Hillary Clinton’s nomination as the first female presidential candidate to represent a major party in the 2016 US presidential election represented a key moment in US history. The focus on her gender during the campaign was intensified following the accusation by Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump, that Clinton was “playing the woman card”. The present article explores US media constructions of Clinton’s orientation to the topic of gender during the presidential campaign. Data were identified by searching the Lexis Advance® database between 4 February 2016 and 8 November 2016. Using a qualitative methodology guided by a Critical Discursive Psychology approach, we identify two discursive repertoires that were repeatedly mobilised in these media accounts: 1) a repertoire in which the principle of merit was used to undermine arguments for gender equality, and 2) a repertoire in which Clinton’s espoused version of feminism was undermined as ‘old-fashioned’. These repertoires functioned to de-legitimise Clinton as a political candidate by positioning her as seeking special treatment as a woman, who played the victim of sexism and was out of touch with the interests and concerns of female voters. We demonstrate how attempts to counter such characterisations can be problematic for female leaders.
AdamsonM.KelanE. K. (2019). “
Female heroes”: Celebrity executives as postfeminist role models. British Journal of Management,
30(4), 981–996. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12320
Anisman-RazinM.KarkR.SaguyT. (2018).
“Putting gender on the table”: Understanding reactions to women who discuss gender inequality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,
21(5), 690–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217744648
6.
AugoustinosM.TuffinK.EveryD. (2005).
New racism, meritocracy and individualism: Constraining affirmative action in education. Discourse & Society,
16(3), 315–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505051168
7.
BakerJ. (2010).
Claiming volition and evading victimhood: Post-feminist obligations for young women. Feminism & Psychology,
20(2), 186–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353509359142
8.
Banet-Weiser, S. (2018). Empowered: Popular feminism and popular misogyny. Duke University Press.
BarretoM.RyanK.SchmittM. (2009). Introduction: Is the glass ceiling still relevant in the 21st century? In BarretoM.RyanK.SchmittM. (Eds.), The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 3–18).
American Psychological Association.
11.
BilligM. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology.
Cambridge University Press.
CaughellL. (2016).
When playing the woman card is playing Trump: Assessing the efficacy of framing campaigns as historic. Political Science & Politics,
49(4), 736–742. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516001438
18.
ChildsS. (2004). New Labour’s women MPs: Women representing women.
Routledge.
ConroyM.MartinD. J.NalderK. L. (2020).
Gender, sex, and the role of stereotypes in evaluations of Hillary Clinton and the 2016 presidential candidates. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy,
41(2), 194–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477X.2020.1731280
21.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J. (2003).
Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
29(4), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250923
Dixon, K. (2014). Feminist online identity: Analyzing the presence of hashtag feminism. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 3, 34–40. https://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v3i7.509
27.
DoddE. H.GiulianoT. A.BoutellJ. M.MoranB. E. (2001).
Respected or rejected: Perceptions of women who confront sexist remarks. Sex Roles,
45(7–8), 567–577. https://doi.org/0360-0025/01/1000-0567/0
28.
DonaghueN. (2015).
Who gets played by “the gender card”? A critical discourse analysis of coverage of Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s sexism and misogyny speech in the Australian print media. Australian Feminist Studies,
30(84), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08164649.2015.1038118
29.
EdleyN. (2001). Analysing masculinity: Interpretative repertoires, ideological dilemmas and subject positions. In WetherellM.TaylorS.YatesS. J. (Eds.), Discourse as data: A guide for analysis (pp.189–228).
SAGE.
30.
EdleyN.WetherellM. (1997).
Jockeying for position: The construction of masculine identities. Discourse & Society,
8(2), 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008002004
EisenhartM. A.FinkelE. (1998). Women’s status and the discourse of gender neutrality at work. In EisenhartM. A.FinkelE. (Eds.), Women’s science: Learning and succeeding from the margins (pp. 179–206).
University of Chicago Press.
Final Point. (2016, May 12). Corrupted, manipulative Hillary Clinton constantly plays woman card and victim card [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejUH_PcxF21
GallagherT. (2019).
