3. Abstract_________
This dissertation explores the impact of the recent wave of celebrity feminism on young people’s
(dis)identifications with feminism. Using qualitative data sourced from four focus group
interviews with males and females aged 2022, I sought to examine whether celebrity feminists
had changed individual’s perceptions of, or (dis)identification with feminism, further seeking to
understand how audiences perceive celebrity feminism and its relevance. The data obtained
shows that audiences, overall, are critical of celebrity feminists and their motivations, displaying
high levels of disidentification with celebrity feminist images, which they feel are not
representative of the larger feminist population. Participants placed celebrity feminists within a
good feminist/bad feminist dichotomy, structured around an active/passive feminist
understanding, respectively. While participants acknowledged that celebrity feminists provided
feminism with publicity, they noted that this is all they can do, as they provide shallow
information and have changed very little given their levels of influence. Further, the label of
‘feminist’ was found to have become convoluted and was largely dislocated from its original
meaning. As such, I argue that celebrity feminists have done little to change public perceptions of
the ‘feminist’ label.
2
4. Acknowledgements_________
Thank you to everyone who had to deal with me during the process of writing this dissertation.
Thank you for letting me talk incessantly about Taylor Swift and for constantly reassuring me.
Thank you to my friends who have to deal with this constantly, you’re the best and I am so glad
to have met all of you.
Thank you to my tutor, Dr Kevin McSorley, for all of his help and guidance. I sincerely
appreciate it.
Thank you to everyone who participated in my focus groups. I know that spending an afternoon
talking about feminism isn’t everyone’s idea of a good time, but this dissertation would not have
been possible without you.
Thank you to my family for supporting me and reading my work, even when you have no idea
what I’m talking about. Thank you to my mum for being there 24/7 and listening to all of my
anxieties (and music choices) and always reassuring me.
Most importantly, thank you to my dog, Bear. You really haven’t helped me write this
dissertation at all, but you did provide endless distraction and happiness. Thank you for just being
you and knowing that your cuteness will get you whatever you want (like this dedication).
3
6.
Introduction_________
The last few years have seen an uprising in celebrities claiming the term ‘feminist’. By 2014,
mass media coverage of celebrity feminists had reached a peak following Emma Watson’s
HeForShe inauguration speech (Watson, 2014) and Beyonce’s much talked about MTV Video
Music Awards performance (Alexis, 2014). Soon enough, the ‘male celebrity feminist’ emerged
and became a coveted title, garnering much media awareness and validation (Vagianos, 2014).
Since then, a slew of celebrities, both male and female, have come forward to embrace the term
and publicly join the fight against gender inequality. Indeed, it has become so ubiquitous that the
word ‘feminism’ was nominated in TIME magazine’s 2014 ‘word banishment poll’ due to
celebrity overuse (Steinmetz, 2014). Understandably, it became hard to ignore this evergrowing
phenomenon and the growing concern feminist scholars have expressed regarding the growing
‘trendiness’ of the word and how, exactly, this can translate into action if it does, at all (Valenti,
2014).
This led to the genesis of this dissertation. As the current wave of celebrity feminists is such a
recent phenomenon, little empirical work has been undertaken to understand the impact celebrity
feminists have on our understandings and identifications with feminism. Celebrity influence is not
something that should be taken lightly (O’Regan, 2014, p.470). Indeed, the mere existence of the
term ‘celebrity feminist’ connotes that there is a phenomenon of feminists who are being
valorized and treated as a new category of feminist entirely. Thus, as a response to the concerns
of feminist writers (Valenti, 2014; Gay, 2014), I sought to explore the impact of celebrity
feminism on young people’s own feminist identifications and their understandings of feminism as
it currently stands. Following this rationale, I proposed the following research aims:
1. To understand how celebrity feminism has been understood in relation to the existing
literature on celebrity, feminism and feminist identification.
2. To explore how celebrity feminists have affected how audiences (dis)identify with
feminism.
3. To explore how audiences feel they are represented by celebrity feminists.
4. To understand how audiences understand celebrity feminism and its impacts.
5
7.
Accordingly, the structure of this dissertation will seek to achieve these aims and answer these
concerns. Chapter One will address the first aim by exploring existing literature on celebrity,
feminism, feminist identification and celebrity feminism. Each of these subsections will aim to
gain a deeper understanding of how previous scholars have addressed issues pertinent to this
dissertation, deconstructing the matter of celebrity feminism and individual’s feminist
identification. Chapter Two will outline my chosen methodology and provide the rationale for
such. Chapter Three will present the findings of my research and introduce the themes that
emerged from my focus group data. These themes consist of: surface vs. depth, good/bad feminist
dichotomy, representation and experience, and the feminist label. The final chapter will discuss
these themes in light of existing literature and provide concluding sentiments regarding the
process and experience of this dissertation and how the research aims were met.
6
8. Chapter One: Literature Review_________
Celebrity_________
The dominance of celebrity is, arguably, one of the most distinctive features of current Western
culture. Our narratives of everyday life are now structured around conversation about celebrities
particularly in the media (Furedi, 2010, pp.493494). Still, until recently work on celebrity has
been largely isolated and theoretical as theorists viewed it as lowculture (Ferris, 2007,
pp.372374). However, Rojek (2001, p.92) asserts, to fully understand the social and cultural
functions of celebrity, empirical research is essential.
Celebrity culture influences how we structure our cultural identities. Turner (2014, p.27) contends
that talking about celebrities helps us establish and evaluate social and cultural norms. The media
presents a plethora of attractive role models whom audiences seek to identify with, thus
celebrities become the focus of identification wherein individuals adopt celebrity’s
values/beliefs/behaviours (Fraser & Brown, 2002, p.188). For example, the school girls in Vares
& Jackson’s (2015, p.12) study used conversation surrounding Miley Cyrus to assess the
boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable femininity. Celebrity is now a marker of
authority whose influence has far reaches in society (Furedi, 2010, p.493). Furedi (2010,
pp.494495) and Ferris (2007, p.373) theorise that as we have become disenchanted with
traditional forms of authority, we have embraced celebrity as a new form. Both adopt the work of
Max Weber to articulate that when dealing with the erosion of traditions and authoritative
institutions, we turn to charismatic ‘’unique individuals’’. As highly visible charismatic figures,
celebrities become the object of imitation. Though celebrities lack certain magical qualities
Weber proposed, their fame marks them as extraordinary. They function as role models rather
than authoritative leaders, as their authority derives from their role as a reference point for others.
Following this, celebrities can use their pseudoauthority to raise awareness for issues. Thus, they
end up leading campaigns as their endorsement is seen as an effective way of raising awareness
(Furedi, 2010, p.496). O’Regan (2014, pp.470480) argues this is especially pertinent for young
people, as students in her study agreed that using celebrity advocates is beneficial as audiences
are more likely to listen to what they say about political issues even if others have more
7
9. expertise. Indeed, Furedi (2010, p.495) supposes that celebrities can spur debate and awareness of
social issues in those who are disconnected from social life/issues. Meyer & Gamson (1995,
pp.185188) affirm that the biggest asset a celebrity can bring to a movement is visibility
bringing public attention to issues that may otherwise be ignored which can lead to further
public support, including those who previously had little knowledge of the cause as audiences
can use celebrity to garner knowledge. While Celebrity can provide mass media coverage, they
can detract attention, leading to a distorted image of the cause in some cases
depoliticising/deradicalising the movement.
