1. 1
200707558
“Love me, I’m a feminist!”:
A discourse analysis of the media commentary
surrounding celebrity feminism.
Megan Leigh
Student ID: 200707558
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the
Requirements for the degree BA (Hons) Communications Studies
School of Media and Communications, University of Leeds
May 2016
Supervisor: Katy Parry
Word Count: 11,989

2. 2
200707558
Abstract
This study uses the qualitative method of critical discourse analysis from a feminist perspective in
an attempt to assess, compare and examine the discourses surrounding the 2014 rise in celebrity
feminism with relation to six celebrities who have made either public declarations or
denouncements of feminism in the media. These celebrities are Beyoncé Knowles, Emma Watson,
Aziz Ansari and Joseph Gordon-Levitt who have all made declarations of feminism since 2014, along
with Pharrell Williams and Shailene Woodley, who have denounced or created misconceptions
surrounding the movement. The aim of this study is to show how these celebrities’ discussions on
feminism were received and portrayed by various online media outlets, through the use of
language to describe a celebrity and their version of feminism. This study attempts to gauge
whether celebrity feminism brings differing connotations to the feminist movement in comparison
with its discursively turbulent past. The findings show that the discourses surrounding celebrity
feminism were polarised, in that celebrity feminism was celebrated by some articles and
disregarded in others, also that this was often dependant on the celebrity in question. The findings
also show that the discourses around celebrity feminism were gendered, in that male celebrities
received more praise and less backlash for their public discussions of feminism in comparison to
female celebrities.

3. 3
200707558
Acknowledgements
Katy Parry
Thank you for the support, understanding and kindness that you have shown me
throughout my time at the University of Leeds. Also for putting up with my
pessimistic humour.
Ysabel Gerrard
Thank you for always finding the time to answer my questions and support me.

4. 4
200707558
Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Existing Negative Discourses Surrounding Feminism……………………………………….. 7
The Appropriation of Feminism……………………………………………………………. 10
The Realms of Celebrity Influence…………………………………………………………………… 10
Celebrity Feminism…………………………………………………………………………………………. 13
Summary of Key Literature……………………………………………………………………………… 16
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………… 17
Procedure………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
Findings ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21
Positive Reception of Celebrity Feminism……………………………………………………….. 21
Negative Reception of Celebrity Feminism………………………………………………………. 24
Male Celebrity Feminists vs. Female Celebrity Feminists…………………………………. 28
The Media’s Portrayal of Feminism………………………………………………………………….. 34
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
Suggestions for Further Study………………………………………………………………………….. 37
References..……………………………………………………………………………………………… 39
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 42

5. 5
200707558
Introduction
An ever changing chameleon of ideas and concepts, the feminist movement has undergone multiple
modifications in identity and politics throughout its existence. The 20th
century saw the generational
transformations of feminism, from the first wave suffrage movement in the first half of the century, to the
mid-century second wave. The second wave were known for challenging hegemonic gender ideals and
fighting for the economic, political and social rights of women, such as equal pay for equal work,
reproductive choice, and the end of domestic and sexual violence (Hollows & Moseley, 2006). The 1990s saw
feminism transform once again into a third wave, which brought new ideas of women’s sexual liberation to
the movement, as well as, acknowledgement and campaigns for the rights of the LGBT community (Hollows
& Moseley, 2006; Munro, 2013). The latter half of the 20th
century also saw the rise in post-feminism, the
idea that women have achieved their goals of equality, resulting in feminism being portrayed as redundant
and no longer needed (McRobbie, 2004; Lazar, 2005; Hollows & Moseley, 2006; Scharff, 2011). It has been
argued that the rise of post-feminism subsequently saw the decline in the amount of young women who
actively identified with the feminist movement, and led to media speculation of feminism’s demise, such as,
TIME’s 1998 magazine cover story ‘Is Feminism Dead?’ (Hammer, 2000; McRobbie, 2004).
Despite feminism being an arguably positive movement, it has faced vehemently negative and accusatory
connotations within media commentary throughout its existence. First wave feminism was often treated as a
novelty and a joke within media discourses, whilst the politicised notion of the second wave was connoted
as extreme, radical, militant and ultimately anti men (Sheridan et al, 2006). Similarly, the innovative feminist
ideas of liberation within the third wave were criticised for focusing on individual emancipation, resulting in
media commentary similar to TIME’s 1998 article "Feminism: It's All About Me!" (Hammer, 2000; Munro,
2013). It has been argued that such negative connotations of feminism have resulted in many women
claiming the phrase ‘I’m not a feminist but…’ as it allows them to “signal their affinity with feminist principles
while eschewing the stereotype of the overly politicised ‘man-hater’” (Cobb, 2015, p, 136).

6. 6
200707558
The negative connotations of feminism from the 20th
century have arguably continued into the 21st
, and
have resulted in feminist scholars claiming that the movement requires ‘rebranding’ in order to be viewed
positively (Thornham, 2013). However, there is evidence to suggest that the feminist movement is indeed
transforming once more as there has been an undeniable resurgence in feminism in the digital and social
media era of the 2000s (Cochrane, 2013; Munro, 2013). It has been argued that the age of the internet has
enabled public political expression and allows feminist issues to be instantly acted upon, resulting in a
growth of online feminist discourse and activism (ibid). For example, the internet has allowed feminist
campaigns, such as ‘The Everyday Sexism Project’, ‘No More Page 3’ and ‘Daughters of Eve’, to build resilient
purchase within mainstream media (Cochrane, 2013). It is this new growth of feminist discourse that
scholars have alluded to as the ‘fourth wave’ of feminism (Cochrane, 2013; Munro, 2013; Cobb, 2015). It has
been argued that feminist fourth wavers are people who were brought up on the post-feminist notion that
women are equal to men, and that feminism is redundant, yet have witnessed inequalities to suggest
feminism is still very much needed (Cochrane, 2013).
Along with the 21st
century birth of fourth wave feminism, 2014 saw the existential rise of what many have
termed ‘celebrity feminism’, which Keller and Ringrose define as a “form of popular feminism made visible
recently by young celebrity women eager to publicly claim a feminist identity” (2015, p, 1). Household names
such as Beyoncé, Emma Watson, Laverne Cox and Jennifer Lawrence have been thrust further into the
spotlight due to their feminist claims and opinions. In some instances, it has been suggested that this surge
of celebrity declaration has the potential to bring more positive, appropriate and current representations to
the feminist movement and could be the ‘rebrand’ that feminism is claimed to so desperately need (Cobb,
2015; Keller & Ringrose, 2015).
This interesting and relatively recent suggestion from scholars therefore forms the basis of this study. By
applying the qualitative research method of critical discourse analysis, this study explores the language used
within media commentary surrounding celebrity feminism, and attempts to examine the reception and
portrayal of six celebrities that have either publicly declared or denounced feminism. I am interested in this

7. 7
200707558
area of study as, although feminism has been discussed in great detail by scholars over the years, celebrity
feminism poses a new and relatively unexplored area of the movement that, it could be argued, warrants
attention. This study is important in contributing to the small pool of existent debates on celebrity feminism
and I hope that the findings help to provide evidence that further research into this area has the potential to
raise new interesting theories and concepts within feminism as a whole.
Literature Review
Existing Negative Discourses Surrounding Feminism
According to Sheridan et al, media commentary on the feminist movement “veered wildly between seeing
‘women’s liberation’ as just the latest fashion in a dynamic and unstable political scene” or “as the longest,
and last, social revolution” (2006, p, 25). It is this media commentary that has been so problematic for
feminism and has represented the movement within popular culture as predominantly negative (Hollows &
Moseley, 2006). At first feminist ideas were featured in the media “for novelty value” but as the movement
became more powerful, negative media discourses built a momentum of their own (Sheridan et al, 2006, p,
25).
One of the most common negative representations of feminism formed by language used within the media,
is that of the movement being synonymous with radicalized man-hating. It is claimed that the media has
continuously failed to portray the differences between “responsible feminists and the ‘lunatic’ radical fringe”
and because of this, people often associate feminism with attitudes of man-hating radicalism and militancy
(Sheridan et al, 2006, p, 28; see also Whelehan, 1995). To radicals, the term ‘feminist’ applied to women
exclusively, and they attempted to create a discursive arena free of male oppression, which is why the
radical stance, and subsequently feminism in general, is often incorrectly associated with lesbian feminist
politics and the exclusion of men (Whelehan, 1995; Thornham & Weissmann, 2013). These ideas of feminism
are still prominent today as discovered in Scharff’s recent study (2011), during which her interviewees
claimed that feminists tend to unfairly overgeneralize men in a negative way. Perpetuating its radical

8. 8
200707558
connotations, her interviewees also found feminism to be “an extreme stance that goes too far” (Scharff,
2011, p, 27).
Another dominant negative representation of the feminist movement formed through media discourse, is
that feminists themselves are unattractive. According to many feminist scholars, it is viewed that “a
conventionally feminine woman must be skinny, beautiful and, importantly, must impress men” (Scharff,
2011, p, 71). Reaffirming this, Whelehan claims that women have been seen as “the unattainable seamless
hallmark of perfection” by popular culture throughout history (1995, p, 81). Despite Scharff’s (2011)
argument that most women do not correspond to such characteristics, she found that her research
participants viewed feminists as opposing femininity, which they characterized as having beauty, a softer
appearance, and being desired by men; they therefore viewed feminists as opposing men. This resonates
with the common criticism of feminists who are represented by popular culture to be hairy-legged, butch,
man-hating lesbians (Scharff, 2011; Thornham, 2013). According to Thornham, a feminist “is seen as a
woman who is both inadequately feminine – too ugly to get a man and therefore ‘frustrated’ – and
inadequately masculine, hence ‘man-hating’. She is both too masculine and not masculine enough” (2013, p,
39)
Another negative representation is that feminism lacks humour and excitement, yet cannot be taken
seriously. Within the media feminism has been continuously disparaged, incorrectly represented and is often
seen as an amusing joke (McRobbie 2004; Redfern & Aune, 2010). However, when feminists react
defensively to being belittled by such discourse, they are accused of being boring and having a lack of
humour (Whelehan, 1995). As mentioned previously in this study, it is claimed that these negative
stereotypes are one of the main reasons many young women recoil in horror at the idea of feminism and
why ‘feminism’ and ‘feminist’ are seen as a dirty words (Hollows & Moseley, 2006; Redfern & Aune, 2010).
Many feel that there are negative consequences for embracing the term, such as, insults, ridicule, aggression
and being ostracized friends, families and communities (Redfern & Aune, 2010). For example, feminists have

