“恶毒、刻薄、可恨、虚伪”:庄园里女权主义的代表

IF 1.5 2区 文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION Critical Discourse Studies Pub Date : 2023-09-15 DOI:10.1080/17405904.2023.2257816
Jessica Aiston
{"title":"“恶毒、刻薄、可恨、虚伪”:庄园里女权主义的代表","authors":"Jessica Aiston","doi":"10.1080/17405904.2023.2257816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper examines the legitimation of antifeminist ideology within the manosphere, based on qualitative analysis of posts from an antifeminist Reddit community. Taking a discourse-historical approach to CDS, I analyse the nomination and predication strategies used to represent feminists in addition to the argumentation strategies used to convince others of the illegitimacy of feminism. Overall, I find that users typically did not distinguish between ‘good’ feminists and ‘bad’ feminists, instead making negative generalisations about feminists as an entire group. Arguments against feminism typically relied on the topos of justice in order to portray feminism as an illegitimate movement for equality given that it supposedly does not treat men and women in the same way. Alternatively, feminism was argued to be a threat to the ‘natural’ social order and men and women’s historical gender roles.","PeriodicalId":46948,"journal":{"name":"Critical Discourse Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Vicious, vitriolic, hateful and hypocritical’: the representation of feminism within the manosphere\",\"authors\":\"Jessica Aiston\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17405904.2023.2257816\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper examines the legitimation of antifeminist ideology within the manosphere, based on qualitative analysis of posts from an antifeminist Reddit community. Taking a discourse-historical approach to CDS, I analyse the nomination and predication strategies used to represent feminists in addition to the argumentation strategies used to convince others of the illegitimacy of feminism. Overall, I find that users typically did not distinguish between ‘good’ feminists and ‘bad’ feminists, instead making negative generalisations about feminists as an entire group. Arguments against feminism typically relied on the topos of justice in order to portray feminism as an illegitimate movement for equality given that it supposedly does not treat men and women in the same way. Alternatively, feminism was argued to be a threat to the ‘natural’ social order and men and women’s historical gender roles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Discourse Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Discourse Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2023.2257816\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Discourse Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2023.2257816","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文基于对Reddit反女权主义社区帖子的定性分析,探讨了反女权主义意识形态在管理圈内的合法性。采用话语历史的方法,我分析了用来代表女权主义者的提名和预测策略,以及用来说服他人女权主义的非法性的论证策略。总的来说,我发现用户通常不会区分“好的”女权主义者和“坏的”女权主义者,而是将女权主义者作为一个整体进行负面概括。反对女权主义的论点通常依赖于正义的主题,以将女权主义描绘成一种非法的平等运动,因为它被认为不会以同样的方式对待男性和女性。另一方面,女权主义被认为是对“自然”社会秩序和男女历史性别角色的威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘Vicious, vitriolic, hateful and hypocritical’: the representation of feminism within the manosphere
This paper examines the legitimation of antifeminist ideology within the manosphere, based on qualitative analysis of posts from an antifeminist Reddit community. Taking a discourse-historical approach to CDS, I analyse the nomination and predication strategies used to represent feminists in addition to the argumentation strategies used to convince others of the illegitimacy of feminism. Overall, I find that users typically did not distinguish between ‘good’ feminists and ‘bad’ feminists, instead making negative generalisations about feminists as an entire group. Arguments against feminism typically relied on the topos of justice in order to portray feminism as an illegitimate movement for equality given that it supposedly does not treat men and women in the same way. Alternatively, feminism was argued to be a threat to the ‘natural’ social order and men and women’s historical gender roles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
47
期刊最新文献
‘Can women have it all?’ Transitions in media representations of Jacinda Ardern’s leadership and identity by a global newsroom Why and when should we (not) distinguish between academic and therapeutic discourses on the past? A response to Burnett et al.’s ‘Indigenous resurgence, collective “reminding”, and insidious binaries’ Preserving choice: weaving femininity and autonomy through egg freezing discourse on Xiaohongshu Indigenous resurgence, collective ‘reminding’, and insidious binaries: a response to Verbuyst’s ‘settler colonialism and therapeutic discourses on the past’ The rise of large language models: challenges for Critical Discourse Studies
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1