who rise above sexism are liked and respected. Sexism is normalised in the sense that its existence is not questioned. The issue of sexism is not viewed as important – it is irrelevant. Being sexist is not viewed as problematic. However, speaking about sexism, failing to ignore it, failing to rise above it – this is the behaviour that is constructed as abnormal and problematic. This repertoire makes salient the unspeakability of sexism, and highlights what was undoubtedly the single most pervasive feature of the corpus: writers attending to the extraordinary nature of a woman publicly saying things that should not be said.

Constructing accusations of sexism

The motivation behind Julia Gillard’s speech and whether the accusation of sexism was justified were key concerns for writers. Descriptions constructed the speech in two distinct ways: genuine and spontaneous, or as a politically motivated tactic. Accounts were found to hinge on the authenticity of Gillard’s emotion at the time the speech was delivered. This repertoire of “authenticity” was drawn upon to construct Gillard’s emotional state as genuine and, in turn, the speech as spontaneous.

In contrast, the “playing the gender card” repertoire was a ubiquitous metaphor across the corpus that constructed the accusation of sexism as a politically motivated tactic. This repertoire was drawn upon to dismiss and undermine Gillard’s accusation and thereby warrant it as unjustified. The antagonistic relationship between versions of this event was most apparent in reports that attended to the accusation itself.

“Things women aren’t supposed to say”

Descriptions that worked up a version of the speech as spontaneous and based on genuine feeling implicitly worked to construct the accusation as justified and thus to counter alternative descriptions. The following extract provides an illustration of how “emotion” discourse (Edwards, 1997) is drawn on to construct authenticity and spontaneity.

Extract 3, The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 October 2012

17 For the first time in Australian political history, a senior woman from a major 18 party stood in our Federal Parliament and attacked her opponent on the 19 grounds of sexism in a long, blistering speech.

20 Agree or not, the fact that it was the first female prime minister who took the 21 opportunity to do this made it extraordinary.

22 This was the real Julia: succinct, cool, visceral, combative and pissed off. Alan 23 Jones said her father died in shame; Tony Abbott had just said her government 24 should have died in shame. She was very angry; and beautifully controlled.

25 It struck a chord because she made a speech millions of women have 26 rehearsed in their heads for years – against a colleague, boss or opponent they 27 consider to be obnoxious or sexist – but never made. Labor women, Democrat, 28 Republican, donkey-vote women and even some Liberal women (just quietly) 29 gathered around their computers and yelled, air-punched and cheered.

30 Because Gillard said things women aren't supposed to say, in any job, and 31 most of all, in politics. She made a speech that politically is dangerous and 32 may cost her electorally. (Baird, 2012)

This account works to justify the speech and the accusation of sexism that was made on the basis of Gillard’s authenticity. It counters alternate versions by providing a description of “the real Julia” (l. 22). This pattern of accounting is consistent with Tolson’s (2001) suggestion that “real” emotion is seen as reflective of an individual’s “inner essence” or “real self” and can be worked up in discourse as evidence of an “authentic” identity. Amongst other things, Gillard is described as “pissed off” (l. 22) and “very angry” (l. 24). According to Edwards (1997), the usefulness of “emotion talk” is that emotions such as anger can be used to label behaviour as spontaneous rather than as the product of a more enduring state of mind. Constructing the speech as spontaneous is an important element in countering the claim that it was a political tactic, which suggests motive and forethought rather than spontaneity. Edwards (1997) also suggests that “anger” can be used to contrast with rational thought and thus label behaviour as incoherent. The writer is seen attending to the concern that the description “very angry” could be heard as “irrational” and subsequently counters it with “beautifully controlled” (l. 24). This “emotion versus cognition” contrast (Edwards, 1997) works to validate the authenticity of Gillard’s emotion whilst also constructing her as rational and in control.