9. 9
200707558
faced particularly aggressive backlash online through daily harassment which includes threats of physical
violence, death, sexual assault and rape (ibid). As well as this, anti-feminist hackers have forced many
feminist journalists and bloggers to stop publishing online by hacking into their domains (ibid). Whelehan
suggests that this fear of being seen as anti-men and unfeminine “attests to the deep sense of self that
attaches to the construction of the feminine sexual being as one who is desirable to men” (1995, p, 234).
McRobbie subscribes to this argument stating that “to count as a girl today appears to require this kind of
ritualistic denunciation” of feminism (2004, p, 258).
Today’s feminist discourses are described by Sheridan et al as “plural and various” and as “varieties not
necessarily compatible with one another" (2006, p, 25). Redfern and Aune argue that current feminist
debates are “often criticized for being too disparate” to each other (2010, p, 218). This often leads feminist
commentators to disagree with each other, causing some to argue that “identifying the ‘feminist view’ on
certain issues can be difficult” (Redfern & Aune, 2010, p, 219). It is also claimed that because of public
disagreements between feminists “media culture has resurrected the spectacle of the catfight in an attempt
to trash and discredit the contemporary women's movement” (Hammer, 2000, p, 209). Hammer claims that
the media always emphasises disagreements between feminists with attention-grabbing headlines and
portrays women in opposition with each other (ibid). She argues that feminism faces a constant ‘witch hunt’,
accusations of conspiracy theories and extreme political correctness, suggesting that media corporations
give those who criticise feminism more of a voice than those who advocate it (ibid).
According to Redfern and Aune, feminists of today have “a desire for a larger, more visible, diverse and
inclusive feminist movement, and an eagerness to ensure that more people – especially young people – are
attracted to and empowered by it” (2010, p, 204). They claim that a “feminist resurgence is occurring” with a
large number of women and men embracing feminism, including celebrities, and by drawing attention to
these people, others can be inspired to get involved and embrace feminism (ibid).

10. 10
200707558
Appropriation of Feminism
There have been continuing arguments that the various elements of feminism, such as discourses of
liberation and independence, can be appropriated by consumer culture and ‘sold’. For example, scholars
argue that the uneasy relationship between feminism and popular culture has created popular feminism,
which is tamed and stripped of political meaning so that it can be more easily articulated to the masses and
with traditional notions of femininity (Hollows & Moseley, 2006; Thornham & Weissmann, 2013). bell hooks
perpetuates this idea, stating "as with any other 'hot' marketable topic, feminism has become an issue that
can be pimped opportunistically by feminists and non feminists alike" (1994, p, 92, quoted in Hammer, 2000,
p, 210). Lazar argues that “the problem is not so much the case of appropriating feminism merely for
commercial gain, but that frequently such appropriation entails an insidious subversion of feminism as a
political force” (2005, p, 15); in other words the appropriation of feminism results in the movement being
depoliticised. Genz resonates with this claiming that the feminist movement has been “used, incorporated
and appropriated” by the media and consumer culture, and that since it entered the popular, “its meanings
are increasingly mediated” (2009, p, 28). There have also been many criticisms from feminist scholars
accusing other women of ‘selling out’ their feminist values for media attention and personal gain (Hammer,
2000). Equally, it has been claimed that there has been “strategic use of feminism to further non-feminist
goals”, such as that of fancy advertising campaigns for consumer products (Lazar, 2005, pp, 14-15).
The Realms of Celebrity Influence
The term ‘celebrity’ can be simply defined as “a person who is well-known for their well-knownness”
(Boorstin, 1961, p, 58). It is thought that being famous places one in the centre of social meaning, for
instance, according to Turner (2004, p, 6) the arena of celebrity is “one of the key places where cultural
meanings are negotiated and organised” (see also Redmond, 2006). For many “the defining qualities of a
celebrity are both natural and magical”, with media commentators speaking of their ‘presence’, ‘star quality’
and ‘charisma’ (Turner, 2004, p, 4). The relationship between celebrities and their fans is “typically mediated

11. 11
200707558
through representation”; the fans obsessing over a representation of an individual whom they have never
met (Rojek, 2001, p, 46). It is argued that a celebrity is a human ‘pseudo-event’ (Boorstin, 1961), an event
that is entirely fabricated and staged for the media, and evaluated on its scale of coverage and visibility as
opposed to anything of political or social importance (Turner, 2004).
Rojek (2001) claims that the culture of celebrity derived from the democratisation of society, the decline in
organised religion and the commodification of everyday life. With the demise of organised religion, he claims
that celebrities have taken the place of extraordinary religious figures (ibid). Turner perpetuates this idea
stating that the “cultural function of the celebrity today contains significant parallels with the functions
normally ascribed to religion” (2004, p, 6). As well as their perceived ‘god-like’ attributes, celebrities are
often viewed as magical or superhuman, which Rojek argues is because their “presence in the public eye is
comprehensively staged” for the media (2001, p, 13). This suggests that the extraordinary, perfected image
of the celebrity is merely a product of media representation, rather than a figure of superhuman qualities
(Turner, 2004).
Their profound mediation creates a presence that turns those of non-celebrity status into adoring fans who
idolise and obsess over celebrities to the point that they become viewed as influential elites (Drake &
Higgins, 2006). Wen and Cui (2014) discuss three dimensions of fandom and celebrity ‘worship’, the first
being ‘affinity’, where a media viewer expresses a general fondness of a famous person, provoked by
personal traits, credibility, perceived similarity and physical attractiveness. The next dimension is the ‘para-
social relationship’, a term, mentioned by many celebrity scholars, that describes a “media audience’s
imaginary friendship with media characters”, where despite receiving nothing in return, viewers often
experience illusions of a real relationship with a celebrity (Wen & Cui, 2014, p, 411). The final dimension is
‘identification’ which is a “process that occurs when an individual voluntarily believes that he or she shares
the perspectives of a celebrity” (Wen & Cui, 2014, p, 412). Prolonged exposure to celebrities can lead
audience members to identify with and be strongly influenced by them. This leads fans to be “drawn into the

12. 12
200707558
social causes that their celebrity idols are connected with, and are likely to take on the same social causes”
(Wen & Cui, 2014, p, 412).
The fame and adoration that comes with being a celebrity allows their opinions to be voiced (Rojek, 2001;
Inthorn & Street, 2011). The public voicing of opinion by celebrities has become common practice in the
media, particularly during interviews and award ceremonies, such as the Academy Awards which is known
for the political nature of its acceptance speeches (O’Regan, 2014). Redmond (2006) uses the term
‘productive intimacy’ to suggest that celebrities often feel that their presence and opinions are an incredibly
valued part of society to the extent that audiences depend on celebrities in order to enrich their world.
Aware of their influence, celebrities will often use their notoriety to gain and bring attention to political and
social movements and encourage their fans to advocate for certain issues, such as human, reproductive and
animal rights (Wheeler, 2013; O’Regan, 2014). Therefore gaining the support of a prominent celebrity can
vastly increase the media visibility and success of such movements (Drake & Higgins, 2006). It has been
argued that celebrities are able to represent political and social issues in a way that is exceptional and
successful, whilst claiming that they are ‘just ordinary’ people who are more able to understand and
represent the views of the public in contrast to politicians (Drake & Higgins, 2006). Linking to this, Rojek
claims that celebrities “offer peculiarly powerful affirmations of belonging, recognition and meaning” to
their fans (2001, p, 52). Some suggest that these feelings of belonging result in the public having greater
trust and respect for the political opinions of celebrities over politicians, from whom they feel detached
(West and Orman, 2003; Street, 2012). Scholars suggest that the “increased familiarity, likeability, and
resemblance between endorser and perceiver increase a message’s effectiveness” (Jackson, 2005, p, 82).
Therefore, this gives celebrities, who are viewed by some as sacred, more power to influence audiences,
particularly young audiences who have a significant connection to celebrity culture (Jackson, 2005; O’Regan,
2014).
However, it has also been argued that celebrities can depoliticise political and social movements, with
celebrity activism viewed either to be “worthwhile or a shallow expression of consumer-led culture”

13. 13
200707558
(Wheeler, 2013, p, 115). This is due to many accusing celebrities of being the epitome of triviality,
superficially and all that is meretricious and deplorable about mass-mediated popular culture (Rojek, 2001;
Turner, 2004). Scholars argue that celebrities are narcissistic and have personality disorders that give them a
pathological desire to be liked and be the centre of attention (Gritten, 2002; Wheeler, 2013). Therefore, it
could be argued that whilst raising public awareness for a social cause, celebrities still have an inherent need
to promote themselves in the process.
There is also a hierarchy within the realms of celebrity itself, with some considered to be more respectable
or credible than others, therefore in certain cases celebrity endorsements can harm the reputation of a
political or social cause (O’Regan, 2014). For example, a celebrity with a history of domestic violence being
an advocate for women’s rights. Finally, with fame comes excessive wealth and glamour, which propagates
the idea that although celebrities support social causes, they are ‘out of touch’ with the rest of society which
makes their political opinions seem self-righteous, trivial and irrelevant (Drake & Higgins, 2006; Wheeler,
2013).
Celebrity Feminism
Brady claims that “contemporary media culture is a key site at which the meaning of feminism is not just
represented, but formed” (2016, p, 434). She argues that, despite the media’s production of problematic
connotations of feminism, “the newfound willingness of celebrities to identify” with the movement is
inevitably a result of the “unprecedented media coverage of celebrity culture” (ibid). From this it could be
argued that the media’s production of celebrities, and their declarations of feminism, have the potential to
steer the movement in a new direction, possibly away from its negative past.
‘Popular feminisms’ have a “lengthy history within feminism and have been crucial in making feminist
discourse accessible and relevant” to the masses (Keller & Ringrose, 2015, p, 3). However, popular feminisms
are also seen to be exclusionary and refusal to identify with the movement has been linked to the
perception that feminism is a white, middle-class movement for those who are already privileged (Hollows &
Moseley, 2006). It has been argued that people of colour have often refused to identify as feminist, despite