As women are often seen as celebrity’s principal audience, most research leaves male audiences
unexplored (Barker, Holmes & Ralph, 2015, p.2; Johansson, 2015, p.57). As Vares & Jackson
(2015, pp.12) assert, young girls are a coveted audience for celebrities as they are believed to be
more susceptible to suggestion. Thus, they will emulate celebrities’ stylistic peculiarities.
However, this assumes a lack of agency, presenting girls as mere followers of whatever trend
celebrities promote. Furthermore, celebrity gossip can facilitate the negotiation and maintenance
of social norms (Johansson, 2015, p.56; Marshall, 2010, p.38). Thus, celebrities can act as
‘socialisation agents’ transmitting norms/values/behaviours. According to Bandura’s social
learning theory, celebrities can assume the role of ‘vicarious role models’ those who have little
contact with the individual, yet influence their decisions (Bush, Martin & Bush, 2004, p.109).
Ferris (2007, p.379) asserts that audiences make connections between their lives and the lives of
celebrities, making celebrities the object of mimicry.
The role and scope of celebrity have undoubtedly been transformed by technological innovation
which has facilitated celebrity culture becoming part of our daily lives (gossip magazines, social
media) (Furedi, 2010, p.493; Johansson, 2015, p.54). Furthermore, social media has changed the
relationship between fan and celebrity as celebrities are now seemingly more accessible (Barker,
Holmes & Ralph, 2015, pp.23). This accessibility and ordinariness implies a breakdown of social
barriers between fan and celebrity, implying an illusion of intimacy which leads to emotional
bonds being formed on the fan’s part, facilitating audience identification and imitation (Furedi,
2010, p.494; Choi & Rifon, 2007, p.304).
8
10. Feminism_________
Feminism has a longstanding history, the extent of which could not be wholly articulated here.
Simply put, it is a movement that involves the recognition of gender inequality and the practice of
resolving this. Of course, it is more complex than this and involves the articulation of different
lived experiences; but at its core is the advocacy of political, social and economic gender equality
(Harnois, 2012, p.824). It has been largely successful in bringing public attention and action to a
number of inequalities and issues. However, Kelly (2015, p.83) contends that recent waves of
feminism have shown a decrease in collective activism, instead exhibiting a more everyday,
individualised (and arguably apolitical) feminism. Which leads to questions regarding feminism’s
current relevance, allowing a postfeminist sensibility to emerge (Rich, 2005, p.504).
As Kelly (2015, pp.8289) notes, there is confusion regarding choice vs. equality concerning what
denotes feminism. While an equality narrative focuses on intersectional analysis and utilises
activism to combat structural issues, a choice narrative takes a postfeminist position, championing
individual choice over activism. This leads to possible issues as potentially any choice a woman
makes can be considered ‘feminist’, even when it conflicts with pivotal aspects of feminist
ideology. This is not to say previous feminist waves have been without critique. As Loza (2014)
articulates, there has been a racial shortsightedness within feminism, as gender inequality and
racism have been seen as mutually exclusive concepts and white feminist voices have dominated
the public sphere, marginalising the voices of many.
Feminism is heterogeneous in meaning and a multitude of feminisms currently exist (Harnois,
2012, p.823). There is also a plurality of feminist approaches that vary widely each theorising its
own source of gender inequality, plan for social change and hierarchy of political issues. For
instance, some varieties of feminism emphasise other systems of inequality regarding how they
relate to gender (black feminism, thirdworld feminism) (Harnois, 2012, p.824). Barbara Smith
(1980, p.48) contends that other inequalities (race, class, disability etc.) should be incorporated
into feminism as central issues. However, liberal feminism is arguably the most prominent
approach within public discourse and is considered the least aggressive/radical. Taylor (2014,
p.76) argues that this is due to famous feminists who generally take a liberal position keeping
feminism in public consciousness. Likewise, it could be contended that celebrity feminists’
9
11. positions (as either liberal or postfeminists) increasingly shape the public’s perception of
feminism.
Keller (2015, pp.276277) argues that we have moved into a postfeminist era, which can be
defined as a ‘’hegemonic and neoliberal cultural sensibility that repudiates feminism as a
collective political project while celebrating the empowerment of individual girls and women
through apolitical and capitalist activities..’’. Gill (2007, p.163) states that postfeminism is a
sensibility in which the notions of autonomy, selfimprovement and choice coexist with
selfsurveillance, discipline and the notion of the ‘’wrong choice’’. Thus, postfeminism
incorporates and naturalises neoliberal values, placing an emphasis on individualism (Keller,
2015, p.277). McRobbie (2011, pp.179181) contends that in this environment collectivity is
replaced by competition. She believes that postfeminism has a ‘doubleentanglement’ with
feminism, whereby feminism is taken into account but ultimately dismissed. Likewise, Gill
(2007, p.161) posits that postfeminism is a response to feminism, whereby feminist ideas are
depoliticised, creating an apolitical movement that disregards structural issues women still face.
Thus, postfeminism focuses more on individual freedom than oppressive power structures; with
women being presented as autonomous beings, free from oppressive structures (Gill, 2007,
p.153).
Gill (2007, p.149) argues that postfeminist media has an ‘’obsessive preoccupation’’ with the
body, assuming sexualised bodily displays are indicative of gender equality (Keller & Ringrose,
2015, p.134). However, this hypersexualisation exiles those who do not conform to traditional
beauty standards (Press, 2011, pp.108109). Further, Keller (2015, p.274) argues that ‘girl power’
discourse is central in postfeminist media culture, spawning the ‘cando girl’ the independent,
ambitious female. However, as Keller (2015, p.279) and Chatman (2015, p.10) articulate, this
marginalises girls who do not inhabit the race or class privilege to occupy this idealised position,
as it ties empowerment up with consumption. This is also potentially dangerous as this stance can
be mistaken for feminism in itself (Apolloni, 2014, p.1).
Cobb (2015, p.1) argues that we are currently in a digital, fourth wave of feminism which is
prevalent online, in blogs and on social media. This means many discursive struggles regarding
the meaning of feminism now take place within media culture (Hamad & Taylor, 2015, p.126).
Keller (2015, pp.278279; 2012, p.435) states that online spaces are increasingly important for
10
12. young girls who have traditionally been excluded from mainstream feminist debates. Online
spaces allow them the chance to explore feminist identities, connect with others with whom they
share values, and enables feminism to reach further audiences. Harris (2010, p.477) attests that by
producing their own media, girls can explore their political agency. This DIY feminism reflects a
Riot Grrrl sensibility which allows feminism to be practised with a girlpower subjectivity,
allowing girls control of their artistic expression reframing the scope of feminism to address
everyday issues, becoming more accessible than mainstream feminism (Keller, 2015, p.278).