Although the description that various women, regardless of their political persuasions, “gathered around their computers and yelled, air-punched and cheered” (l. 29) is not directly relevant to the reporting of Gillard’s speech, such detail is important, as it works to make the account graphic and believable by warranting the writer as a witness to events. As with previous extracts, this description also functions as an externalising device, enabling the writer to distance herself from the claim being made, and in doing so attends to the concern that her account may be viewed as interested.

In addition to building facticity through vivid description, the listing of several women of differing political persuasion allows the reporting to be heard as the common experience of a range of people, thereby establishing both objectivity and consensus (Jefferson, 1990). It is not just “Labor women”, but effectively all women who shared this experience. In constructing a version of this event in which a variety of women responded to the speech in the same, authentic, emotion-based way, the writer further works to reflect Gillard’s own emotional authenticity. Furthermore, the speech is described as something that “millions of women have rehearsed in their heads for years” (ll. 25–26), thus constructing it as something millions of women can relate to, which works to persuasively strengthen the claim of authenticity. The accusation of sexism is, in turn, positioned as not only directed at Gillard’s own opponent, but to any sexist colleague or boss (ll. 26–27) these women may have encountered.

The unspeakability of sexism is again made salient as the writer orients to the “extraordinary” nature of a woman publicly saying “things women aren’t supposed to say” (l. 30). Whilst the feeling of being targeted by sexism is positioned as something that all women can relate to, Gillard’s actions are constructed as existing outside the realm of “ordinary” women’s experience. For the majority of women, these words are never spoken.

A key feature of the comparatively small number of articles across the corpus that constructed an arguably “positive” version of this event is that they work to elicit consensus from the social category “women” rather than favouring the gender-neutral terminology discussed in relation to Extract 1. The deployment of gender-specific versus gender-neutral social categories neatly demonstrates how writers work to seek consensus in different ways depending on what they want to accomplish through their descriptions.

The description of the speech as politically costly and “dangerous” (l. 31) could be seen as inconsistent with the earlier claim that the speech represented an “extraordinary” (l. 21) moment “in Australian political history” (l. 17). Billig et al. (1988) stress the dilemmatic nature of ideology and common sense, which are seen to comprise contradictory themes. These ideological dilemmas offer insight into cultural or commonsense understandings. Specifically, this extract orients to the commonsense understanding that sexism is something that women rarely speak up against because making an accusation of sexism is “dangerous” but not saying anything in response is an injustice: an injustice that another article describes as one that all women can relate to (“We've all been there, not saying, broiling about the injustice of not saying”, Murphy, 2012).

Whilst Extract 3 arguably strives to present Gillard’s speech in a positive light, positioning it as both triumphant and historic, it is important to note how this account nonetheless subtly functions to maintain gender inequality. The notion that millions of women silently rehearse accusations of sexism in their heads, but rarely confront their “colleague, boss, or opponent” (l. 26), is not overtly challenged. To make an accusation of sexism is not constructed as something to which all women can aspire, but rather as something exceptional. The version of reality represented here works to reinforce the commonsense understanding that publicly speaking up about sexism is far from “normal”. These words may safely exist in women’s heads, but in the public sphere, they are dangerous.

“Playing the gender card”

The most commonly deployed metaphor within the corpus was that of playing the gender card. In contrast to Extract 3, these accounts worked to construct Gillard’s speech as politically motivated, tactical, unfair and unjustified.

In her analysis of the use of this metaphor in media reporting of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Falk (2013) concluded that the term playing the gender card enables users to reduce complex arguments (that would be socially unacceptable if made explicit) into something vague. The commonalities of these arguments were distilled into two broad meanings. Playing the gender card is a strategy used to gain a tactical advantage, or challenging the status quo by pointing out sexism in society. The notion of choice is implicit in these arguments, and the tactical aspect of the metaphor functions to suggest that gender would not play a role in society if women chose not to invoke it (Falk, 2013). The following extract illustrates how “playing the gender card” is used to construct Gillard’s accusation as unfair and therefore unjustified.