14. 14
200707558
embracing many elements of the movement, to avoid being accused of prioritizing issues of sexual politics
over issues of race (ibid). However, 2014 saw Beyoncé make public declarations of feminism in her self-
entitled album, her published essay ‘Gender Equality is a Myth!’ (Knowles-Carter 2014), and her 2014 MTV
Music Video Awards performance of ‘Flawless’ - during which she sang in front of an illuminated backdrop
featuring the word ‘FEMINIST’ in huge capital letters, whilst Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s
(2013) famous speech ‘We Should All Be Feminists’ accompanied in the background (Weidhase, 2015; Keller
& Ringrose, 2015). Her VMA performance generated a mass media debate surrounding the sincerity of her
feminism, with some arguing that due to her overtly sexualised performances and explicit championing of
her marriage to music mogul Jay Z that it was not possible for Beyoncé to be a feminist (Weidhase, 2015).
Despite this debate, it could be argued that her public declaration not only brought feminism into the public
spotlight, but her background as being part of an ethic minority also challenged the notion of feminism being
exclusionary, creating a rise of black celebrity feminism.
Since 2014, popular culture has also seen the rise of male celebrity feminists (MCF), such as Aziz Ansari, Ryan
Gosling and Will Smith, which has been seen to be a step in the right direction for the feminist movement.
However, Cobb (2015) claims that this rise relates to the increase in young women’s voices online and
female fan bases of male celebrities as opposed to genuine male declarations of the identity. She argues that
this obsessive rise of a MCF online fan base is due to their physical attractiveness, their un-macho
heterosexuality, and their “(often vague) statements about equality for men and women” (Cobb, 2015, p,
136). Similarly critical, the MCF has been viewed by some scholars as “typical of the ways in which feminist
discourse has been appropriated by postfeminist masculinity” (Hamad & Taylor, 2015, p, 125). It has been
argued that male celebrity feminism overtakes the political notion of the movement with positive, attractive
imagery that has the potential to “both sideline women from and neuter the politics of feminism” (Cobb,
2015, p, 136).
It has been suggested that MCF’s are often portrayed far more positively in the mainstream media in
comparison to female celebrity feminists. This is evident in the comparison of The Huffington Post article ‘28

15. 15
200707558
Famous Men Who Prove You Don’t Need to be a Woman to be a Feminist’ (Vagianos, 2014) and the
multitude of articles that criticise female celebrity feminists and question their ‘type’ of feminism,
demonstrated by Cobb (2015). She suggests that the negative media representation and judgment of female
celebrities who do not call themselves feminists is similar to “the ways in which women celebrities who do
claim the term are judged” (2015, p, 137). From this it is suggested that female celebrities are vilified and
have their opinions of feminism cross-referenced either way, whereas, male celebrities are vastly rewarded
for claiming the term by the majority of the media and their fans.
Cobb (2015) also argues that male declarations of feminism make the movement appear successful, but that
realistically, it is just being appropriated for commercial gain as it increases media attention for the celebrity
and popularity with their female fans. Some also argue that the MCF also propagates the idea that in order
for feminism to successful, it requires the support of men, which undermines women’s work within the
movement (McRobbie, 2009; Keller & Ringrose, 2015). Along with male celebrity feminism, there are many
claims that celebrity feminism in general is an appropriation of and depoliticises the feminist movement as
despite feminist discourses becoming more prevalent in the celebrity landscape, this discourse is only at a
surface level, touched upon lightly and rarely discussed in detail (Keller & Ringrose, 2015). There are claims
by some commentators that celebrity feminism is a “watered-down, commercialised form” of feminism that
depoliticises the serious issues of gender inequality (Hamad & Taylor, 2015, p, 125). It has also been
suggested that the notion of celebrity feminism just throws the label around, making a trend out of claiming
the term without delving into the deep rooted issues (Hamad & Taylor, 2015). For example, during their
study, Keller & Ringrose (2015) found that teenage girls often viewed celebrity feminism as a fashion trend
and a brand image that celebrities attempt to sell themselves with, regardless of whether the celebrities
believe in the feminist movement or not:
Beyoncé can’t have a concert without her corsets and really sexual dancing because that’s her marketing. So
even if she wanted to be a feminist at heart she couldn’t be because her being a brand doesn’t allow her to.
(Focus group interview in Keller & Ringrose, 2015, pp, 2-3)

16. 16
200707558
In addition, there is a continuing and problematic confusion of the definition of feminism by celebrities.
Many celebrities, including Katy Perry, Kelly Clarkson, Lady Gaga and Shailene Woodley have publically
refused to identify as feminists and have sometimes even linked the movement with its negative
stereotypes, such as, misandry. This not only highlights the complicated and contradictory nature of popular
feminism, but also shows how celebrities might hinder the positive development of the feminist movement
by perpetuating the negative discourses that surround it.
Summary of Key Literature
Exploration of the key literature found several themes: The first being that the media’s choice of discourse
surrounding the feminist movement has provoked negative and generalised stereotypes of feminists. These
stereotypes range from representations of the political actions of feminists, to their appearance. The second
theme uncovered was that celebrities, arguably, have the ability to be incredibly influential in increasing
support for and awareness of social and political issues, due to their public adoration. The third, contrasting,
theme found that scholars argued that celebrities also have the potential to trivialise or depoliticise political
movements, by appearing to be too superficial. For example, celebrity feminism was accused by academics
of not delving deep enough into the political issues of the feminist movement. Similarly, it was noted that
celebrities who denounce feminism are still given a public voice and so may perpetuate existing negative
connotations of the movement. A fourth theme was uncovered in that many scholars suggested that the
discourses of feminism can and have been appropriated for non-feminist ends. The final theme discovered in
the key literature were suggestions that the reception of celebrity feminism may depend on the gender of
the celebrity. For example, it was suggested that male celebrity feminists received praise for declaring their
allegiance to feminism, where as their female counterparts were judged by media commentary whether
they declared allegiance or not.
From the exploration of the key literature, the following research questions were created to be addressed
within this study:

17. 17
200707558
 In what ways are celebrity feminism received and portrayed within media commentary from the
discourse used?
 Is there a difference in reception of celebrity feminism dependent on the gender of celebrities?
 Does the discourse surrounding celebrity feminism bring differing connotations to the feminist
movement that contrast to its turbulent past?
Methodology
As this study focuses on the language used in the media commentary surrounding celebrity feminism, I
decided that the most appropriate research method to use was Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). As a
qualitative method, CDA is useful for studying mass-media coverage of social, cultural and political events to
discover the ways in which the discourse used might influence representations and interpretations (Van Dijk,
2001; Weintraub, 2009). It is based on the rejection that language is solely a neutral reflection of society and
claims the idea that discourse has many different meanings that are central to the construction of culture
(Gill, 2000). By using ‘critical’ analysis, defined as “the use of rational thinking to question arguments or
prevailing ideas” (Fairclough et al, 2011, p, 358), CDA attempts to discover how written texts construct
cultural meanings and how potential interpretations of these are formed (Gill, 2000; Weintraub, 2009;
Keating & Duranti, 2011).
The term ‘discourse’ can be defined as meaning-making language that is a key resource for establishing
social and cultural meanings in society (Gill, 2000; Fairclough et al, 2011; Keating & Duranti, 2011). It is seen
as a form of ‘social practice’ and can help to “sustain and reproduce the social status quo” (Fairclough et al,
2011, p, 358). Discourse is also used to assign oneself to an identity, which is argued to be something that
one ‘performs’ and creates through discursive exchanges with others (De Fina, 2011). These discursive
exchanges are therefore linked to the creation of ideologies, defined by Weintraub as “a system of shared
beliefs and values diffused throughout society by a discourse consisting of images, myths, ideas and
concepts” (2009, p, 202). For example, major social and political movements, such as, feminism, establish
their own discursive character that forms their ideology (Fairclough et al, 2011). Lazar suggests that

18. 18
200707558
ideologies are often used “in the interest of maintaining unequal power relations and dominance” (2005, pp,
6-7). Yet “power is not always exercised in obviously abusive acts” as it can “be enacted in the myriad of
taken-for-granted actions of everyday life”, such as subtle forms of racism or sexism (Van Dijk, 2001, p, 355).
For example, Van Dijk (2011) reaffirms the idea that the dominance of anti-feminist discourse throughout
media culture has caused young women to reject a feminist ideology despite subscribing to its general
principles of equality for women.
Some argue that organisations which own the media or “most influential discourse” are able to control
representations (Van Dijk, 2001, p, 355). For instance, during an interview, the interviewer/journalist is in
control by deciding upon the questions, the time allowed, the topics covered and the way the answers are
later portrayed when published (Fairclough et al, 2011). Gill argues that the production of a discursive
account involves a selection from many different angles that result in a portrayal based on the “orientation
of the speaker or writer” (2000, p, 175). Many recipients of public discourse lack the knowledge or need to
challenge the representation produced through discursive structures, resulting in the tendency to accept the
values and opinions connoted, particularly from what they view to be credible and trustworthy sources, such
as, experts, professionals and reliable media (Van Dijk, 2001). Van Dijk argues that “a typical feature of
manipulation is to communicate beliefs implicitly, that is, without actually asserting them, and with less
chance that they will be challenged” (2001, p, 358). With this in mind, it could be argued that the influential
discursive practices of ‘reliable’ media has been one of the main reasons for the feminist movement to be
represented with negative connotations and stereotypes. The media have the ability to represent a feminist
ideology through negative realities or use gate-keeping practices to hinder positive feminist discussion.
As mentioned previously, discourse analysis is a qualitative research method. Therefore it used for analysing
meanings, concepts, representations and metaphors of our culture, as opposed to quantitative analysis,
which deals with numerical data that measures the amounts of things (Berg, 2001). It is often suggested that
quantitative methods of research are viewed more legitimately as numerical data is more precise in
comparison to qualitative methods where the findings are often interpreted differently. However, scholars

19. 19
200707558
argue that qualitative methods allow us to explore ideas more fruitfully and with a greater depth of
understanding (Berg, 2001), stating that “even when we have statistics, the way we interpret these statistics
is open to disagreement” (Berger, 2000, p, 7). Despite discourse analysis being a “labour-intensive, time-
consuming process” (Weintraub, 2009, p, 219), it is an unobtrusive method, meaning that “the social
environment of people is not disturbed” (Liamputtong, 2013, p, 99). This therefore avoids some of the
ethical issues associated with other qualitative social research conducted with human participants.
Procedure
In order to analyse the discourse used in media commentary surrounding celebrity feminism, it was decided
to source texts from online media publications by using the search engine Google. As discourse analysis is a
qualitative method, it is deemed as impractical to attempt to analyse the size of material one would for a
quantitative method (Weintraub, 2009). To find the right balance between too much and too little analysis
material, Weintraub suggests undertaking “purposive sampling” and choosing the “most vivid and relevant
examples” to enable appropriate analysis for the research question (2009, p, 208). Therefore, once I had
researched which celebrities had created the most media commentary, I searched for headlines that
included my chosen celebrity names, as well as, the terms ‘feminist’ or ‘feminism’. Corresponding to
Weintraub’s (2009) recommendation of purposive sampling, the choice of publications that were analysed
was driven by the location of the debates on celebrity feminism taking place within the media scape. This
resulted in the publications chosen for analysis being multiple and unsystematic, yet this provided me with a
wide range of rich results and allowed me to understand the reception of celebrity feminism from a
relatively large context. I decided to analyse the discourse surrounding 6 celebrities who had provoked a
large amount of media discussion surrounding their portrayals of feminism. I analysed between 6-8 articles
per celebrity, which are coded with the celebrity in questions initials and then the number of the article, for
example, EW01 for Emma Watson. I looked at both male and female celebrities that had embraced
feminism, as well as, those who had disregarded or denounced the movement, as I was interested in the

20. 20
200707558
ways their differing stances would be received and represented dependent on gender. The celebrities I
decided to analyse were:
 Beyoncé – R&B Singer (declared feminism)
 Emma Watson – Actress (declared feminism)
 Aziz Ansari – Comedian (declared feminism)
 Joseph Gordon-Levitt – Actor (declared feminism)
 Shailene Woodley – Actress (denounced feminism)
 Pharrell Williams – R&B Singer (disregarded feminism)
In order to correctly undertake CDA, I followed the three steps of discourse analysis suggested by Weintraub
(2009). These are: (1) to describe the language or discourse used in the texts; (2) to analyse the context of
the discourse, such as historical, social and cultural inferences of the discourse; and (3) to explain their
construction within the text, such as how the discourse constructs, reinforces or rejects common ideas,
values, and concepts and what can be interpreted from this (ibid).
It must be noted that “interpretation and understanding occur through the lens of feelings, beliefs, values
and knowledge” which differ from person to person depending on their social and political context
(Fairclough et al, 2011, p, 372). It is therefore imperative to note that the interpretations found in this
research study are my own interpretations of the discourse analysed and that others may view my findings
differently. Equally, conducting discourse analysis involves “interrogating your own assumptions and the
ways in which you habitually make sense of things” (Gill, 2000, p, 178). Therefore, throughout this study I
attempted to maintain a “spirit of scepticism” and an “analytic mentality” in order to interpret meaning from
perspectives different from my own (ibid).