Thus, online spaces allow for marginalised voices to be heard and individuals to articulate their
own experiences (Keller, 2015, p.279; Loza, 2014).
Feminist Identification_________
Feminist (dis)identification is a complex matter. Harnois (2012, p.829) contends that in order to
wholly gauge the prevalence of feminist affiliation, one must disentangle the differences between
individual’s identities, ideologies and practices. Furthermore, feminist identification should be
understood as a continuum, not binary (Kelly, 2015, p.82). While feminist ideals are now better
supported, there remains a disconnect between feminist ideology and identity (Zucker, 2004,
p.424) mirroring, the everpopular ‘’I’m not a feminist, but…’’ prefacing statement (Aronson,
2003, p.915). Research into feminist identification has found women often have an affinity for
feminist principles but dismiss the ‘feminist’ label (Aronson, 2003, p.906). Kelly (2015, p.82)
asserts that this position can be seen as a result of postfeminism as it shows support for feminist
ideology but rejection of identity. Furthermore, she contends that individuals often feel holding a
feminist identity requires action and not just belief. Thus, those who are not ‘active’ feminists
may decline a feminist identity.
There are social risks attached to feminist identity as feminist stereotypes are still prevalent, thus
many individuals reject a feminist identity (Harnois, 2012, p.827). Hostility towards men has long
been considered a defining feature of feminist identity. However, Robnett, Anderson & Hunter
(2012, p.145) argue that research largely refutes this claim and feminists often report lower
hostility towards men than nonfeminists. Rudman & Fairchild (2007, pp.130131) found that
women fear the unattractive lesbian stereotype associated with a feminist identity while men often
view feminism as being incompatible with heterosexuality. Feminism has also been associated
with abrasive behaviour, masculine identity, and incompatibility with beauty and femininity
11
13. (Rudman & Fairchild, 2007, p.126; Scharff, 2012, p.73). These pejorative associations devalue
feminist identity and affect individual’s perceptions (Schnittker, Freese & Powell, 2003, p.609).
For example, the private feminists in Kelly’s (2015, p.89) study admitted concern over
stereotypes inhibited their ability to publicly identify. Likewise, studies have reported that
individuals show levels of ambiguity regarding what feminism is and thus cannot identify as they
lack a clear definition (Kelly, 2015, p.86). Schnittker, Freese & Powell (2003, p.610) assert that
the current proliferation of feminism(s) can lead to confusion for those trying to find their
feminist identity due to conflicting agendas.
Until recently feminism had experienced a backlash within mainstream media for being too
extreme and outdated. Feminists have often been demonised via negative and radicalised
stereotypes which have been perpetuated through media discourse (Gill, 2015, p.41; Rudman &
Fairchild, 2007, p.130). These pejorative messages can lead to distorted notions regarding what it
means to be a feminist (Leaper & Aria, 2011, p.486). Anderson, Kanner & Elsayegh (2009,
p.221) attribute media influences which project feminism in a defamatory manner to the low
percentage of students in their study willing to label themselves as feminists even when holding
feminist ideologies.
When considering feminist identification, the importance of intersectionality should not be
forgotten in understanding how gender articulates with other social categories (Apolloni, 2014,
p.2). Racial and ethnic differences undoubtedly affect feminist identification, though to what
extent is heavily debated (Harnois, 2012, p.825). Feminism has long been dominated by white,
middleclass, heterosexual voices. Thus women of colour may be reluctant to identify as feminists
due to their marginalisation within mainstream feminism (Collins, 1991, p.7; Hooks, 2004,
pp.315). However, while African American women may be more reluctant to claim a feminist
identity, they are often committed to feminist ideals. Ergo, those of minority racial and ethnic
status may claim alternate ‘’genderconscious identities’’ (black feminist, womanist etc.) which
adopt intersectional modes of action (Collins, 1991, p.156) Indeed, Leaper & Aria (2011, p.476)
claim that those who experience ethnic/race based discrimination can become sensitised to all
forms of discrimination so may be more likely to claim a feminist identity. Moreover, Kane
(2000, p.427) found AfricanAmerican men are more likely than white men to be aware of gender
inequality and supportive of social movements. Nevertheless, it must be taken into account that
much of the research surrounding race/ethnicity and feminist identification tends to work around
12
14. the black/white binary and often ignores wider ethnic identities (Robnett, Anderson & Hunter,
2012, p.155). It should also be noted that ethnic groups are heterogeneous in their beliefs (Kane,
2000, p.432).
Harnois (2012, p.827) articulates the importance of understanding that social and economic
factors shape an individual’s likelihood of claiming a feminist identity. Gender has been found to
be significant in shaping feminist identification, as women are found to be more likely to claim a
feminist identity (Harnois, 2012, p.825). The men in Kelly’s (2015, p.85) study were reluctant to
identify as feminists due to its association with women, even when they held feminist ideologies.
However, studies regarding feminist identification tend to focus on women, ergo men’s
affiliations are considerably understudied (Kelly, 2015, p.84). High educational attainment has
been found to increase the likelihood of holding feminist beliefs. Thus, some reject a feminist
identity because they do not have enough information about it. This inevitably disadvantages
those who do not have access to the resources to further their education and expresses the need
for public feminist education (Kane, 2000, p.433; Leaper & Aria, 2011, p.476).
Celebrity Feminism________
Feminism has become increasingly prominent in popular media recently, with celebrities now
readily claiming the term (Cobb, 2015, p.1; Hamad & Taylor, 2015, p.124; Keller & Ringrose,
2015, p.132). Celebrity feminism has been defined by Keller & Ringrose (2015, p.132) as, ‘’a
form of popular feminism made visible recently by young celebrity women eager to publically
claim a feminist identity.’’ Female celebrities are increasingly asked about their stance regarding
feminism and are ultimately judged regarding their answers (Cobb, 2015, p.2). Both Emma
Watson and Beyonce’s feminist declarations have garnered much publicity (Hamad & Taylor,
2015, p.125) and Jennifer Lawrence’s essay on the gender wage gap sparked much public
discussion (Lawrence, 2015). Popular feminisms have long played a part in allowing feminist
discourse to be more accessible to the public and determining the kinds of feminism made visible.
However, these popular feminisms have continuously been criticised for their shallow,
commercialised form (Taylor, 2014, p.75).
