Feminism in the Mainstream Media by Sana Vasi

Although men and women are considered equal in the eyes of the law, the reality of the situation is that women are still held back by a discriminatory patriarchal society that seeks to deny them the full extent of their rights. Feminism challenges the stereotypes and commonly held assumptions about gender, questioning the divisive language that separates the ‘girls’ from the ‘boys’ through the emphasis of binaries. The movement also addresses the privileges that males often hold in a system of power, and how they use this privilege to continue—both directly and indirectly—oppressing the female population. However, mainstream media has misrepresented the intent of feminism—using dominant discourse to warp its message to one of misandry instead. Celebrity culture has played a huge role in this discourse, as many actresses have come forward specifically to voice their distaste for the supposed ‘man-hating’ movement. Due to a society that glorifies every action of the rich and famous, their commentary is seen as genuine criticism of a movement that has run its course, rather than ignorance about what feminism truly represents. Meanwhile, vernacular discourse adds fuel to the fire by establishing an ‘us versus them’ dynamic between feminists and the general public. Unfortunately, these widespread inaccuracies undermine the feminist movement by belittling activists who strive for equality in the twenty-first century. Feminism in the media is often treated as a joke. The general consensus is that, because women have earned the right to vote and work alongside men—the movement is now a redundant attempt to take back the power from male-dominated spheres of control. This ideology has so permeated everyday discussions about sexism, equality, and feminism that it has started to enter the realm of dominant discourse. The public has a clear understanding of what is “just and unjust, good or bad” (Ono, 14), and applies this black-and-white judgment to characterize feminists as the antagonist of their narrative. Throwing around words, such as “feminazi,” “man-hater,” and “overreaction” (Is Feminism Wrong) marginalizes the community and belittles the activists who strive to make themselves heard in an arena where only a handful are willing to listen. This rhetorical strategy is effective in its attempt to create a straw-man argument out of the assumptions and false notions related to the movement. Instead of focusing on specific instances of sexism that women face on a day-to-day basis, dominant discourse implies that feminists thrive off their own victimization as a way of making themselves appear more sympathetic (Devon). To add on to the problem, the media’s insistence that feminism ‘demonizes men’ is intrinsically harmful to women because it turns misandry into its core argument—rather than mending the imbalance of power relations between the genders. Celebrity culture has worsened the already-negative image of feminism in the media. For example, in May of last year—22-year old actress Shailene Woodley denounced the movement because she ‘loves men.’ She proceeded to follow-up this absurd statement with the equally- ridiculous claim that “the idea of ‘raise women to power, take the men away from the power’ is never going to work out because you need balance” (Dockterman). Her statement comes from a place of ignorance, and implies that feminists don’t want equality but, rather, superiority. This discourse further tarnishes feminism’s reputation, and shuts down all possibility of discussion, as men will many times refuse to associate themselves with a movement that vilifies their gender. Woodley’s misinterpretation of feminism stirs up feelings of anger and resentment, which is counterproductive to a rational exchange of ideas. In fact, when threatened with the removal of their privilege, men tend to become aggressive—closing down any argument that goes against the existing power structure. Online forums are filled with sexist comments that demand women “shut up and get back in the kitchen” and stop “nag[ging] and complain[ing] all day” (Is Feminism Wrong). This, in turn, enrages feminists—creating a perpetual cycle of resentment that builds in its extremism, until neither side is willing to hear the other one out. Media discourse makes a mockery of equality through the proliferation of rhetoric that stereotypes and mischaracterizes the true intent of feminism. Change is impossible as long as these harmful statements continue to circulate the Internet and remain part of its everyday vernacular. Unfortunately, due to the entrenched adoration of movie stars—the public is likely to take ignorant comments like Shailene Woodley’s all too seriously, for no other reason than it was someone famous who said it. Society’s obsession with celebrities means that their words and actions are distilled throughout different media outlets until they become the norm. Woodley’s response is indicative of a much larger problem, as it exemplifies how faulty beliefs “come to be the ‘common sense’ at the broadest level of popular culture” (Ono, 19). Because their quotes are so readily accessible by the general public, celebrities often become the unintended spokesperson for subjects that they are not experts on, or topics that they know next to nothing about. For