Extract 4, Sunday Telegraph, 14 October 2012

1 Watching Julia Gillard desperately flail around last week in the last death 2 throes of her government, you could wish her prime ministership had been 3 different. But as a woman I’m embarrassed, insulted and angry that the stocks 4 of women in power have been brought so low. 5 Playing the gender card is the pathetic last refuge of incompetents and 6 everyone in the real world knows it. It offends the Australian notion of the fair 7 go. (Devine, 2012)

In contrast to descriptions that worked to justify the accusation (which invariably featured rich and complex emotion discourse), Extract 4 demonstrates that the notion of playing the gender card does not need to be accounted for. The metaphor is rhetorically self-sufficient (Wetherell & Potter, 1992) insofar as no elaboration or explanation is required, and no further warrant is given. The writer constructs “playing the gender card” as “pathetic” and “incompetent” (l. 5). As in Extract 1, consensus for this version is sought from the gender-neutral “real world” (l. 6), thereby positioning sexism as existing outside the realm of ordinary Australians. The writer works to establish the facticity of this report by warranting her category entitlement as both witness (l. 1) and “woman” (l. 3), and a three-part list in which the emotion categories “embarrassed, insulted and angry” (l. 3) are invoked is used to formulate a uniformly negative response to the speech, and Gillard’s prime ministership more generally.

The construction of the accusation as an unfair political tactic is bolstered through the claim that “It offends the Australian notion of the fair go” (ll. 6–7). The deployment of the idiom “fair go” functions as a contrast to the unfairness that is inherent in “playing the gender card”. Constructing the accusation as an unfair tactic through the familiar tropes of “the gender card” and “the fair go” works rhetorically to build an account that resists being countered, whilst simultaneously undermining the alternate version – that Gillard’s accusation was authentic and justified.

The construction of the gender card as something that affords women an unfair advantage was also evident in these accounts. The gender card was depicted as a trump card that confers advantage upon those who play it – implying that by drawing attention to gender or speaking up against sexism, women gain a distinct tactical advantage over their male counterparts (Falk, 2013). It has been argued that the power of descriptions often lies in what they fail to describe or what is ignored. In accounts invoking the gender card metaphor – which positioned women as possessing a tactical advantage over men – what was notably absent was any consideration of how sexism disadvantages women in the first place.

Constructions of identity

The continuing relevance of gender stereotypes was evident in accounts that oriented explicitly to Gillard’s identity. According to Hall and Donaghue (2013), women leaders face a “double bind”, which requires them to display high levels of traditionally masculine qualities whilst maintaining sufficient femininity so as not to be disliked. Characteristics that are traditionally understood as vital to successful leadership (such as assertiveness, confidence and ambition) tend to be associated with coldness and unfemininity, and therefore come at a substantial cost to the popularity and electoral success of female politicians (Jamieson, 1995).

The pulveriser

Within the dataset, writers were found to attend not only to what Gillard said about sexism, but how she did so. Her demeanour, rhetorical style and ultimately her identity more broadly were frequently constructed as stereotypically masculine. This pattern of accounting was consistent, regardless of whether writers were striving to present Gillard in a positive or negative light. For example, in one article Gillard is described as a “badass motherf – ker”, “the Pulveriser” a “lock-jawed killer” and “She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Messed-With” (Maley, 2012).

Reports that constructed Gillard’s identity as stereotypically masculine consistently positioned her confrontation of sexism as abnormal, extreme, unfeminine and problematic. The implication of this routine pattern of construction and positioning is that the dilemmatic double bind faced by female politicians is socially reproduced and maintained. In displaying characteristics that are traditionally associated with confident political leadership but are perceived as stereotypically masculine, Gillard’s identity was problematized in a way that would not have been the case for a man who exhibited similar characteristics whilst delivering a speech in parliament.

Another pervasive pattern saw the use of a contrast structure to construct identities for both leaders within the same account. In these descriptions, Gillard was consistently constructed as “out of touch” with the mainstream, while descriptions of Abbott worked to construct him as an “ordinary” Australian to whom everyone can relate.