This has led to debate regarding celebrity feminists, as opinions have been divided regarding the
authenticity of their feminist ideals (Cobb, 2015, p.1; Hamad & Taylor, 2015, p.125). Feminist
13
15. critiques have said that celebrity feminists merely provide an attractive, sellable image for
feminism; undermining its internal issues, falling victim to a postfeminist depoliticisation, and
valuing image over action (Cobb, 2015, p.1). Keller & Ringrose (2015, p.133) found that while
feminist society members in their study were pleased with feminism’s increasing visibility, they
were also concerned that celebrities were turning feminism into a ‘fashion’, only concerned with
surfacelevel issues. This leads to further confusion due to the conflation of feminisms and the
ambiguity regarding the meaning(s) of feminism today (Taylor, 2014, p.75)
While liberal feminism is often the most prominent form of feminism in public discourse (Taylor,
2015, p.76), celebrity feminism is seen as the epitome and the culmination of postfeminism and
neoliberal feminism. This recognises the current climate of gender inequality but is essentially
depoliticised, ignoring the social/economic/cultural roots of inequality in favour of a ‘’neoliberal
ethos of individual action, personal responsibility, and unencumbered choice…’’ (Keller &
Ringrose, 2015, p.132). Although feminism centres around female collectivity for social justice,
celebrity feminism and its focus on friendship posits feminism as something much less political,
ergo ignoring much wider structural issues (Chatman, 2015, p.6). On the other hand, celebrity
dismissal of a feminist label can be seen as a reflection of postfeminism as celebrities like Katy
Perry claim they are prowomen but not feminism, thus taking feminism into account but
ultimately dismissing it (Chatman, 2015, p.5).
As part of this postfeminist reflection, many celebrities associated with celebrity feminism
portray a somewhat contradictory message in their image as sexualised performers and
feminists. Questions have been raised regarding how this radicalised sexualisation represents
female ‘empowerment’ (Keller & Ringrose, 2015, p.133). Beyonce’s ‘’feminist’’ VMA
performance, for example, has been cited as a source of harm for black girls, as they are often
perceived as being hypersexual and this plays into this trope, possibly paving a path for young
girls to follow (Weidhase, 2015, p.128). This association with feminism and sexualisation e.g.
Beyonce’s performance being accompanied by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s ‘We Should All Be
Feminists’ speech can lead to a skewed view of feminist values (Wiedhase, 2015, p.128). Annie
Lennox criticised this sexualised feminism for dismissing much wider and pertinent issues of
feminism (Weidhase, 2015, p.129).
14
16. Much like the mediated image of the postfeminist, celebrity feminism has been largely
characterised by extreme whiteness (as well as youth, heterosexuality and middleclass idealism)
with the exception of a few figures (Beyonce, Laverne Cox, Aziz Ansari) (Chatman, 2015, p.3;
Hamad & Taylor, 2015, p.125). However, Beyonce has been criticised for perpetuating
objectification under a feminist guise (Stampler, 2014), thus undermining her feminist identity
and placing focus on her body and not practical work she has done (e.g. her essay Gender
Equality is a Myth) (Weidhase, 2015, p.129). This is potentially harmful as it ignores
intersectional thought and places Beyonce, one of the few black celebrity feminist figures, within
the frame of the ‘hypersexualised black woman’, instead of seeing this as a reclamation of the
black female body (Weidhase, 2015, pp.129130). According to Appoloni (2014, p.2), celebrity
feminism, embodying postfeminist sensibilities, often disregards oppressive power structures.
Male celebrity feminists (Joseph GordonLevitt, Aziz Ansari, Ryan Gosling) have gained
significant attention, as the traditional face of feminism is not typically male. Cobb (2015, pp.13)
argues that the male celebrity feminist, in particular, signifies a postfeminist turn, favouring a
positive image over political action. The male celebrity feminist’s popularity can be seen as
disparaging women’s part in feminism, as men are praised for simply claiming the term while
women are judged for the authenticity of their feminist ideals (Cobb, 2015, p.2). Participants in
Keller & Ringrose’s (2015, p.133) study were critical of Emma Watson’s HeForShe campaign for
turning the conversation onto men. Roxane Gay (2014) articulated that in trying to make
feminism more accessible to men, Watson’s campaign (and celebrity feminism overall) are still
adhering to a maledominated society as it seems to only hold merit when a man’s acceptance is
attached to it.
Celebrity feminism has been attributed to a supposed increasing ‘cool’ factor of feminism,
working to lessen the stigma attached to a feminist identity (Keller & Ringrose, 2015, p.132).
Cobb (2015, p.2) suggests that male celebrity feminist’s appeal could be due to the act of trying to
discredit feminism’s ‘manhating’ stigma. Further, female celebrities are often positioned as role
models, thus, their identification with feminism could lead to an illumination of feminist issues
for their audience (Vares & Jackson, 2015, p.6). Apolloni (2014, p.2) argues that if celebrity
feminism is done correctly, it should amplify the voices of those who otherwise face
marginalisation. However, concerns regarding what celebrities are advocating as feminism are
widespread (Keller & Ringrose, 2015, p.134). Tavi Gevinson, for example, is someone whose
15
17. feminist identification is tied with her celebrity and while she is responsible for pioneering a
culture of young girls into the world of feminism politics through her online magazine Rookie,
she employs an almost ‘riot grrrl’ attitude with a ‘candogirl’ postfeminist discourse which is
entirely tied up with her own selfimage white, middleclass, heterosexual. Keller (2015,
pp.274275) argues that this feminism does not benefit all and few can identify, due to celebrities’
place of privilege.
As a whole, celebrity feminism is a spectacle that can be attributed to a growing tolerance of
feminism but has also been understandably criticised. An intersection summarised well by
Roxane Gay (2014), ‘’Too many people are willfully ignorant about what the word means and
what the movement aims to achieve. But when a pretty young woman has something to say about
feminism, all of a sudden, that broad ignorance disappears or is set aside because, at last, we
have a more tolerable voice proclaiming the very messages feminism has been trying to impart
for so long.’’. Still, the only empirical work that has explored celebrity feminism’s impact has
been Keller & Ringrose’s (2015, pp.132133) study of sixth form girls who already claimed a
feminist identity; leaving significant gaps to be filled by further work.
16
18. Chapter Two: Methodology_________
Following an examination of existing literature, careful consideration was given to the
appropriate methodology. Initially, semistructured, individual interviews were considered as a
data collection method but were dismissed in favour of focus groups. While both methods
generate indepth data, focus groups utilise group interaction and generate more detailed and
wideranging discussion than interviews can offer (David & Sutton, 2011, p.133). As Bryman
(2012, p.503) notes, focus groups allow for focus on why people feel the way they do, enabling
participants to question other’s views, rather than simply facilitating the question and answer
format of an individual interview. As much of the research on the topic of celebrity feminism has
been sparse and theoretical (Ferris, 2007, p.374), it was decided qualitative data would be
beneficial in allowing for deeper understandings to be garnered. Qualitative research enables the
multiple meanings and understandings participants ascribe to certain phenomena to be extracted
and examined, as well as empowering participants to express their opinions and meanings freely
(Creswell, 2013, pp.4448). As feminist identification as a variable is not easily measured and is
rather a process from which deeper meanings must first be understood, qualitative data is suitable
as it withdraws the complexities of participants’ identification from which developing themes can
be observed (Creswell, 2003, p.18; Creswell, 2013, p.48).