21. 21
200707558
Findings
Positive Reception of Celebrity Feminism
Discursive practices were used throughout the articles analysed which reaffirm the ideas mentioned earlier
in this study that celebrities are extraordinary. For instance, terms such as ‘star’, ‘superstar’ and ‘flawless’
were used to refer to celebrities through the articles. Similarly, one of the articles analysed referred to
Watson as ‘not just any 24 year old’ (EW01) highlighting her remarkably glamorous difference to ordinary
people of her age. In another article, she is described as ‘universally adored’ and a ‘rare case’ (EW06) which
reinforces her celebrity attributes of extraordinary and idolised (see Rojek, 2001; Turner, 2004). There is also
a considerable amount of discourse used that links the likeness of celebrities to religious figures. For
instance, one article refers to Beyoncé as the ‘holy grail’ of feminist endorsement and ‘enlightened’ (BK05),
whilst in another the writer claims ‘Beyoncé woke me up’ (BK06) which suggests that the writer is being
spiritually awakened by a hierarchal figure. These religious connotations are reaffirmed by discourse that
introduces Beyoncé with ‘Enter…Beyoncé’ (BK05) and ‘Beyoncé herself’ (SW08) as this implies that she is the
pinnacle, or the one and only leader. Again, the use of ‘Beyoncé floated across the stage’ (BK06) implies that
she has an unworldly presence. From the language used in some articles, it appears that Beyoncé is held
with high esteem as she is described as having a ‘powerful voice’ for ‘speaking to the masses’ and is
‘universally loved, virtually unquestioned, and flawless’ (BK05). Reiterating Rojek’s (2001) ideas that
celebrities are like religious figures, this abundance of terms puts her on a pedestal of perfection and likens
her to a God or a messiah who is worshiped by their followers. The connotations of extraordinariness within
the discourse, not only creates insinuations of a celebrity’s status within popular culture, but also highlights
the writers’ own adorations for said celebrities and links to Wen & Cui’s (2014) ideas, mentioned in the key
literature.
With the implications of extraordinariness in mind, there is a substantial amount of discursive references to
the power and influence that celebrity feminists can have on popular culture. For example, Beyoncé is
described in several articles as:

22. 22
200707558
“One of the most popular artists in the world” (BK04)
“The most powerful celebrity in the world” (BK05)
Firstly, the use of ‘most’ and ‘in the world’ implies a hierarchy within the realms of celebrity itself by
connoting Beyoncé as a world leader, which links back to O’Regan’s argument (2014). This is reinforced by
the claim that Beyoncé ‘took feminism to the masses’ and by doing this she ‘accomplished what feminists
have long struggled to do’ (BK05). This insinuates that she is a powerful figure of the feminist movement,
possibly even more so than feminist activists as they ‘struggled’ while Beyoncé ‘accomplished’. The use of
this contrasting language suggests that Beyoncé, as a celebrity, has had more of a positive influence on the
portrayal of the feminist movement than feminism’s main advocates. Again, the connotations of celebrities
being of higher power and influence are reiterated with claims that Beyoncé uses her ‘platform’ to ‘enlighten
millions’ (BK06) as this language perpetuates the idea of the being above the masses (BK06). Similarly, Emma
Watson is described as having ‘widespread influence’ (EW06), getting ‘the whole world talking about
feminism’ and the ‘impact’ of which being ‘truly massive’ (EW07). The use of hyperbolic terms such as, ‘truly
massive’, ‘whole world’, widespread’ and ‘impact’ make emphatic suggestions towards Watson being
incredibly powerful in her status as a celebrity and her ability to influence the masses. This reiterates
Jackson’s (2005) and O’Regan’s (2014) ideas that celebrities can produce positive connotations of social and
political issues due to their idolisation and extraordinariness.
Discourse found in the data also chimes with Drake & Higgins’s (2006) idea that celebrities are viewed to be
relatable by their fans and have a better understanding of ordinary people. In the article with the headline “I
Wasn’t Down with Feminism…Until Beyoncé Was” (BK06) the writer claims that as a woman of colour,
Beyoncé gave her the ‘representation and understanding’ she had been seeking in order to feel like she
could be a part of the feminist movement. The use of ‘until Beyoncé was’ implies that in Beyoncé, the writer
saw recognition and relatable characteristics and was then able to associate herself with feminism, which
she had pervious felt excluded from. The repetition of the exclamation ‘YES, YES, YES’ in capitals highlights
the writer’s strong approval of Beyoncé’s feminism. The below quote contributes to this idea:

23. 23
200707558
“Celebrity world and civilian world appear united in a feminism not merely for the intelligentsia, but the
masses” (EW01)
The use of ‘celebrity world’ and ‘civilian world’ creates opposition and difference between the realm of
celebrity and the ordinary. However, the writer’s use of ‘united’ suggests that these two worlds are being
brought together through celebrity feminism. The use of ‘not merely for the intelligentsia’ perpetuates the
previous insinuation by Hollows and Moseley (2006) that feminism has been exclusionary; only being
accessible to white middle classes. However, this phrase also suggests that celebrity influence brings the
movement into the media spotlight and therefore to the public, making it accessible to everyone.
There was also discourse found to suggest that the media is celebratory of celebrity feminism. For example
one article claims that “Emma Watson is just what feminism needed” and that her version of feminism is
‘bright, brilliant and convincing’ (EW01). This use of positive language suggests that the writer is celebrating
Watson’s feminism. Continuous celebratory phrases were used within the media commentary, such as ‘truly
incredible’, ‘empowering’, ‘Yes! Yes! Yes!’, ‘boldly’, ‘passionate’ and ‘very well-received’ which suggests that
there is strong support of celebrity feminism within the media. Some articles imply that celebrity feminism
brings more attractive connotations of feminism, with the use of the term ‘proud’ and ‘proudly declare’ to
describe celebrity declarations. There are insinuations within the discourse that celebrity feminism
repudiates the previous negative stereotypes of the feminist movement, with one article claiming that
Emma Watson ‘has made being a feminist cool’ and ‘has proved that it is at once normal and cool to call
yourself a feminist’ (EW01). Similarly, Beyoncé’s feminism is described with language, such as, ‘powerful,
‘important’, and ‘attractive’ (BK05), highlighting the celebration of celebrity feminism within the media
commentary and suggesting that it can reimage the movement with more positive connotations. This is also
exampled below:
“Fighting the misconceptions is important and celebrities identifying as feminists can be glamorizing”
(BK07)

24. 24
200707558
The use of ‘glamourizing’ suggests that celebrities who declare the term give the feminist image a Hollywood
makeover. This is similar in the example below that suggests that celebrities present feminism with a more
attractive image.
“we more easily embrace feminism and feminist messages when delivered in the right package – one
that generally includes youth, a particular kind of beauty, fame and/or self-deprecating humour”
(EW02)
In the above example, the writer implies that current audiences are able to accept feminist messages more
easily from celebrities because they present the movement in a more attractive ‘package’ that involves
youth, physical beauty and the glamour of Hollywood. This imagery conjured by the choice of discourse
consequently steers feminism away from the negative connotations and unattractive stereotypes previously
associated with the movement. This theme is continued in the article with the writer, in reference to Emma
Watson, suggesting that a ‘pretty young woman’ declaring feminism has a ‘more tolerable voice’ than the
feminists of the past because she presents an overall more attractive image. This language suggests that this
celebrity reimage has a positive influence on the perceptions of the movement by steering it away from its
previous connotations of man hating and radicalism, as mentioned in the key literature (see Whelehan,
1995; Sheridan et al, 2006; Scharff, 2011). However, it could be argued that the idea of feminism being more
tolerable if delivered by attractive young women seems exclusionary and perpetuates gender demands of
women that feminism tries to reject (see Sheridan et al, 2006).
Negative Reception of Celebrity Feminism
Contrasting the celebration of celebrity feminism found in the data, there were also themes of denouncing
celebrity feminism discovered. Discourse implied that celebrity feminism is not ‘feminist’ enough and that
celebrities only touch on feminist issues lightly, potentially in an attempt to avoid its seriousness and
damaging the glamourous, light-hearted image of Hollywood. This resonates with arguments in the key
literature (see Hamad & Taylor, 2015; Keller & Ringrose, 2015). For example, Beyoncé’s feminism is
described as ‘a watered down, widely digestible version of feminism’ (BK01) that serves only as ‘a gateway’