example, singer Meghan Trainor has recently maintained that she is not a feminist, and that her “meaningful” message is to “love yourself more” (Michaels). However, her songs are filled with internalized sexist ideologies that focus on body positivity through the lens of male validation (Michaels). Meanwhile, her most recent music video, titled “Dear Future Husband”, speaks to the uncomfortable notion that a female must be an expert in the domestic field if she expects to ‘snag’ a partner. It plays on both masculine and feminine norms that portray men as the protectors and women as the providers. Though Trainor sees nothing wrong with the song, what she fails to realize is that actions have consequences. Her video has been viewed over 42 million times since its March release and sets a standard for the public to internalize and deem socially acceptable. The language Trainor uses is indicative of a patriarchal society, and is simultaneously representative of its “dominant logics of judgment and dominant ideologies of gender roles” (Ono, 21) What’s more, her entire persona is problematic because she normalizes the heteronormative expectations feminists have worked so hard to destroy; thus, providing additional ammunition for dominant discourse that equates feminists with a “disease,” and depicts feminism as an example of “fear-mongering that prays upon the anxieties of young women” (Feminists are out to Behead Meghan Trainor). Online vernacular discourse creates an ‘us versus them’ dynamic between men and women by targeting specific identities and separating them into binaries (Ono, 14). The comment section of any article that mentions feminism is often rife with conflict and controversy; under the protection of anonymity, people are free to mingle and exchange opinions about hot-topic issues that they might feel uncomfortable talking about in the ‘real world.’ The Internet breaks down the barriers of social etiquette, and gives communities comfort in the solidarity that accompanies agreement. As a result, when these individuals run into disagreement, they have a cohesive group to back them up. Through this, online forums form a sense of self by “dramatizing the construction of others—as enemies” (Ono, 36). Pitting themselves against a distinguishable other (Ono, 37) gives members a purpose; the strategy “opens up a unique space where…partners can inquire into and deliberate about problems” (Higgins, 168). However, it also emphasizes the irreconcilable differences between groups. This rhetoric hurts feminism in the long run because the movement then becomes the adversary to the common people, as its very existence fuels their righteous indignation. Many men try and dehumanize women through language that unites and bonds them together. One such comment describes males as the targets of female oppression, and laments the feminists that throw them “under a bus to prove a point” (Is Feminism Wrong?). Referring to them as “feminazis” also creates a cognitive dissonance between who these women really are and who they are imagined to be. After all, the word itself compares feminism to one of the most egregious human-rights violations in history—which sets precedent for why individuals in the movement should not be trusted. Commentators also use the ‘enemy’ as an empty vessel, in which they pour their frustrations into—turning her into the embodiment of everything they dislike about women activists. One such user, under the pseudonym The Equalist, ranted that “feminism…doesn’t come from positivity or love but from the desire to establish a predominantly socialist society for all women at the expense of men being their slaves” (Devon). It is precisely this misplaced anger that makes ‘us versus them’ discourse so problematic; it lumps all women and all men into two distinct categories from which there is no escape. In the mind of the so-called Equalist, women are a homogenous group, who all think and behave with the same misandrist mindset. The “hyperbolic construction” of feminists who “[threaten] the coherent social order” (Ono, 42) justifies the rhetoric that devalues their humanity by highlighting the negative aspects of their appearance and personality. In fact, a common course of action is to make fun of a feminist’s weight or level of attractiveness (Is Feminism Wrong?) because it is easier to focus on demoralizing her character than it is to foster logical discussion about the issues at hand. The ‘enemy’ should not have any positive attributes, which explains the vernacular discourse that seeks to take them away. The only way that the discourse surrounding feminism is going to get anywhere is if the mainstream media stops portraying the movement in such a negative light, and approaches the issue using a more balanced approach. The demonization of opponents is counterproductive to progress as it reduces the scenario to the black-and-white assessment of good versus evil. Rather than focusing on the dichotomy that separates men and women, vernacular language has to change so that it encompasses the inclusion of all arguments that seek to achieve true gender equality. The continuation of a patriarchal society is contingent on the lack of cooperation amongst activists on both sides and an unwillingness to compromise male-dominated power structures in favor of feminist rhetoric. C