Extract 5, The Australian, 13 October 2012

59 The notion of Gillard the student politician, full of pointless sound and fury, 60 damages her more than Abbott. Among mainstream voters, it accentuates the 61 image that she is someone who has spent her adult life in the cloistered world 62 of people who are obsessed with politics – from student activism to a Labor 63 law firm doing union work, a political staff member who positioned herself to 64 win a safe seat, an operator who worked with the faceless men to execute her 65 leader. 66 The events of this week reinforce a view that the people we send to Canberra 67 are different from you and me. Abbott will always be a boofhead to inner-city 68 voters of exquisite tastes, partly because of his attachment to the mainstream. 69 But in the flatlands of long commutes and big homes on small blocks, Abbott 70 appears to be a normal guy from the suburbs with a mortgage and three 71 daughters. He's not all that different from the strivers at the golf club or the 72 blokes doing the barbecue at the netball. (Dusevic, 2012)

A broadly negative construction of Gillard’s identity is evident here. These claims are externalised as the image that Gillard holds “Among mainstream voters” (l. 60), which enables the writer to maintain his identity as a neutral reporter whilst implicitly working to warrant a broad consensus. Invoking the “mainstream” also works contrastively with the arguably less desirable categories to which Gillard belongs: student activist (l. 62), lawyer (l. 63) and “someone who has spent her adult life in the cloistered world of people who are obsessed with politics” (ll. 61–62).

Abbott, though initially described as a “boofhead” (l. 67), is positioned as only being viewed this way among “inner-city voters” (ll. 67–68). The categorisation of people to whom Abbott does not appeal as a rarefied group works to bolster his “attachment to the mainstream” (l. 68) and connection to “the flatlands of long commutes and big homes on small blocks” (l. 69). The deployment of universalizing group membership categories such as “normal guy from the suburbs” (l. 70), “strivers at the golf club” (l. 71) and “blokes doing the barbeque at the netball” (l. 72) not only accomplishes the construction of Abbott as “normal”, but also works implicitly to elicit consensus from the “mainstream” for the claims being made.

Extract 5 works up the category of an ordinary or “normal” person in order to position it contrastively with Julia Gillard’s extraordinary or “abnormal” identity. The broad and socially appealing location categories invoked to construct Abbott as “normal” are strongly contrastive with those of a “cloistered world”, “student activism” and a “Labor law firm”. The category of family is also invoked in this contrast structure (ll. 70–71) and thus makes “family” and “fatherhood” a salient component of Abbott’s identity. Given that constructions of identity for Australian women have typically been built around the norms of partnering and parenting (Addie & Brownlow, 2014), this also works implicitly to problematize Gillard’s identity as an unmarried woman without children.

Across the corpus, negative constructions of Gillard as “out of touch” and atypical worked to silence her claims of sexism, whilst also positioning a woman who speaks up against sexism as disconnected and isolated from mainstream Australia. In silencing claims of sexism, and discouraging “ordinary” Australian women from identifying with Gillard, such constructions ultimately function to reproduce and maintain gender inequality.

Conclusion

Our analysis of media reporting of Gillard’s sexism and misogyny speech demonstrated the ways in which discursive constructions of sexism, an accusation of sexism, and Gillard’s identity as a woman speaking up against sexism, function to silence women and thereby maintain gender inequality. Across the corpus, sexism was routinely dismissed as irrelevant and unworthy of discussion (Extract 1). Women were encouraged to remain silent and rise above sexism (Extract 2). Speaking up against sexism was positioned as dangerous and unfair (Extracts 3 and 4). A woman who challenged sexism was depicted as extreme, abnormal and “full of pointless sound and fury” (Extract 5). The analysis also revealed commonsense understandings held by “ordinary” Australian women, that speaking up about sexism is risky, and it is safer for such words to remain “in their heads” (Extract 3).