As such, focus groups were chosen as they allow multiple opinions to be discussed and debated.
As they focus on the dynamics of group interaction, one can see how participants’ understandings
develop and are challenged within the group dynamic and a joint construction of meaning(s)
surrounding certain phenomena is developed (Bryman, 2012, p.501502). Focus group are
considered a more naturalistic data collection method as in terms of symbolic interactionism
they closely reflect how meanings are constructed in everyday life (i.e. through interaction).
However, some would argue the environment is contrived, diminishing an amount of authenticity
(Bryman, 2012, p.504). As celebrity feminism is a pervasive issue in popular media, focus groups
are useful in examining ‘audience reception’ to this issue as they showcase different
interpretations (and thus means of (dis)identification) (Bryman, 2012, p.503). Furthermore,
Wilkinson (as cited in Bryman, 2012, p.504) contends that focus groups are a valued method
within feminist research as they help to diminish powerbased relationships between participants
and researcher and allows for different women’s ‘lived experiences’ to come through which can
17
19. illuminate the voices of marginalised groups and help them make sense of their experience in
conjunction with others.
Once focus groups had been decided on as the appropriate method, key themes were identified to
formulate questions. In order to obtain rich data that provided participant’s own meanings, open
questions were decided upon as they allow participants to answer with their own experiences and
opinions, allowing for conversational flexibility rather than complying to a rigid structure
(Bryman, 2012, p.246). Firstly, the research aims were taken into account and referred back to, so
they could be deconstructed and addressed (Bryman, 2012, p.254). Furthermore, emergent themes
in the literature were taken into consideration when formulating questions so to draw comparisons
and draw out contrasts. Through this, questions were divided into four themes: feminism,
celebrity, image and diversity, and identification (see Appendix 3). Questions were carefully
examined to make sure information gained was useful and the wording of questions was chosen
so to avoid ambiguous terms, leading questions and that which required prerequisite knowledge;
thus lay language was used (Bryman, 2012, p.258). The same questions were asked across all four
focus groups to allow for comparability with the exception of minor followup questions on
points that either needed clarification or merited elaboration. Some questions were asked in
multiple ways as sometimes the language used in questions can generate new answers or
thoughtprocesses. Once this process was complete, a pilot interview was conducted with two
people, allowing for questions to be tested, altered or eliminated and additions to be made where
was necessary (Arber, 1998, p.40). Notably, one question’s wording was altered due to unclear
phrasing and two were eliminated due to repetition.
In deciding who participants would be, it was decided under 25s would be most beneficial as
young people are often identified as the group most likely to be influenced by celebrities
(O’Reagan, 2014, p.470). Participants were recruited using both convenience and snowball
sampling. These were employed due to availability, accessibility, and timeconstraints (Bryman,
2012, p.200). As such, fellow students and hometown friends were recruited to partake in focus
groups. Snowball sampling was utilised when initial participants provided references to others
who partook in subsequent groups. As Schutt (2001, p.174) asserts, this is useful when there is no
obvious sampling frame but members are connected. In order to generate a more diverse sample,
posters were put up throughout the university campus and leaflets were handed out. However, this
had a lowresponse rate but still supplied a few participants. It should be noted that these
18
20. methods, while useful in terms of practicality and accessibility, do have disadvantages which
were kept in mind. The most glaring being that the sample gained is not representative of the
wider population, ergo findings cannot be generalised (Walliman, 2011, p.96). Thus, when
analysing, special care will be taken. It should also be noted that due to this sampling method and
the location, all but one participant had been involved in higher education and thus the
implications of this privilege will also be taken into account during further analysis. Initially, an
ethnically diverse sample was desired to explore the implications of celebrity feminism’s
‘extreme whiteness’ (Hamad & Taylor, 2015, p.126). This, however, was not achieved due to the
lack of response from ethnically diverse participants. Thus, all but one participant were white. In
future circumstances, purposive sampling could amend this issue (Barbour, 2008, p.58). Both
males and females were used, as celebrity feminism has growing implications with men and men
are often excluded within feminist identification research (Cobb, 2015, p.1).
Once participants had been recruited, they were separated into four focus groups three groups of
five and one group of six. One group was all male, three were mixed. Overall there were 12 male
and 9 female participants aged 2022. Interviews that took place on the university campus were
done in private study rooms and one which took place off campus was conducted in a meeting
room at a local library so to ensure privacy. Before focus groups began, participants were
administered information sheets and consent forms to ensure they were fully informed of the
nature of the research and the implications of their participation (Bryman, 2012, p.140). They
were ensured full confidentiality and anonymity, via the use of pseudonyms, and were informed
they could withdraw their participation at any time (Bryman, 2012, p.142). Compliance to the
Statement of Ethical Practice for the British Sociological Association (2002) was adhered to at all
times. To start the focus group, icebreaker questions were asked so to increase comfort and
initiate interaction (Quimby, 2011, p.119) and throughout the groups,
newspaper/magazine/website articles were utilised to stimulate conversation on certain
occurrences (see appendix 4). This helped streamline conversation and provided more
information for those who were not as knowledgeable on the topic. Focus group durations ranged
from an hour to two and a half hours. The implications of the long duration of one focus group
meant some participants had to leave as it had only been estimated that two hours would be
needed. David & Sutton (2011, p.141) note that it is important to be aware of how much time will
be needed, so this was amended in future cases. Each focus group was recorded by two different
devices, in case of technological failure, and notes were made throughout (David & Sutton, 2011,
19
21. p.141). For moderation purposes, involvement was kept to a minimum so participants could
guide the conversation, and intervention was only needed when conversation veered off topic or a
new question was asked (Barbour, 2008, p.38).
Following the focus groups’ completion, recordings were transcribed so thematic analysis could
take place. This is a useful method of analysis within qualitative research inquiry as it enables
dominant qualitative themes to be extracted from the transcripts which can later be considered in
relation to existing literature and research objectives. It focuses on what themes emerge
specifically from the data and not that which has been imposed upon it (David & Sutton, 2011,
p.365). Thus, it can show contrasts and commonalities between participants thought and previous
literature (Loffe & Yardly, 2004, p.59). These themes will be discussed in the following chapter.
20
22. Chapter Three: Findings_________
‘’It’s a doubleedged phenomenon’’.
Surface vs. Depth.
Throughout all four focus groups, participants posited celebrity feminism as a doubleedged
phenomenon. They asserted that while it does provide a degree of education for the layperson, it
also provides misinformation and a shallow level of knowledge.
Darcy: It’s a doubleedged phenomenon.
Caitlin: And then that leaves shallowmindedness.
(Focus Group 4)
Participants noted that due to celebrity’s large following, their involvement with feminism can
help to spread awareness on a larger scale than would have previously been possible. They
recognised that celebrity image in present day can be used as a promotional tool as celebrities are
ubiquitous thus more awareness can be raised when a celebrity is at the forefront.
Rob: It’s good to get feminism to have publicity...