25. 25
200707558
to the movement (EW02), which suggests that the writer feels Beyoncé’s declarations of the term are not
enough to constitute being taken seriously. One article (EW02) claims that Beyoncé will ‘represent the only
face of feminism’ for her devoted fans who will ‘incorrectly assume feminism begins and ends with her’. This
implies that Beyoncé’s representation of feminism may cause her fans to only associate the movement with
her, which could have a detrimental effect on feminism. Similarly, certain discourse is used throughout a
number of the articles that accuses celebrity feminism of being ‘very safe’ and ‘vague’. There is also a
suggestion from the discourse that celebrity feminism may ‘not be taken seriously’ (EW06) because of the
association with the ‘glittery light’ (EW06) of Hollywood and celebrities’ ‘vague’ and ‘confused’
understanding of the movement. For example, there is a pattern in the discourse of accusing celebrities of
not actually understanding the definition of feminism, exampled in the quotes below:
“Celebrities: If you don’t want to identify as a feminist, that’s your business. But is too much to ask
that you understand what a feminist is first?” (SW04)
“She makes yet another star who seems to have confused feminism with man-hating.” (SW05)
The use of the plural ‘celebrities’ and ‘yet another star’ make the assumption that all celebrities fall into the
category of misinformed and ‘confused’ by the definition of feminism, which disregards them as individuals
with intelligent thought and trivialises their opinions on feminism. These findings correlate with Turner’s
(2004) and Rojek’s (2001) suggestions that celebrities are often viewed as shallow and can potentially
trivialise political and social movement.
Another theme found in the data is that celebrity feminism is too ‘out of touch’ and exclusionary to the
masses to be considered as valuable to the feminist movement. By applying words such as, ‘exceptional’,
‘special’, ‘spectacle’ and ‘transcendent’ a discursive theme is created that perpetuates the extraordinary
nature of celebrities and their un-relatability to the masses, resonating with Drake & Higgins’s (2006) and
Wheeler’s (2013) arguments. For example, despite Aziz Ansari being from an ethnic minority, his feminism is
described as ‘largely white and upper class’ (AA08) which suggests that it is exclusionary and un-relatable to
anyone who does not fit into such a category. Similarly, Shailene Woodley is accused of being ‘young and

26. 26
200707558
probably a bit sheltered’ (SW08). The use of ‘sheltered’ implies that due to her celebrity status and wealth
she has not had the exposure to social issues that would enable her to understand and relate to feminism
correctly. Likewise, Beyoncé is continuously portrayed as being un-relatable due to her extreme wealth and
public adoration, with the language used referring to her as a ‘spectacle’ (BK03) and an ‘extremely rarefied
version’ (BK02) of the ordinary.
The discourse used also suggests that celebrity feminism is attractive feminism, for example, in an article
about Aziz Ansari’s and Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s declarations of feminism, the writer claimed that:
“To have it borrowed, set to music, and delivered back to me by a handsome young man who strips it
of all nuance entirely, feels co-optive.” (AA08)
In this passage, feminism is portrayed as something that can be taken away from someone with discourse
such as, ‘have it borrowed’ and ‘delivered back’. In this instance, the writer suggests that when male
celebrities declare feminism, the movement is ‘set to music’, which has connotative links to a fashion
catwalk, implying a lack of seriousness. The writer claims that when feminism is declared by ‘a handsome
young man’ it ‘strips it of all nuance entirely’, implying that celebrity feminism excludes members of the
public who do not fall into the category of young and attractive. It could be argued that this portrayal
defeats the object of the feminist movement by turning its political message into something that can only be
accepted when seen as attractive. Linking with this, one of the articles on Beyoncé suggests that her overtly
sexual onstage presence cannot be empowering for women as ‘she is what men demand of her’ (BK03). This
subscribes to Keller and Ringrose’s (2015) interview findings that question whether Beyoncé’s sexualised
stage presence can allow her to be a feminist.
Another interesting theme found in the language used was the abundance of terms that imply celebrity
feminism is a ‘trend’. For example, one article discusses Ansari’s ‘newfound feminism’ (AA07), suggesting
that his allegiance with the movement is recent and possibly insincere. Other phrases like, ‘latest celebrity
feminist’, ‘yet another famous feminist icon to follow’ (EW02) and the metaphorical referral to celebrity

27. 27
200707558
feminists as a ‘new crop’ (BK04) again imply that there has been a growth in the number of celebrities
declaring the term. This is reaffirmed in the below examples:
“Celebrities do little to cover their confusion, while deciding whether the F-word is trendy enough yet”
(BK07)
“One of the hottest topics in Hollywood lately has been the ‘F’ word” (SW01)
The phrase ‘trendy enough yet’ in the first example suggests that celebrities will only claim the term
‘feminist’ if they think it will have a positive effect on their reputation. The second example uses discourse
usually associated with female fashion and gossip magazines when discussing new fashion trends, such as
‘hottest topics in Hollywood’, giving the strong implication that celebrity feminism has become a popular
trend. This resonates with arguments brought to attention in the key literature that suggest that celebrity
feminism turns the movement into a trend (See Hamad & Taylor, 2015; Keller & Ringrose, 2015)
In articles regarding Joseph Gordon-Levitt, it is stated that he “claims the feminist label instead of simply
touting it” (JGL06) and that his feminist declaration “doesn’t feel like one of those “love me, I’m a feminist!”
PR stunts” (JGL02). The use of ‘simply touting it’ creates the implication that other celebrities are just
publicising the movement for their own popularity, whereas the second statement openly alleges that this
type of appropriation of the feminist movement exists within the realms of celebrity. The discursive
suggestion of celebrity feminism being a PR stunt is also featured in an article regarding Beyoncé that claims
celebrities need to undertake feminism ‘with the intention of creating change, not just good PR’ (BK04).
Similarly, there are discursive practices used throughout the articles that imply that celebrities are selling
feminism as a ‘brand to their fans.
“Why I’m not Buying Beyoncé’s Brand of Feminism” (BK02)
“Hell, Beyoncé and Lena Dunham can teach classes to the world sponsored by Dove” (BK07)
In these statements, the terms ‘buying’, ‘brand of feminism’ and ‘sponsored by Dove’ imply that celebrity
feminism is a commodity. This is further suggested when an article refers to Beyoncé’s feminism as
‘products’ (BK02). These examples resonate with arguments formulated in the key literature that claims that

28. 28
200707558
feminist discourses are appropriated by consumer culture and ‘sold’ for non-feminist ends (see Lazar, 2005;
Hollows & Moseley, 2006; Thornham & Weissmann, 2013).
It is also suggested in the discourse that celebrities receive good publicity after declaring the term which is
evident in the below statement:
“Ansari is getting pat after pat after pat on the back, simply for picking up the word and calling it his
own” (AA08)
The repetition of ‘pat after pat’ reinforces the amount of continuous praise that Ansari received from the
media and his fans for declaring the feminist term, highlighting the potential that appropriating the
movement could have to increase a celebrity’s popularity. It is also stated in another article that celebrities
declaring feminism is ‘often an empty claim’ (BK07) which again suggests that the writer is accusing them of
appropriating the feminist term in order to further thrust themselves into the positive spotlight.
“Feminism can’t hang its hat on celebrity endorsements – it’s a movement for social and political
change, not a popularity contest” (BK04)
Here the article implies that in their endorsement of the feminist movement, celebrities are vying for
positive public attention for themselves. This subscribes to ideas mentioned in the key literature that
celebrities will appropriate social and charitable movements in an attempt to fulfil their intense need and
desire to be liked (see Gritten, 2002; Wheeler, 2013).
Male Celebrity Feminists vs. Female Celebrity Feminists
During the analysis of the articles, I compared the difference in reception and portrayal of celebrity feminism
dependant on the gender of the celebrity. The dominant theme that was discovered was that male celebrity
feminists were received and portrayed much more positively and with less backlash than female celebrities,
in both cases of celebrity declaration and denouncement of feminism. This is apparent through a large
number of headlines alone, which are exampled below.
“Joseph Gordon-Levitt Made a Video about Feminism and It’s Awesome” (JGL01)

29. 29
200707558
“Watch Joseph Gordon-Levitt Explain Why He’s a Feminist in a Truly Thoughtful Way” (JGL02)
“Joseph Gordon-Levitt Totally Nails Why Men Should Call Themselves Feminists” (JGL03)
“Joseph Gordon-Levitt Perfectly Explains Why Men Should Be Feminists” (JGL04)
“Joseph Gordon-Levitt Gives a Great Explanation of Why He's a Feminist” (JGL07)
Here, explicitly positive language is used in the headlines discussing Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s feminism with
terms such as ‘awesome’, ‘thoughtful’ and ‘great’. The articles’ headlines claim that Gordon-Levitt ‘totally
nails’ and ‘perfectly explains’ the movement, highlighting the writers’ immense praise and approval of his
feminism. Positive discourse is not just featured in the headlines as the majority of articles use positive
terminology to describe Gordon-Levitt’s feminism, such as, ‘positive twist’ and ‘beautifully defined’ (JGL06).
Not only do the articles describe his feminism positively, but they also demonstrate the writers’ adorations
of him as a celebrity. For example, one of the writers claims that Gordon-Levitt is ‘one of their favourite male
actors” (JGL08), whilst another article features the tagline “And you thought he couldn’t get dreamier”
(JGL03). The term ‘dreamier’ alludes to Gordon-Levitt’s physical attractiveness, insinuating that he is a dream
man, which highlights the writer’s idolisation of him and could potentially subscribe to Cobb’s (2015)
suggestion that the positive reception of male celebrity feminists is partly due to their physical
attractiveness. Similarly, comedian Aziz Ansari’s feminism is also met with positive discourse, being
described as ‘awesome’ (AA03) and ‘refreshing’ (AA05) and a number of articles ending with supportive
statements directed as Ansari himself, such as, “Well said, Aziz” (AA03) and “Good for you” (AA07). This
again highlights the writers’ approval of and support for Ansari’s feminism whilst portraying him in a positive
light.
Interestingly, female celebrity feminists were not met with such extreme praise, highlighted in the headlines
below.
“Why Beyoncé’s latest ‘Feminist’ Move was so Problematic” (BK01)
“Why Beyoncé shouldn't inspire feminists, despite her VMAs performance” (BK03)

30. 30
200707558
“Emma Watson? Jennifer Lawrence? These aren't the feminists you're looking for” (EW02)
Here, negative discourse, such as ‘problematic’ and ‘shouldn’t inspire’, is used to denounce Watson’s and
Beyoncé’s feminism. In the first headline the word ‘feminist’ is between apostrophes which implies that the
writer is sceptical of Beyoncé’s feminism and is bringing it into question. Negative language continues within
the articles, for example, one writer accuses Beyoncé’s feminism of leaving her feeling ‘a bit gross’, ‘quietly
cringing’ and ‘disappointed’ (BK01).
As somewhat expected, the negative discourse massively increased for the articles discussing actress
Shailene Woodley refusal to associate herself with feminism. The language used in the below headlines
referring to Woodley highlight the writers’ disdain for her opinions on feminism.
“Shailene Woodley Has Some Thoughts on Feminism, and They Are Not Good” (SW08)
“Shailene Woodley Joins The Ranks Of Female Celebs Who Don’t Understand Feminism” (SW11)
Here, Woodley’s thoughts on feminism are met with negative discourse, such as ‘not good’. Also apparent, is
the insinuation that only female celebrities misunderstand feminism with the phrase ‘joins the ranks of
female celebs’. This also implies that there are a large number of female celebrities misrepresenting the
movement. Negative discourse continues throughout the articles on Woodley to describe her as
‘disappointing’, ‘sadly misinformed’ (SW02), ‘disheartening’ (SW06), ‘heart-sinking’ and ‘a shame’ (SW09).
This language is emphatic as it points blame at Woodley and humiliates her. One article features incredibly
patronising and accusative discourse claiming that ‘the internet is mad at you’ (SW07). Here ‘the internet’ is
used hyperbolically to imply a mass of people and dramatize the reaction to Woodley’s denouncement of
the movement. Patronising discourse is also used against Woodley, exampled in the below quotes:
“Oh, Shailene, Shailene, Shailene. We need to talk” (SW07)
“So let me break it down for you, by going over what you said, piece by piece” (SW07)