These predominant constructions not only serve to maintain and justify gender inequalities, but also function to reproduce and perpetuate them. In discursively normalising those who remain silent and rise above sexism, whilst problematizing those who speak up, silence is culturally privileged, and the choices available to women who do wish to challenge sexism are constrained (Gill, 2007b). The privileging of silence over speaking up was an integral feature of the corpus and provides evidence for the existence of an ideological dilemma in which speaking up about sexism is “dangerous” (Extracts 2 and 3), but to remain silent is to tolerate an injustice. In this dilemma, equality, though a worthy ideal, is constrained by the commonsense understanding that women who rise above sexism are liked and respected, whereas those who speak up are perceived as extreme or aggressive “whingers” (Extract 2). As Edley and Wetherell (2001, p. 449) suggest, “the principle of equality becomes something that one should take a reasonable or moderate position on… while a person should be in favour of equality, it is not good to be fanatical about it”.

The examination of this real world example of a woman speaking up against sexism is consistent with traditional psychological research, which has demonstrated the psychological costs that are incurred in speaking up against sexism. Our analysis is also consistent with feminist scholarship on how gendered subjectivities are reproduced on a daily basis in discourse (Kitzinger, 2000; Speer 2005; Stokoe, 2000) and how discourse functions to justify the existence of inequality while presenting one’s views as reasonable and rational. Specifically, our finding that those who speak up against sexism are silenced through denigration augments previous research, which has found similar negative constructions of those who challenge racism (e.g. Macintyre & Clark, 2003; van Dijk, 1997).

In June 2013, eight months after Julia Gillard delivered her “sexism and misogyny” speech, she lost the Labor leadership (via another party-room ballot) to Kevin Rudd, who resumed the position of Prime Minister. The challenge to Gillard’s leadership – and her subsequent deposition – was widely attributed to her waning electoral popularity. It is difficult to know to what extent, if any, media representations of the speech contributed to her decline in popularity. However, previous research which has investigated media representations of women leaders (e.g. Falk, 2013; Hall & Donaghue, 2013) suggests that Gillard’s assertive display of “lady-rage” (Maley, 2012) may indeed have been a factor.

There are undoubtedly aspects of this particular example of a woman speaking up against sexism that do not uniformly translate to everyday settings. However, rather than viewing this high-profile instance as offering limited social relevance, it is suggested that it is precisely because this challenge to sexism was made by the Prime Minister that it warrants attention. If the discourse surrounding an accusation of sexism made by the Prime Minister works to dismiss and undermine her claims, problematize her identity, and erode her political career, there is little room for optimism when considering how an “ordinary” woman might fare in similar circumstances. Future research identifying discursive strategies that function to privilege speaking up against sexism is vitally important if we are to disarm the mechanisms that reproduce and maintain its silence. This should become a pressing agenda for feminist scholarship and practice, especially in an ideological climate in which gender equality is assumed.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Catriona Macleod and three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

Author Biographies

Anna Worth is currently completing a Master of Psychology (Clinical) at the University of Adelaide. Her research interests include gender, sexism, and perinatal and infant mental health.

Martha Augoustinos is Professor of Psychology at the University of Adelaide, Australia. Martha has published widely in the field of social psychology and discourse, in particular on the nature of racial discourse in Australia.

Brianne Hastie is an Adjunct Senior Lecturer with the School of Psychology, Social Work and Social Policy at the University of South Australia. Her research interests include prejudice and discrimination, social justice and discourse analysis.

References

Addie

Brownlow

(2014) Deficit and asset identity constructions of single women without children living in Australia: An analysis of discourse. Feminism & Psychology 24(4): 423–439.

Alhabib

Nur

Jones

(2010) Domestic violence against women: Systematic review of prevalence studies. Journal of Family Violence 25: 369–382.

Augoustinos

Every

(2010) Accusations and denials of racism: Managing moral accountability in public discourse. Discourse & Society 21: 251–256.