Graham: At the end of the day, it does draw attention to the cause.
(Focus Group 1)
Participants also recognised that celebrities can be used as a socialisation tool by bringing people
into the cause through their influence. However, what is interesting to note is that participants
drew distance between themselves and those they felt were susceptible to celebrity influence.
Max: I guess that it might have helped younger people who look up to
celebrities get into it or see that it’s okay to be a feminist.
(Focus Group 3)
21
23. Still, they identified that promotion and education were all a celebrity feminist could offer and
even this was fleeting, as they recognised feminism often moves in waves of being brought into
public consciousness.
Kelly: I think obviously celebrities educate but then that’s all they do.
Jennifer: They educate like a wider...the widest audience possible. But
then it’s only in the media for like a week and then it’s gone and then
it’s barely ever spoken about afterwards.
(Focus Group 2)
Some participants acknowledged the danger in celebrity feminists power. As celebrities have few
credentials to be the spokespeople for feminism, they can transmit misinformation if they are
taken uncritically as role models and audiences fail to look further into the cause. Moreover, they
expressed that celebrities endanger perceptions of feminism by perpetuating a distorted image of
feminism which will then be taken as representative of feminism as a whole.
Graham: There is information out there but a lot of people blindly follow
what celebrities say regardless of considering the context of what
they’re saying...A celebrity will come out and say, without having done
the research for and everyone will blindly follow by that example.
(Focus Group 1)
Furthermore, participants expressed that celebrity feminists have not changed their perceptions of
feminism because they only provide shallow information they had acquired elsewhere.
Martin: I feel like I already knew everything that they said.
Max: Yeah.
Kacey: Yeah. I was like ‘’good job, but fairly selfexplanatory’’.
(Focus Group 3)
Instead of citing celebrity influence as a factor, most participants articulated divergent ways they
became aware or affiliated through family/friends, or through personal experiences. As most
participants were students, they had primarily come into contact with feminism via education and
22
24. recognised celebrity feminism was bringing feminism out from the confinement of the academic
sphere into the social sphere where the layperson who does not engage with political or academic
resources or who may not have the opportunity to can engage with feminism.
Caitlin: It’s taken feminism out of the academic.
Lily: Like it’s in the social sphere as well, like you say, it’s been
shifted from the political to the social. A lot of people like don’t
associate themselves with any kind of politics, they just ignore
everything.
(Focus Group 4)
‘’Too much talking, not enough doing’’.
Good/Bad feminist dichotomy.
When discussing celebrity feminists, participants constructed a good/bad feminist dichotomy,
drawing distinctions between celebrities they felt were good representatives of feminism and
those they felt were detrimental to its reputation. They mostly kept these distinctions binary and
placed celebrities on either side of the dichotomy based on what ideals they embodied.
Caitlin: I think I would use Miley Cyrus because she claims to be a
feminist...but she does all these performances and her Wrecking Ball one
and whatever else...she claims herself as a feminist but then you compare
her against someone like Emma Watson who’s well to do like pretty well
respected and you’re like ‘’really?’’.
(Focus Group 4)
Emma Watson was largely cited as representative of ’good feminism’ while Miley Cyrus was
often cited as representative of ’bad feminism’. ‘Good feminists’ were those who participants felt
were active feminists while ‘bad feminists’ were those who embodied a sexualised, neoliberal,
apolitical stance showing a rejection of the postfeminist ideals certain celebrities exhibited.
23
25.
Rosie: When you compare Emma Watson to the likes of like Miley Cyrus like
they’re both feminists...they’re both doing it in such different ways,
like Emma Watson’s like she’s being an activist and she wants to get
things changed but Miley Cyrus is just going against every sort of
statusquo.
(Focus Group 4)
Some participants felt that for celebrities to correctly endorse feminism and be ‘good feminists’,
they needed to implement action, not merely words. Thus, they viewed those who were not
‘active’ feminists as ‘bad feminists’. A narrative of change was prevalent throughout as
participants expressed frustration over the fact that celebrity endorsed movements had done
nothing to further the cause or implement changes.
Aaron: I don’t think they’ve changed anything.
Kelly: Like we said, I think the Emma Watson speech did educate in a way
with a wider audience because it was all over social media so so many
people were exposed to it, but then…
Aaron: Nothing’s happened though really.
Kelly: Yeah.
Aaron: It’s not really helped that much.
Kelly: It’s kind of...kickstarted the movement again, but then it’s not
moving.
Jennifer: It’s like too much talking, not enough doing.
(Focus Group 2)
Participants were also reluctant to call themselves feminists if they did not feel they were active
in the movement.
Martin: I’d say I was but not like actively, like I haven’t gone out and
tried to improve….
24
26.
Seth: ...I agree with the fundamental values but like Martin, I’m not
gonna actively go out there and get crazy about it.
(Focus Group 3)
Some participants were skeptical of celebrities’ motivations regarding their involvement with
feminism. They recognised it has become somewhat beneficial for one’s social currency to
identify with feminism, so they remained cynical regarding celebrities’ intentions and placed
those who they felt were ‘’jumping on the bandwagon’’ on the ‘bad’ end of the dichotomy.
Darren: I feel like some celebrities genuinely feel like it’s a cause and
stuff and they’ve got a lot of support for what they’re doing and they
genuinely believe in it. But then some other celebrities just think ‘oh
they get so much attention because of that, maybe I should do that as
well, then I’ll get a lot of attention’’. It feels a bit...I look at some
and go ‘yeah, that’s definitely feminist’ then look at some and I just
say ‘bandwagoning’
(Focus Group 1)
Elliot: It depends, are you talking about people actually discussing
feminism or just putting up a hashtag and taking a picture? Because
they’re two completely different things. One is just empty and the other
one isn’t.
(Focus Group 3)
‘’It’s all about personal experience’’.
Representation & Experience
In a selection of questions that sought to address whether celebrity feminists exclude certain
audiences, many participants drew on a number of ways in which they felt a strong dissociation
from celebrity feminists.
25
27.
Darren: They’re coming from a unique standpoint...if they’re honestly
saying something and I believe they care about the cause, I will agree
with them and I will identify with them. But they’re coming from a
standpoint where they’re famous, they’ve got a lot of media attention,
they probably have a lot of money, so you wonder... if they actually do
understand it.
(Focus Group 1)
Participants acknowledged that celebrities, due to their privilege, address feminism from a
position they could not relate to. This limited perspective and lack of diversity were seen to lessen
their legitimacy. Thus, participants asserted that feminism should be concerned with and fronted
by ‘’everyday people’’.
Jennifer: I don’t think it really necessarily has to be a celebrity issue
anymore. I think, going forward, it should definitely be a more, kind of
like grassroots, like groundup kind of movement. ‘Cause I think it
really is, it is more about everyday people and the struggles that they
encounter in their everyday lives.
(Focus Group 2)
Participants identified that they, as everyday people, were more aware and vulnerable to issues of
gender inequality, primarily drawing on narratives of wealth disparity.