31. 31
200707558
The repetition of her name in the first example, the use of ‘oh’ and ‘we need to talk’ is immediately
condescending towards Woodley as they are discursive structures usually linked with scolding a naughty
child. In the second example, the phrases ‘let me break it down for you’ and ‘piece by piece’ creates the
impression that the writer is portraying Woodley as unintelligent by belittling her. Another article features
the statement ‘she should at least find out what it really means before spreading misinformation to her
many young fans’ (SW06). This again makes the assumption that Woodley does not understand the
definition of feminism. It also places blame onto Woodley for spreading misconceptions of feminism to the
masses. This highlights the writer’s awareness of Woodley’s influence on popular culture as a celebrity and
implies that due to her influence, it is Woodley’s duty to spread positive and correct information about the
feminist movement.
In contrast, the articles that discuss Pharrell Williams’ disobliging views on feminism made for interesting
analysis. The singer songwriter claimed that it is not possible to for him to be a feminist because he is a man,
which creates misconceptions surrounding the definition of feminism. However, unlike Woodley, whose
creation of misconceptions was met with extreme criticism and insults within the discourse used, Williams
was arguably received with understanding and forgiveness. For example, one article made reference to his
misconception of feminism but claimed that his ‘heart’s in the right place’ (PW02), which suggests that the
writer is forgiving of Williams’ potentially damaging statements towards the movement. In some cases
Williams statements were met with somewhat negative discourse, for example one article implied that his
statements made little sense by describing them as ‘head-scratching’ (PW06). One article even quoted
Williams himself stating that he appreciates women in his ‘little dirty ways here and there’ (PW02), which
could be interpreted as sexually derogatory towards women. Despite some incidences of negative discourse,
Williams is continuously presented in a relatively positive manner. For example, in the article that quoted
Williams, the writer regards his arguably derogatory statement about women with:
“Obviously Pharrell isn’t the most eloquent of artists, but he’s attempting to make a point — and a
good one at that” (PW02)

32. 32
200707558
Here, the discourse used implies that the writer is forgiving of Williams for his lewd comments by claiming
that he ‘isn’t the most eloquent’, but that he is at least ‘attempting’, which suggests that Williams shouldn’t
receive too much criticism. The writer continues to defend Williams’ potentially derogatory statement and
misconception of feminism by stating:
“Like so many of us when doing something for the first time — he’s making a few missteps entering
new territory” (PW02)
The use of ‘first time’ and ‘new territory’ implies that Williams is new to feminism, which, juxtaposed with
the use of ‘missteps’, appears to attempt to lower the seriousness of Williams’ statements. The use of the
phrase ‘like so many of us’ makes Williams seem relatable to ordinary people and suggests that the writer is
attempting to garner sympathy for Williams from readers by creating common ground. From the discourse
used, it appears as though the writer then goes on to try to justify why Williams might have made
misinformed statements about feminism, mentioning that because of his wealth and gender, he is out of
touch with the movement and this isn’t something he should be blamed for, which again links back to
previous scholarly arguments of celebrities being un-relatable (Drake & Higgins, 2006; Wheeler, 2013).
“There are certain dynamics to which Pharrell is not sensitive because he has never had to be. As a
straight, wealthy, man there are simply certain prejudices he will never face” (PW02)
The apparent understanding towards Williams is present in another article which uses language, such as
‘fledgling baby steps’ (PW03), to suggest that his negative comments were innocent mistakes. The writer
makes reference to Williams’ negative past track record with regards to women and feminism, using phrases
‘but that was 2013’ and ‘new man’ which imply Williams’ has had positive transformation and needs to be
forgiven for his past. From the comparison of the discourse used surrounding Woodley’s and Williams’
denouncements of feminism, it is evident that Williams’ creation of misconceptions were tolerated far more
in the media commentary than Woodley’s, who received with negative insults couched in patronising
language.

33. 33
200707558
Through this comparative analysis of gender another theme became apparent within the discourse. It was
found that female declarations of feminism were often insulted, disregarded, patronised or compared to
other female feminists. For example, in an article about Watson, the discourse used describes her feminism
as ‘even stronger than other high-profile defenders of the F-word like Beyoncé’ (EW06), which highlights the
writer’s opinion that Beyoncé’s feminism is of lower quality to Watson’s. In articles regarding Beyoncé’s
feminism, she is negatively compared to successful business women (BK02) and likened to Meryl Streep who
is described as an ‘overbearing creature’ that ‘flattens the rest of the world’ (BK03). This characterises
Beyoncé’s feminist presence as domineering on popular culture which regurgitates ideas from the key
literature of feminism being synonymous with radicalised militancy (see Sheridan et al, 2006). Both Beyoncé
and Streep are insulted and portrayed in a negative light, from which it could be argued that the writer’s
mention of Streep is solely to insult yet another female celebrity as there appears to be no other relevance
for Streep to be featured within the article.
Through the analysis of the discourse used it was also found that the denouncement of female celebrity
feminism was often coupled with personal insults. For example, in one article Beyoncé is repeatedly referred
to with insulting terms such as ‘a brick wall’, ‘bland’, ‘flat, attention-seeking, anodyne’ and described as
having ‘nothing compelling to say’ (BK03). This implies that Beyoncé is dull and strongly portrays her in a
negative light to readers. The writer continuously alludes to Beyoncé having no meaning in popular culture,
claiming that one day she will ‘evaporate from popular consciousness’, implying that she is insubstantial,
momentary and hollow.
“Everyone wants to be loved, but Beyoncé scales new heights of desperation” (BK03)
In the above quote, the use of language implies that Beyoncé is desperate to be adored, which once again
resonates with ideas in the key literature that allude to celebrities being obsessed with gaining attention and
likability.

34. 34
200707558
The Portrayal of Feminism
The discourse present in the articles analysed allude to the feminist movement changing and moving away
from its negative connotations discussed previously in the key literature. For example, the use of certain
phrases, such as, ‘feminism is moving in a new direction’, ‘hopefully away from negative misconceptions’
and ‘man-hating’ implies that feminism needs a rebrand, as Thornham (2013) suggested. Negative
discourses were used to describe previous connotations of feminists as ‘militant’, ‘radical’, ‘angry, extreme,
unlikeable’ (BK05) and ‘hairy-armpitted man-haters’ (EW01). It could be argued that such discourse is used
to highlight the negative stereotypes commonly associated with the movement, in an attempt to juxtapose
them to the new, attractive glamour of celebrity feminism. To regurgitate the negative discourses, the
articles continuously refer to feminism as ‘a dirty word’ and ‘the F-Word’, possibly in an attempt to parody
previous negative connotations bestowed onto the movement by older generation of the media. The use of
such terms makes readers aware of the movements stereotyped past and contrasts with the articles’ use of
positive discourse for the current feminist movement, such as, ‘party’, ‘club’ and ‘legion’, which could be in
an attempt to further disassociate feminism with its negative connotations. However, this new terminology
could have negative effects, for instance, one article, in response to a celebrity declaring feminism, exclaims
‘HERE IS YOUR DIVA CUP’ (PW04). This could be interpreted in different ways, one being the portrayal of
celebrity feminism as light hearted and playful, to relieve the movement from its extreme notions of the
past. On the other hand, the term ‘diva’, which originally had positive connotations, has in recent times been
associated with temperamental female celebrities who are selfish, spoiled, and overly dramatic, therefore
has the potential to link feminism to such characteristics. It could also be argued that the use of ‘diva’ and
‘party’ within the articles has the potential to devalue and trivialise the feminist movement as they are terms
commonly associated with tabloids and gossip magazines.
It was also found that there were an abundance of terms that imply a fear or avoidance of feminism by
certain celebrities. For example, many articles portrayed female celebrities, in particular, to be
uncomfortable with the term ‘feminist’ with the use of phrases ‘shy away from’, ‘avoiding the F-Word’, ‘fear

35. 35
200707558
of’, and ‘resistant to the label’. It could be argued that this use of discourse has the potential to perpetuate
previous ideas that feminism is something that is controversial and to be avoided. Similarly, when discussing
a celebrity feminist, many articles would use discourse similar to ‘spoke out’ (JGL05) and ‘openly claimed
feminism’ (EW02), the use of which implies that there is controversy surrounding the term and that
celebrities are brave to declare allegiance. However, it could be argued that some feminist writers within the
media commentary analysed appeared to be aware of the negative representation of feminism as being
aggressive, and so played on such stereotypes for humorous effect, for example:
“Because, yes, we feminists love our pitchforks and torches – or what regular people like to call
reasonable arguments” (SW04)
The writer’s use of ‘pitchforks and torches’ in contrast with ‘reasonable arguments’ parodies the common
assumptions and discursive tactics that liken feminists to an angry mob. It could be argued that this is in an
attempt to challenge ideas mentioned by Whelehan (1995), that feminism lacks humour and cannot be
funny.
Conclusion
To recap, this study aimed to explore and analyse the discourse found within media commentary
surrounding celebrity feminism, in order to address the three research questions formed. The first research
question asked in what ways celebrity feminism was received and portrayed within media commentary from
the discourse used. The results of this study demonstrate polarised receptions of celebrity feminism as in
some of the 44 articles it was celebrated and in others is was denounced by the discourse present. Three
themes were revealed in the denouncement of celebrity feminism. The first theme was that celebrities were
accused of trivialising feminism by not taking or relaying feminist issues seriously enough. The discourse
accused celebrity feminism of being ‘watered down’, ‘very safe’ and ‘vague’ which resonates with scholarly
arguments from the key literature that claimed celebrity feminism only tends to be at a surface level and
does not delve into the deep seated political issues within the movement (see Hamad & Taylor, 2015; Keller
& Ringrose, 2015). The second theme uncovered that discourse used in the media commentary accused