Ayres

M. M.

Friedman

C. K.

Leaper

(2009) Individual and situational factors related to young women’s likelihood of confronting sexism in their everyday lives. Sex Roles 61: 449–460.

Baird, J. (2012, October 13). Words that millions of women have rehearsed, yet never spoken. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au.

Barker

(1981) The new racism. Conservatism and the ideology of the tribe, London: Junction Books.

Barreto

Ellemers

(2005) The perils of political correctness: Men's and women's responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views. Social Psychology Quarterly 68: 75–88.

Barreto

M. E.

Ryan

M. K.

Schmitt

M. T.

(2009) The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Billig

(1991) Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology, London: Sage.

10.

Billig

(1999) Whose terms? Whose ordinariness? Rhetoric and ideology in conversation analysis. Discourse & Society 10: 543–558.

11.

Billig

Condor

Edwards

Gane

Middleton

Radley

(1988) Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking, London: Sage.

12.

Brooks

Perot

A. R.

(1991) Exploring a predictive model. Psychology of Women Quarterly 15: 31–47.

13.

Craig

Mullan

Blaxland

(2010) Parenthood, policy and work-family time in Australia 1992–2006. Work, Employment & Society 24: 27–45.

14.

Czopp

A. M.

Monteith

M. J.

(2003) Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29: 532–544.

15.

Devine, M. (2012, October 14). Gender card is a loser. Sunday Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au.

16.

Dodd

E. H.

Giuliano

T. A.

Boutell

J. M.

Moran

B. E.

(2001) Respected or rejected: Perceptions of women who confront sexist remarks. Sex Roles 45: 567–577.

17.

Downer, A. (2012, October 15). Julia Gillard whinges too much about her attackers. She needs to … rise above criticism. The Advertiser. Retrieved from http://www.adelaidenow.com.au.

18.

Dusevic, T. (2012, October 13). Players in a risky game. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au.

19.

Edley

Wetherell

(2001) Jekyll and Hyde: Men's constructions of feminism and feminists. Feminism & Psychology 11: 439–457.

20.

Edwards

(1997) Discourse and cognition, London: Sage.

21.

Edwards

(2003) Analyzing racial discourse: The discursive psychology of mind-world relationships. In: van den Berg

Houtcoup-Steenstra

Wetherell

(eds) Analyzing race talk: Multidisciplinary approaches to the interview, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–48.

22.

Edwards

Potter

(1992) Discursive psychology, London: Sage.

23.

Fagan, D. (2012, October 13). As mudslinging reaches another low, voters deserve better from leaders. The Courier Mail. Retrieved from http://www.couriermail.com.au.

24.

Falk

(2013) Clinton and the playing-the-gender-card metaphor in campaign news. Feminist Media Studies 13(2): 192–207.

25.

Faludi

(1991) Backlash: The undeclared war against women, London: Chatto & Windus.

26.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Shullman

S. L.

Bailey

Richards

Swecker

Gold

Weitzman

(1988) The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior 32: 152–175. .

27.

Gill

(1993) Ideology, gender and popular radio: A discourse analytic approach. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 6(3): 323–339.

28.

Gill

(2007a) Gender and the media, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

29.

Gill

(2007b) Critical respect: The difficulties and dilemmas of agency and ‘choice’ for feminism. European Journal of Women’s Studies 14: 69–80.

30.

Gill

(2011) Sexism reloaded, or, it's time to get angry again!. Feminist Media Studies 11: 61–71.

31.

Hall, L. J., & Donaghue, N. (2013). ‘Nice girls don't carry knives': Constructions of ambition in media coverage of Australia's first female prime minister. British Journal of Social Psychology. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02114x.

32.

Jamieson

K. H.

(1995) Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

33.

Jefferson

(1990) List construction as a task and resource. In: Psathas

(ed.) Interaction competence, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, pp. 63–92.

34.

Kee

H. J.

(2006) Glass ceiling or sticky floor? Exploring the Australian gender pay gap. Economic Record 82: 408–427.