Rosie: I can’t identify with celebrity feminists. I can’t ‘cause like
while the fundamentals are the same, we have completely different
lifestyles. I am affected by gender inequality in so many different ways
than they are. That’s what I’m saying about the money thing, the wage
gap, you may be crying about £2 million difference in your pay
cheque...but I’m crying about a £4000 deficit in my wages that means I
can’t afford to buy a house.
(Focus Group 4)
Male participants often cited a lack of diverse male celebrity feminists as a source of their
disidentification with the movement as they did not identify with current public figures. Further,
26
28. males identified an image of supposed female centrality and a disregard of male issues as
preventing them from being able to identify with feminism.
Darren: I don’t believe in feminism ‘cause I’ve always had this
image...I’ve always believed it to be very....a womancentric kind of
thing that doesn’t focus, even though it says it focuses on men’s rights,
it doesn’t and for that reason I just don’t really...I never really liked
it and never really kind of like identified with it.
(Focus Group 1)
Aaron: I don’t look up to any of these guys as role models at all. Like
if you get sportsmen, or something, someone that a wider community of
men, in particular, can look up to. Like there are a few, but obviously,
they’re mostly actors and boybands.
(Focus Group 2)
Many female participants also asserted that celebrity feminism should be concerned with bringing
men’s issues to the forefront.
Kacey: The celebrity feminists that only talk about women’s rights should
also talk about the problems that men face...
(Focus Group 3)
While most participants were white and could not fully talk about their experiences with celebrity
feminism’s racial representation, Darcy, a black participant, spoke about a lack of intersectional
thought in celebrity feminist narratives, articulating the importance of different women’s lived
experience.
Darcy: I don’t like Taylor Swift’s comment, ‘’to say you’re not a
feminist means that you think men should have more rights and
opportunities than women’’. It doesn’t mean that at all...you needed
equality on a grand scale. Because if there’s equality between men and
women, it might just be between white men and white women...different
women go through different things
(Focus Group 4)
27
29.
‘’You can’t escape the label’’.
The ‘feminist’ label.
Throughout all four focus groups, many participants displayed a level of dissonance and
dissociation with the ‘feminist’ label.
Vito: So let’s say I’m not a feminist but I want men and women to be
equal.
Graham: Yes.
Vito: What am I? Can I not be a feminist then? So what’s the difference?
Graham: Well you probably are a feminist to some extent.
Vito: I’m not a feminist.
(Focus Group 1)
While some acknowledged that there are a plurality of strands of feminism, they also noticed a
more extreme vocal minority have come to represent the movement as a whole, affecting public
perception and people’s ability to associate and identify.
Caitlin: Radical feminism is what gives it a bad name.
Lily: And it gets a bit confused and misinterpreted...
Josh: Minorities speak the loudest, is that not the case?
(Focus Group 4)
Kelly: I think that the main issue that they’re kind of battling with now
is making people understand what feminism actually is.
(Focus Group 2)
28
30.
As Kelly articulates above, there is a large misunderstanding of what feminism is and what it
entails. While many participants did exhibit feminist ideologies, they often felt a dissociation
between this and feminism itself, often mistaking them for different things entirely. Thus, they
dismissed the necessity of a ‘label’.
Aaron: Yeah, I’m someone that believes everyone should be equal. Uh, I
don’t know about the term ‘feminist’ ‘cause I think that’s been changed
from what it should be, um, by media and certain individuals that, um,
are more extreme than what it should be.
(Focus Group 2)
Vito: I wouldn’t consider myself a feminist but I would certainly embrace
the idea of feminism. But I just don’t see the necessity of this label.
(Focus Group 1)
Often the reason cited for this was that participants felt equality was not included within
feminism, a distortion that was prevalent in some participants’ understanding of feminism.
Aaron: I think it’s ‘cause it’s called ‘feminism’. I don’t know why they
didn’t call it ‘equality’. They put the word ‘female’ in there and that’s
just obviously going to make people think...I don’t know why they didn’t
just call it ‘humanism’ or something.
(Focus Group 2)
Jennifer: I think it is basically the same as just equality. I don’t
think we really even need the term ‘feminism’ anymore.
(Focus Group 2)
The stigma of the ’manhating lesbian’ and the ‘gay male feminist’ were picked up throughout
focus groups, showing that the feminist stigma still has currency, even though participants
dismissed its accuracy.
29
31.
Vito: I think that in the past probably 20 years it has become a kind of
way of hating men. Maybe it’s lost some of its original meaning.
(Focus Group 1)
Kelly: I think maybe male feminists think they’re going to come across as
being gay. That’s the problem, you know?
(Focus Group 2)
Lily recognised the importance of the male celebrity feminist’s role in eradicating some of this
stigma but dismissed their effectiveness.
Lily: I think they probably are more trying to be open about men can be
feminists, just because I guess they’re trying to squash that thing about
the stigma of men can’t be feminists...but I don’t think it’s working as
such.
(Focus Group 4)
30
32. Chapter Four: Discussion_________
Surface vs. Depth
When discussing the benefits of celebrity feminism, participants largely agreed that their largest
advantage was procuring public awareness and providing education albeit shallow to the
public. Contrary to Kelly’s (2015, p.90) sentiment that bringing feminism into the mainstream
can make it seem less like a movement and rather something we live within, decreasing active
engagement, participants felt celebrity feminists bringing feminism into mainstream
consciousness has been important in making feminism more accessible. Bush, Martin & Bush
(2004, p.109) contend that celebrities work as ‘socialisation agents’ to transmit norms and values.
Participants saw celebrity feminists performing the role of ‘socialisation agent’, bringing their
audiences into the cause. However, they were careful to draw distance between themselves and
those influenced, noting young(er) people were more susceptible to celebrity influence. Indeed,
attitude change is stronger with adolescence, thus, if this current wave of celebrity feminism
coincides with this lifestage, it can have more of an impact on a younger person than it would on
someone who has already established their political ideologies (Schnittker, Freese & Powell,
2003, p.608) .
As Graham noted, celebrity endorsement is often effective in raising public awareness as
audiences are more likely to listen to them, even when others have more expertise (Kurzman et al,
2007, p.375; O’Regan, 2014, pp.469480). Meyer & Gamson (1995, p.185) note that celebrity
participation is often used as a resource in social movements as they bring visibility to causes that
may otherwise be ignored, providing a hook for media coverage, which can then disseminate
information to a wider audience. Participants were critical of this, asserting that it can lead to a
shallow following and a distorted public image. As Furedi (2010, p.496) articulates, as celebrities
use their authority to raise awareness for causes, they often act as moral leaders, though they are
unelected and unaccountable. Participants’ criticism displays an awareness of this
unaccountability, as they believed celebrities had little scope to talk about issues in which they
have not done prior research.