36. 36
200707558
celebrities of being too ‘out of touch’ with the social and political issues surrounding feminism due to their
wealth, glamour and detachment from the normal world. These findings correlate with suggestions that
celebrity comments on social issues seem irrelevant and trivial (see Drake & Higgins, 2006; Wheeler, 2013).
Within this theme, discourse alluded to celebrity feminism being exclusionary and suggested that the media
commentary accused celebrities of subconsciously delivering a message that to be a feminist requires the
boxes of attractive characteristics to be ticked (see Hollows & Moseley, 2006). The final theme within the
denouncement of celebrity feminism provided intriguing results. The discourse accused celebrities of
appropriating feminism and using it like a ‘trend’ for commercial and personal gain to increase their
popularity and fulfil their pathological desire to be liked as Gritten (2002) and Wheeler (2013) have argued.
Contrastingly, the discourse analysed also uncovered elements that suggested the media commentary was
celebratory of celebrity feminism. The language used to describe celebrities throughout the articles alluded
to their extraordinary nature, resonating with Rojek’s (2001) and Turner’s (2004) claims that celebrities are
often viewed and represented as superhuman. Negative discourses surrounding the stereotypes of feminism
were used in the articles and were juxtaposed with discourses that portrayed celebrities positively. The
juxtaposition of such contrasting discourse highlight that celebrities brought new and positive connotations
to feminism in comparison to its negative past.Through the analysis of the discourse, it was suggested that
celebrity feminism is ‘attractive feminism’, which insinuated a new positive portrayal of feminism in contrast
to the previous connotations of unattractive, butch, man-hating women (Thornham, 2013). However, the
idea of ‘attractive feminism’ was also linked to being exclusionary, so could therefore, portray feminism
negatively.
The second research question of this study asked whether the discourse suggested a difference in media
reception of celebrity feminism dependent on the gender of celebrities. Through a comparative analysis of
the articles it was found that the discursive reception of celebrity feminism was heavily gendered as male
celebrities received far more praise for declaring feminism than female celebrities did. Unlike female
celebrities, male celebrities avoided being strongly cross examined, as the discourse surrounding the praise

37. 37
200707558
for male celebrity feminists appeared very resolute. Even in the case of a male celebrity publically
denouncing feminism, in the instance of Pharrell Williams, language in the articles appeared to forgive him
for his misrepresentations of feminism and sometimes alluded to the writers having sympathy for Williams.
In extreme contrast, female declarations of feminism were often cross examined and compared to other
feminists and celebrity feminists alike, or were vehemently denounced, sometimes with personal insults that
had no relation to the discussion of feminism. This resonates with arguments in the key literature of this
study, such as Cobb’s (2015) claim that female celebrity feminists are judged whether they declare feminism
or not and that male celebrity feminists receive far more praise from the media in comparison. The fact that
this study revealed a gendered reception of celebrity feminism in the findings, highlights that there are
continuing inequalities that is evident enough to claim that, contrary to popular post-feminist beliefs, the
feminist movement is still very much needed.
The final question in this study was whether the discourse surrounding celebrity feminism brought differing
connotations to the feminist movement that contrast its turbulent past. The results of this discourse analysis
highlight the reoccurring connotations of celebrities and their feminism to be extraordinary, glamourous and
attractive. It was suggested by the language used with the media commentary that celebrity feminism made
feminism seem ‘cool’ and that the glamour commonly associated with them brings positive connotations to
the feminist movement, which highly contrast the existing negative stereotypes. However, as mentioned
previously in this conclusion of findings, the discourse also suggested that celebrity feminism is exclusionary,
trivial, un-relatable and ultimately an appropriation of feminist discourses for non-feminist goals. Therefore,
the findings of this study suggest that although positive and contrasting connotations did arise to challenge
the existing stereotypes, the negative accusations of celebrity feminism conclude that the discourses
surrounding this sub-movement are as equally turbulent as the feminist movement as a whole.
Suggestions for further study
As mentioned earlier, the explicit rise in celebrity feminism has been relatively recent and so it creates an
interesting new area within feminism studies to debate and conceptualise. It should be noted that this study

38. 38
200707558
is not definitive and only touches briefly on one area of celebrity feminism out of all possible routes of
analysis. With celebrity feminism gaining increased media coverage, it may be interesting for future studies
to analyse a smaller, more precise range of publications, in order to assess the specific attitudes of such
publications towards celebrity feminism. Equally, it would be interesting to conduct a study that analyses the
reception of celebrity feminism in media commentary, dependent on the gender of the journalist, to gain
insight into gendered attitudes towards celebrity feminism. A longitudinal study to analyse how the
discourses surrounding celebrity feminism change over time may also provide interesting results. Finally, the
appropriation of feminist discourse for non-feminist ends appeared as a reoccurring concept throughout this
study, not only in the findings, but within the key literature as well (see Hammer, 2000; Lazar, 2005; Hollows
& Moseley, 2006; Genz, 2009; Thornham & Weissmann, 2013; Hamad & Taylor, 2015; Cobb, 2015). Its
reoccurrence suggests that this area of celebrity feminism warrants further attention and, although a
conclusive study in this area may prove difficult to define, further research in to this theme may raise
thought-provoking concepts.

39. 39
200707558
References
Adichie, C, N. (2013). 'We Should All Be Feminists!'. [video] Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc [Accessed 4 Apr. 2016].
Boorstin, D. (1961). The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America, New York: Atheneum
Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Berger, A. (2000). Media and Communication Research Methods: An Introduction to Qualitative and
Quantitative Approaches, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Brady, A. (2016). ‘Taking time between g-string changes to educate ourselves: Sinéad O’Connor, Miley Cyrus,
and celebrity feminism’, Feminist Media Studies, 16(3), pp.429-444.
Cobb, S. (2015). ‘Is this what a feminist looks like? Male celebrity feminists and the postfeminist politics of
‘equality’’, Celebrity Studies, 6(1), pp.136-139.
Cochrane, K. (2013). All the rebel women: The rise of the fourth wave of feminism. London: Guardian Books.
De Fina, A . (2011). ‘Discourse and Identity’, in Dijk, T. (ed). Discourse studies: A Multidisciplinary
Introduction. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, pp.263-282
Drake, P. & Higgins, M. (2006). ‘I’m a celebrity, get me into politics’: The political celebrity and the celebrity
politician’, in Holmes, S. and Redmond, S. (eds). Framing celebrity: New directions in celebrity culture. New
York: Routledge, pp.87-100.
Fairclough, N. Mulderrig, J. and Wodak, R. (2011). ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’, in Dijk, T. (ed). Discourse
studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, pp.357-378.
Genz, S. (2009). Postfemininities in popular culture. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gill, R. (2000). ‘Discourse Analysis’, in Bauer, M. and Gaskell, G. (eds). Qualitative researching with text,
image and sound. London: Sage, pp.172-190.
Gritten, D. (2002). Fame: Stripping Celebrity Bare. London: Allen Lane.
Hamad, H & Taylor, A. (2015). ‘Introduction: feminism and contemporary celebrity culture’, Celebrity Studies,
6 (1), pp.124-127.
Hammer, R. (2000). ‘Anti‐Feminists as Media Celebrities’. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural
Studies, 22(3), pp.207-222.

40. 40
200707558
Hollows, J. and Moseley, R. (2006). Feminism in popular culture. Oxford: Berg.
Inthorn, S. and Street, J. (2011). 'Simon Cowell for prime minister? Young citizens' attitudes towards celebrity
politics’, Media, Culture & Society, 33(3), pp.479-489.
Jackson, D. (2005). ‘The Influence of Celebrity Endorsements on Young Adults' Political Opinions’, The
Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(3), pp.80-98.
Keating, E. and Duranti, A. (2011). ‘Discourse and Culture’, in Dijk, T. (ed). Discourse studies: A
Multidisciplinary Introduction. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications, pp.331-356.
Keller, J & Ringrose, J. (2015). ‘But then feminism goes out the window!’: exploring teenage girls’ critical
response to celebrity feminism’, Celebrity Studies, 6(1), pp.1-3.
Knowles-Carter, B. (2014). Gender Equality Is a Myth!. [online] The Shriver Report. Available at:
http://shriverreport.org/gender-equality-is-a-myth-beyonce/ [Accessed 4 Apr. 2016].
Lazar, M. (2005). Feminist critical discourse analysis. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Liamputtong, P. (2013). Qualitative Research Methods, Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
McRobbie, A. (2004). ‘Post‐feminism and popular culture’. Feminist Media Studies, 4(3), pp.255-264.
McRobbie, A. (2009). The aftermath of feminism: gender, culture and social change. London: Sage.
Munro, E. (2013). ‘Feminism: A Fourth Wave?’, Political Insight, 4 (2), pp.22-25.
O’Regan, V, R. (2014). ‘The celebrity influence: do people really care what they think?’, Celebrity Studies, 5
(4), pp.469-483.
Redfern, C. and Aune, K. (2010). Reclaiming the F word. London: Zed Books.
Redmond, S. (2006). ‘Intimate fame everywhere’, in Holmes, S. and Redmond, S. (eds). Framing celebrity:
New directions in celebrity culture. New York: Routledge, pp.27-44.
Rojek, C. (2001). Celebrity. London: Reaktion Books.
Scharff, C. (2011). Repudiating Feminism: Young Women in a Neoliberal World (Feminist Imagination, Europe
and Beyond). Ashgate Publishing Group.

41. 41
200707558
Sheridan, S., Margarey, S., & Lilburn, S. (2006). ‘Feminism in the News’, in Hollows, J. and Moseley, R. (eds).
Feminism in popular culture. Oxford: Berg, pp.25-40.
Street, J. (2012). ‘Do Celebrity Politics and Celebrity Politicians Matter?’. The British Journal of Politics &
International Relations, 14(3), pp.346-356.
Thornham, H. and Weissmann, E. (2013). Renewing Feminisms. London: I.B. Tauris.
Thornham, S. (2013). ‘Rebranding Feminism: Post-feminism, Popular Culture and the Academy’, in
Thornham, H. and Weissmann, E. (eds). Renewing Feminisms. London: I.B. Tauris, pp.32-46.
Turner, G. (2004). Understanding celebrity. London: SAGE.
Vagianos, A. (2014). 28 Famous Men Who Prove You Don't Need To Be A Woman To Be A Feminist. [online]
The Huffington Post. Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/famous-male-feminists-
men-support-women_n_5564005.html [Accessed 4 Apr. 2016].
Van Dijk, T. (2001). ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’, in Schiffrin, D, Tannen, D, and Hamilton, H, (eds), The
Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 1st
ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, pp.352-371.
Van Dijk, T. (2011). Discourse studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Wen, N. and Cui, D. (2014). ‘Effects of celebrity involvement on young people's political and civic
engagement’. Chinese Journal of Communication, 7(4), pp.409-428.
Wheeler, M. (2013). Celebrity politics. Cambridge: Polity
Weidhase, N. (2015). ‘Beyoncé feminism’ and the contestation of the black feminist body’, Celebrity Studies,
6(1), pp.128-131
Weintraub, D (2009). ‘Everything You Wanted to Know but Were Powerless to Ask’, in Kenney, K. (ed). Visual
communication research designs. New York: Routledge, pp.198-222
Whelehan, I. (1995). Modern feminist thought: From the Second Wave to ‘Post-Feminism’. New York: New
York University Press.