35.

Kitzinger

(2000) Doing feminist conversation analysis. Feminism & Psychology 10: 163–193.

36.

Korobov

(2004) Inoculating against prejudice: A discursive approach to homophobia and sexism in adolescent male talk. Psychology of Men and Masculinity 5: 178–189.

37.

Kowalski

R. M.

(1996) Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and consequences. Psychological Bulletin 119: 179–196.

38.

Macintyre

Clark

(2003) The history wars, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

39.

Maley, J. (2012, October 11). Net benefit for Gillard as she glowers across the globe. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au.

40.

McRobbie

(2009) The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change, London: Sage.

41.

Murphy, K. (2012, October, 15). Life moments in the kitchen of great House. The Age. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au.

42.

Potter

(1996) Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction, London: Sage.

43.

Potter

Wetherell

(1987) Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour, London: Sage.

44.

Riley

S. C.

(2002) Constructions of equality and discrimination in professional men's talk. British Journal of Social Psychology 41: 443–461.

45.

Rospenda

K. M.

Richman

J. A.

Shannon

C. A.

(2009) Prevalence and mental health correlates of harassment and discrimination in the workplace: Results from a national study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24: 819–843.

46.

Rudman

L. A.

Glick

(2009) Social psychology of gender: How power and intimacy shape gender relations, New York, NY: Guilford Press.

47.

Shanahan, D. (2012, October 12). PM’s gender war ends in a spectacular self-wedge. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.theaustralian.com.au.

48.

Shelton

Stewart

R. E.

(2004) Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly 28: 215–223.

49.

Shelton

J. N.

Richeson

J. A.

Salvatore

Hill

D. M.

(2006) Silence is not golden: The intrapersonal consequences of not confronting prejudice. In: Levin

van Laar

(eds) Stigma and Group Inequality: Social Psychological Perspectives, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 65–81.

50.

Short

Nowak

(2009) Persistent Australian gender wage inequality 1990 to 2003: Stakeholders' views of why and how. Journal of Industrial Relations 51: 262–278.

51.

Speer

S. A.

(2005) Gender talk: Feminism, discourse and conversation analysis, New York, NY: Routledge.

52.

Stokoe

(2000) Toward a conversation analytic approach to gender and discourse. Feminism & Psychology 10: 552–563.

53.

Stone

(2007) Opting out? Why women really quit careers and head home, Berkeley: University of California Press.

54.

Swim

J. K.

Aikin

K. J.

Hall

W. S.

Hunter

B. A.

(1995) Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68: 199–214.

55.

Swim

J. K.

Hyers

L. L.

(1999) Excuse me–What did you just say?!: Women's public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35: 68–88.

56.

Swim

J. K.

Hyers

L. L.

(2009) Sexism. In: Nelson

T. D.

(ed.) Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, New York, NY: Psychology Press, pp. 407–430.

57.

Tasker

Negra

(2007) Feminist politics and postfeminist culture. In: Tasker

Negra

(eds) Interrogating postfeminism: Gender and the politics of popular culture, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, pp. 1–26.

58.

Tolson

(2001) ‘Being yourself’: The pursuit of authentic celebrity. Discourse Studies 3: 443–457.

59.

van Dijk

T. A.

(1992) Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society 3: 87–118.

60.

van Dijk

T. A.

(1997) Political discourse and racism: Describing others in Western parliaments. In: Riggins

S. H.

(ed.) The language and politics of exclusion: Others in discourse, London: Sage, pp. 31–64.

61.

Weatherall, A. (2012). Identity categories as action in talk. In H. Giles (Ed.), The Handbook of Intergroup Communication (pp. 58–69). London: Routledge.

62.

Wetherell

(1998) Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society 9: 387–412.

63.

Wetherell

Potter

(1992) Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

64.

Wetherell

Stiven

Potter

(1987) Unequal egalitarianism: A preliminary study of discourses concerning gender and employment opportunities. British Journal of Social Psychology 26: 59–71.