31
33. While participants in Keller & Ringrose’s (2015, p.134) study found the lack of public education
regarding feminism to be especially of concern, participants in this study found celebrity
feminists to be beneficial in this regard as they felt celebrity feminists brought feminism into
public consciousness and out from the isolated academic and political spheres. Popular and
celebrity feminisms have long been responsible for allowing feminism to have scope within
public discourse and consciousness, thus allowing it to be more accessible for those who may
otherwise be disengaged (Keller & Ringrose, 2015, p.134; Taylor, 2014, p.75). Meyer & Gamson
(1995, p.185) contend that celebrity association with a movement can draw attention, engaging
those who otherwise lack awareness, leading them to further their knowledge. Though, many
participants were skeptical regarding the depth of this knowledge.
Mirroring the findings of Keller & Ringrose (2015, p.133), participants identified that celebrity
feminists provided exposure for feminism on a wider scale, but felt that this was all they do,
further expressing concern that what celebrity feminists provide exposure to is ‘surfacelevel’, or
‘shallow’ feminism; as to bring in a wider audience, issues must be watereddown to a certain
extent. Thus, participants were skeptical of whether celebrity feminists could express the
complexities of feminism. Some were concerned that those introduced to feminism through
celebrity influence will fail to look further into the movement, creating a shallow following. As
Taylor’s (2014, p.75) asserts that high profile and celebrity feminists are afforded the ability to
construct what brand of feminism is popularised and seen as exemplary. Participants observed the
danger in this, as they feared the complexities of feminism may be ignored when surfacelevel
feminism is all that is disseminated (Hamad & Taylor, 2015, p.126). Thus reflecting Meyer &
Gamson’s (1995, p.187) sentiment that once a celebrity becomes involved in a movement,
attention may be detracted from the movement itself, which is more likely, considering celebrity
feminists lack organic roots in the movement. Ergo, less critical and comprehensive content is
dispersed, reflecting Graham’s sentiment that celebrities often diffuse misinformation and create
a ‘blind following’. Indeed, participants attributed celebrity feminism to creating a distorted
image of feminism, which Meyer & Gamson (1995, pp.187188) assert, often happens when
celebrities become the face of a movement, as they will often redefine a movement so their
standing can be seen as legitimate.
Participants in this study did not shape their feminist identities around celebrity feminist
discourses. A vast majority of participants stated that education is where they had encountered
32
34. feminism, citing it as a facilitator of their identification. Indeed, much research (Guest, 2016,
pp.35; Kelly, 2015, p.87; Leaper & Aria, 2011, p.476) links high educational attainment in both
men and women to the increased likelihood of holding feminist ideologies and identities.
However, it should be noted that comparison in this regard was not possible within this study as
all but one participant had participated in further education. Thus, participants commended
celebrity feminists for educating the wider public, as learning about feminism is necessary in
enabling feminist identification (Guest, 2016, p.2). However, following O’Regan’s (2014,
pp.477479) findings, participants understood that, while layperson audiences are more likely to
listen to what a celebrity has to say, they did not perceive celebrities to be more knowledgeable
than the average person, asserting that celebrity feminists provided them with information they
had acquired elsewhere. Other participants regarded family as an influential factor, affirming
research (Kelly, 2015, p.82; Leaper & Aria, 2011, p.485) that contends that familial exposure to
feminism positively affects feminist identification. Lastly, participants mentioned personal
experiences with sexism introduced them to feminism, affirming that experiencing sexism can
predict a feminist identity as it can be seen as a way to empower oneself against further
discrimination (Leaper & Aria,2011, p.82; Zucker, 2004, p.432)
Good/Bad Feminist Dichotomy_________
In talking about celebrity feminists, participants established a good/bad feminist dichotomy. In
negotiating what separated a ‘good feminist’ from a ‘bad feminist’, participants drew on notions
of activism and choice and, in particular, rejected notions of postfeminism evident in celebrities’
feminist embodiments and critically evaluated how this can be detrimental. Much like Herriot
(2015, p.25), who found established feminists were critical of young feminists, who they deemed
‘bad feminists’ for ‘’destroying the work of their foremothers’’. Celebrity is important in this
configuration as Turner (2014, p.24) states, celebrities are a tool through which we can establish,
debate and evaluate social/cultural norms (Johansson, 2015, p.57).
Participants largely rejected the element of postfeminism in which the body and the subject come
to be the focal point, overshadowing and displacing the politicism that works to create structural
change (McRobbie, 2004, pp.256258). Much like participants in Keller & Ringrose’s (2015,
pp.133134) study, most participants rejected postfeminist discourses equating feminism with
33
35. sexualised and bodycentered displays. Participants rejected many postfeminist notions presented
under a feminist guise which they understood as contradicting a feminist position. Participants
who took this position understood that postfeminism poses a backlash against feminism,
preventing meaningful social change (Press, 2011, p.111). Thus, participants displayed a level of
critique of sexualised displays for deviating from feminist principles and showing a degree of
regression. Further, participants utilised similar tactics Vares & Jackson’s (2015, pp.412)
participants drew upon, rejecting postfeminist displays that transgressed notions of respectable
femininity, using this as a tool to draw binaries between ‘good feminist’ and ‘bad feminist’.
Herriot (2015, pp.2526) argues young feminists use the body as a site to challenge gender norms.
Participants acknowledged this and were critical of celebrities, like Miley Cyrus, who enacted this
form of rebellion. Indeed, female bodies and sexuality were often the primary sites of contention
regarding their feminist identity, supporting Weidhase’s (2015, p.129) argument that the practical
work of celebrity feminists is often ignored when they also draw upon sexualised performance.
Using Kelly’s (2015, p.86) typology, participants largely regarded ‘bad feminists’ as those who
utilised a ‘narrative of choice’, recognising this can be delicate as it has the possibility of
positioning any choice as ‘feminist’, even if that choice is in conflict with the fundamental
principles of feminism. This is reflective of postfeminism’s neoliberal sensibility, which
abandons feminism’s politicism (Keller, 2015, pp.276277). Thus participants rejected celebrity
feminists who celebrate this notion, as it ignores larger implications of gender inequality and
institutional power structures (Appoloni, 2014, p.2) especially when this includes
selfsexualisation which obscures the source of objectification and places it under the guise of
‘’active’’ and ‘’liberated’’ women’s interests (Gill, 2007, p.151). Kelly (2015, p.88) contends that
those who utilise a ‘narrative of choice’ rely on an individualist rather than structural
understanding of feminism, which provides a weaker base for activism because there is a weaker
understanding that structural conditions underpin women’s ability to make choices; so collective
action may not seem necessary as the cause is obscured by the consequence (Rich, 2005, p.501).
Postfeminism largely takes on neoliberal characteristics, thus, notions of political, structural and
cultural influence are disregarded and replaced by notions of selfsurveillance and individual
choice (Gill, 2007, p.1530). Participants picked up on this idea though it should be understood
that many participants were sociology students and thus had a deeper understanding of structure
than others and thus used it to separate ‘bad feminists’, who they felt hindered structural change
by placing too much weight on choice, from ‘good feminists’, who fit Kelly’s (2015, p.86)
34