42. 42
200707558
Appendices
Appendix 1:
Article Coding (Aziz Ansari)
Code Headline Publication Hyperlink Date
AA01 Aziz Ansari: ‘I’ve always been a
feminist. There wasn’t a period
when I was against women and
then started dating one’
The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015
/jun/07/aziz-ansari-comedy-politics-women
07/06/2015
AA02 Aziz Ansari Explains Why He’s a
Feminist and Why We Don’t Need
to Be Scared of That Word
TIME.com http://time.com/3478159/aziz-ansari-
feminism-jay-z-beyonce/
07/10/2014
AA03 Aziz Ansari: Men Need To Pay
Better Attention To Women’s
Experiences
Huffington
Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/aziz-
ansari-says-men-need-to-pay-better-
attention-to-womens-
experiences_us_5645f413e4b045bf3deeac8
b
13/11/2015
AA04 Aziz Ansari: “I’m a feminist” Salon http://www.salon.com/2014/10/07/aziz_an
sari_im_a_feminist/?utm_source=twitter&u
tm_medium=socialflow&utm_campaign=pu
bexchange_article
07/10/2014
AA05 Aziz Ansari Explains Feminism On
Letterman
Bust http://bust.com/feminism/13114-aziz-
ansari-explains-feminism-on-letterman.html
Not Stated
AA06 A Heart-to-Heart About Feminism
With Aziz Ansari
Cosmopolitan http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainme
nt/celebs/q-and-a/a37545/aziz-ansari-
feminism-interview/
10/03/2015
AA07 Aziz Ansari Defends His
Feminism: 'Am I Really the
Target?'
Jezebel http://jezebel.com/aziz-ansari-defends-his-
feminism-am-i-really-the-targe-1690631846
10/03/2015
AA08 I’m Not Impressed By Aziz
Ansari’s Feminism
Buzzfeed http://www.buzzfeed.com/katieheaney/im-
not-impressed-by-aziz-ansaris-
feminism#.xiNorveYZ
08/10/2014

43. 43
200707558
Appendix 2:
Article Coding (Beyoncé Knowles)
Code Headline Publication Hyperlink Date
BK01 Why Beyoncé’s Latest ‘Feminist’
Move Was So Problematic
Huffington
Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-
beyonces-latest-feminist-move-was-so-
problematic_us_55eee575e4b093be51bc05
aa
09/08/2015
BK02 Why I’m Not Buying Beyoncé’s
Brand of Feminism
WomensNews
.org
http://womensenews.org/2014/10/why-im-
not-buying-beyonces-brand-of-feminism/
17/10/2014
BK03 Why Beyoncé shouldn't inspire
feminists, despite her VMAs
performance
The
Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-
beyonc-shouldnt-inspire-feminists-despite-
her-vmas-performance-9689938.html
25/08/2014
BK04 Beyoncé's 'Flawless' feminist act
at the VMAs leads the way for
other women
The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr
ee/2014/aug/25/beyonce-flawless-feminist-
vmas
25/08/2014
BK05 How to Reclaim the F-Word? Just
Call Beyoncé
TIME.com http://time.com/3181644/beyonce-reclaim-
feminism-pop-star/
26/08/2014
BK06 I Wasn't Down With
Feminism...Until Beyoncé Was
Elle http://www.elle.com/culture/a35492/beyo
nce-and-feminism-essay/
13/04/2016
BK07 Beyonce Gave You The Definition
Of Feminism, Now Use It
Huffington
Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/2
5/middlebrow-vmas_n_5706609.html
25/08/2014
Appendix 3:
Article Coding (Emma Watson)
Code Headline Publication Hyperlink Date
EW01 Emma Watson is just what
feminism needed - a touch of 'can
do' Hermione
The Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/wome
ns-politics/11123957/Emma-Watson-is-just-
what-feminism-needed-a-touch-of-can-do-
Hermione.html
27/09/2014
EW02 Emma Watson? Jennifer
Lawrence? These aren't the
feminists you're looking for
The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr
ee/2014/oct/10/-sp-jennifer-lawrence-
emma-watson-feminists-celebrity
10/10/2014
EW03 Emma Watson Talks Wage Gap,
Cover Retouching and Male
Feminists in Esquire U.K.
Jezebel http://jezebel.com/emma-watson-talks-
wage-gap-cover-retouching-and-male-f-
1763500141
08/03/2016
EW04 Sorry, Emma Watson, but
HeForShe Is Rotten for Men
TIME http://time.com/3432838/emma-watson-
feminism-men-women/?iid=sr-link3
26/09/2014
EW05 Emma Watson: HeForShe
Campaign, Feminism Is Not About
'Man-Hating'
BUST http://bust.com/feminism/13009-emma-
watson-heforshe-campaign-feminism-is-not-
abut-man-hating.html
Not Stated
EW06 Watch Emma Watson Deliver a
Game-Changing Speech on
Feminism for the U.N
Vanity Fair http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2014
/09/emma-watson-un-speech-feminism
21/09/2014
EW07 Emma Watson named feminist
celebrity of the year for 2014
Cosmo http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/entertainm
ent/news/a32092/emma-watson-feminist-
year/
19/12/2014

44. 44
200707558
Appendix 4:
Article Coding (Joseph Gordon-Levitt)
Code Headline Publication Hyperlink Date
JGL01 Joseph Gordon-Levitt Made A
Video About Feminism And It’s
Awesome
Huffington
Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/2
3/joseph-gordon-levitt-feminism-video-
hitrecord_n_5868608.html
23/09/2014
JGL02 Watch Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Explain Why He’s a Feminist in a
Truly Thoughtful Way
TIME.com http://time.com/3426757/watch-joseph-
gordon-levitt-explain-why-hes-a-feminist-in-
a-truly-thoughtful-way/
24/09/2014
JGL03 Joseph Gordon-Levitt Totally
Nails Why Men Should Call
Themselves Feminists
Buzzfeed http://www.buzzfeed.com/rachelzarrell/jos
eph-gordon-levitt-men-should-be-
feminists#.uxGWYknRg
24/09/2014
JGL04 Joseph Gordon-Levitt Perfectly
Explains Why Men Should Be
Feminists
Mic http://mic.com/articles/99684/joseph-
gordon-levitt-perfectly-explains-why-men-
should-be-feminists#.0UQKPSA9i
24/09/2014
JGL05 Joseph Gordon-Levitt launches
feminism appeal: 'There are still
tensions and unfair situations
that arise more for women'
Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl
e/joseph-gordon-levitt-launches-feminism-
appeal-there-are-still-tensions-and-unfair-
situations-that-9751025.html
23/09/2014
JGL06 Joseph Gordon-Levitt: “I’d
absolutely call myself a feminist”
Salon http://www.salon.com/2014/08/14/joseph_
gordon_levitt_id_absolutely_call_myself_a_
feminist/
14/08/2014
JGL07 Joseph Gordon-Levitt Gives a
Great Explanation of Why He's a
Feminist
Jezebel http://jezebel.com/joseph-gordon-levitt-
gives-a-great-explanation-of-why-h-
1621699144
14/08/2014
JGL08 Joseph Gordon-Levitt Declares
Himself "Absolutely" a Feminist
(and Wants to Talk More About
It)
Glamour http://www.glamour.com/story/joseph-
gordon-levitt-feminism-video
23/09/2014
Appendix 5:
Article Coding (Pharrell Williams)
Code Headline Publication Hyperlink Date
PW01 Pharrell Says It’s ‘Not Possible’
For Him to Be a Feminist
TIME.com http://time.com/139624/pharrell-says-its-
not-possible-for-him-to-be-a-feminist/
29/05/2014
PW02 Pharrell Williams, Learn a Little
About Feminism and Get Back to
Me — Your Heart’s In The Right
Place
Huffington
Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alanna-
vagianos/pharrell-williams-girl-
feminist_b_4854124.html
27/04/2014
PW03 Pharrell Williams may not be the
new Greer, but he's a feminist in
my book
Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr
ee/2014/jun/26/pharrell-williams-germaine-
greer-feminist-female-pay-robin-thicke
26/06/2014
PW04 Pharrell Says He's Not a Feminist
Because 'It's Not Possible'
Jezebel http://jezebel.com/pharrell-says-hes-not-a-
feminist-because-its-not-possib-
1583569605
29/05/2014
PW05 Pharrell Williams doesn't think
he's a feminist
Elle http://www.elle.my/celebrity/News/Pharrel
l-Williams-doesnt-think-he-a-feminist
02/06/2014
PW06 Pharrell doesn’t think men can be
feminists
Salon http://www.salon.com/2014/05/29/pharrell
_doesnt_think_men_can_be_feminists/
29/05/2014

45. 45
200707558
Appendix 6:
Article Coding (Shailene Woodley)
Code Headline Publication Hyperlink Date
SW01 Shailene Woodley on Why She’s
Not a Feminist
TIME.com http://time.com/87967/shailene-woodley-
feminism-fault-in-our-stars/
05/05/2014
SW02 Shailene Woodley Still Adamant
She’s Not a Feminist
TIME.com http://time.com/3752855/shailene-
woodley-insurgent-feminist/
20/03/2015
SW03 'I don't like labels!' Shailene
Woodley defends comment on
feminism as she showcases her
tomboy-chic for Nylon
Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/artic
le-3001425/I-don-t-like-labels-Shailene-
Woodley-defends-comment-feminism-
showcases-tomboy-chic-Nylon.html
19/03/2015
SW04 Shailene Woodley still thinks
feminism “discriminates”
Salon http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/shailen
e_woodley_still_thinks_feminism_discrimin
ates/
03/06/2014
SW05 Shailene Woodley Does Not Want
You to Call Her a Feminist
Huffington
Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erin-
spencer/shailene-woodley-does-not-want-
you-to-call-her-a-feminist_b_6949880.html
27/05/2015
SW06 Shailene Woodley Says She's Not
a Feminist Because She Loves
Men
Cosmo http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainme
nt/celebs/news/a24715/shailene-woodley-
not-a-feminist/
06/05/2014
SW07 An Open Letter To Shailene
Woodley From BUST Magazine
BUST http://bust.com/feminism/12126-an-open-
letter-to-shailene-woodley-from-bust-
magazine.html
2014
SW08 Shailene Woodley Has Some
Thoughts on Feminism, and They
Are Not Good
Jezebel http://jezebel.com/shailene-woodley-has-
some-thoughts-on-feminism-and-the-
1571997758
05/05/2014