The outsider on the inside: Donald Trump’s Twitter activity and the rhetoric of separation from Washington culture. Atlantic Journal of Communication,
27(3), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2019.1610763
38.
GambleS. (2004) Postfeminism. In GambleS. (Ed.), The Routledge companion to feminism and postfeminism (pp. 36–45).
Routledge.
GillR. (2007).
Postfeminist media culture: Elements of a sensibility. European Journal of Cultural Studies,
10(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549407075898
42.
GillR.KelanE. K., & ScharffC. M. (2017).
A postfeminist sensibility at work. Gender, Work & Organization,
24(3), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12132
43.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats.
Oxford University Press.
44.
HendersonM.TaylorA. (2019). Postfeminism in context: Women, Australian popular culture, and the unsettling of postfeminism.
Routledge.
KelanE. K. (2007). “
I don’t know why”: Accounting for the scarcity of women in ICT work. Women’s Studies International Forum,
30(6), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2007.09.003
48.
KelanE. K. (2009).
Gender fatigue: The ideological dilemma of gender neutrality and discrimination in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration,
26(3), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.106
49.
LawrenceR. G.RoseM. (2010). Hillary Clinton’s race for the White House: Gender politics and the media on the campaign trail.
Lynne Rienner Publishers.
50.
LewisP. (2006).
The quest for invisibility: Female entrepreneurs and the masculine norm of entrepreneurship.Gender, Work & Organization,
13(5), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2006.00317.x
51.
LewisP. (2014).
Postfeminism, femininities and organization studies: Exploring a new agenda. Organization Studies,
35(12), 1845–1866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840614539315
52.
MartinussenM.WetherellM. (2019).
Affect, practice and contingency: Critical discursive psychology and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. Subjectivity,
12(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41286-019-00071-y
McAvoyJ. (2015).
From ideology to feeling: Discourse, emotion, and an analytic synthesis. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
12(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.958357
55.
McConvilleA.WetherellM.McCreanorT.BorellB.Moewaka BarnesH. (2020).
“Pissed off and confused”/“Grateful and (re) moved”: Affect, privilege and national commemoration in Aotearoa New Zealand. Political Psychology,
41(1), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12610
PotterJ. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction.
SAGE.
59.
RileyS. C. (2002).
Constructions of equality and discrimination in professional men’s talk.British Journal of Social Psychology,
41(3), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602760344304
SheltonJ. N.StewartR. E. (2004).
Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
28(3), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00138.x
64.
SiscoT.LucasJ. (2015).
“Flawed vessels”: Media framing of feminism in the 2008 presidential election. Feminist Media Studies,
15(3), 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.947521
SorrentinoJ.AugoustinosM. (2016).
“I don’t view myself as a woman politician, I view myself as a politician who’s a woman”: The discursive management of gender identity in political leadership.British Journal of Social Psychology,
55(3), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12138
67.
SorrentinoJ.AugoustinosM.Le CouteurA. (2019).
“[It] does not explain everything … nor does it explain nothing … it explains some things”: Australia's first female prime minister and the dilemma of gender. Feminism & Psychology,
29(1), 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353518790595
TaylorS. (2015).
Discursive and psychosocial? Theorising a complex contemporary subject. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
12(1), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.958340
Van Der MerweH.WetherellM. (2020).
The emotional psychologist: A qualitative investigation of norms, dilemmas, and contradictions in accounts of practice. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology,
30(2), 227–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2439
74.
WetherellM.PotterJ. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation.
Columbia University Press.
75.
WetherellM.McCreanorT.McConvilleA.BarnesH. M.le GriceJ. (2015).
Settling space and covering the nation: Some conceptual considerations in analysing affect and discourse. Emotion, Space and Society,
16, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2015.07.005
76.
WorthA.AugoustinosM.HastieB. (2016).
“Playing the gender card”: Media representations of Julia Gillard’s sexism and misogyny speech. Feminism & Psychology,
26(1), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353515605544
77.
WrightK. A.HollandJ. (2014).
Leadership and the media: Gendered framings of Julia Gillard’s “sexism and misogyny” speech. Australian Journal of Political Science,
49(3), 455–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2014.929089
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
