This paper explores the differences between liberal feminists and those women who do not feel represented by today’s liberal feminist ideas, but rather claim a different, conservative view on what empowers women. The fact that there are more and more younger women who feel this way is also evident in the growing outrage media sector. Thus, in order to examine these differences, the paper looks at one example of outrage media: “Tomi’s Final Thoughts.” Tomi Lahren is clearly a representative of a different, conservative, and anti-liberal feminist worldview. Through her use of outrage methods such as mockery, emotional language, and belittling, she deliberately vilifies and attacks liberal feminism, and, thus, promotes a conservative feminism. This paper shows that Lahren and other conservative women believe liberal feminists cast women as victims and demand special treatment. On top of that, conservative feminists see liberal feminists as man-hating or even show a fear of changing traditional gender roles or family values, all of which leads them to feel misrepresented by liberal feminism and its supposed claim to speak and fight for all women’s interests. Although both sides have the goal of empowering women, they mainly attack and denounce each other.
Table of Contents
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Main Part
3. Conclusion
4. Works Cited
Abstract
This paper explores the differences between liberal feminists and those women who do not feel represented by today’s liberal feminist ideas, but rather claim a different, conservative view on what empowers women. The fact that there are more and more younger women who feel this way is also evident in the growing outrage media sector. Thus, in order to examine these differences, the paper looks at one example of outrage media: “Tomi’s Final Thoughts.” Tomi Lahren is clearly a representative of a different, conservative, and anti-liberal feminist worldview. Through her use of outrage methods such as mockery, emotional language, and belittling, she deliberately vilifies and attacks liberal feminism, and, thus, promotes a conservative feminism. This paper shows that Lahren and other conservative women believe liberal feminists cast women as victims and demand special treatment. On top of that, conservative feminists see liberal feminists as man-hating or even show a fear of changing traditional gender roles or family values, all of which leads them to feel misrepresented by liberal feminism and its supposed claim to speak and fight for all women’s interests. Although both sides have the goal of empowering women, they mainly attack and denounce each other.
Keywords: feminism, conservatism, outrage media
1. Introduction
“[…] I’m a woman, not a victim” (Tomi Lahren, 0:14-0:15, Tomi’s Final Thoughts on International Women’s Day).
Tomi Lahren became well-known for provocative statements on her show Tomi with the section “Tomi’s Final Thoughts,” on Glenn Beck’s conservative news network TheBlaze. The section was later continued on FoxNews after Lahren was fired by Beck for making pro-choice comments. In this segment she usually criticizes left-wing politicians, but also frequently liberal feminist actions, e.g. the Women’s March on Washington. In fact, Tomi Lahren is mostly in line with conservative populist views, which Inglehart and Norris describe as sharing three core features: “anti-establishment, authoritarianism, and nativism” (6). Lahren, thus, is a prime example of a different, conservative women’s movement, and she is not alone with her views on feminism. There are a lot of women who have similar opinions and do not feel represented by the ideas of today’s liberal feminism.
In my paper, I will analyze several parts of “Tomi’s Final Thoughts” with regard to how she speaks about gender roles or liberal feminist actions, e.g. the Women’s March and how she promotes a different version of feminism. In order to critically assess her statements and the way she expresses her thoughts, I will use the methods and terminology of The Outrage Industry by Berry and Sobieraj . Through the use of outrage methods, such as name-calling, emotional display/language, and exaggeration, Lahren “fights” the other feminist war and represents those women who have a different view on their gender and feel misrepresented by liberal feminism. In the first part of my paper, I will argue that Lahren clearly presents her views in an outrageous manner and, therefore, is part of the outrage industry. In the second part of the paper, I will discuss her statements on liberal feminism to determine some of the problems Lahren and other conservative women see in liberal feminism and what they try to stand for instead. I argue that Lahren promotes a “conservative feminist”, anti-liberal feminist worldview.
2. Main Part
2.1 “Tomi’s Final Thoughts” as an Example of the Outrage Industry
They called it the ‘Women’s March’, but I refuse to call it by that name. Truth is by calling that vulgar display of hate and bitterness a women’s march, we’re actually demeaning and degrading what it means to be a female. Think I’m kidding, think I’m exaggerating, think I’m anti-woman, anti-feminist, anti-female empowerment? Well, behold the logical fallacy that is modern-day feminism. (0:05-0:27, “Tomi Lahren Blasts the ‘Anti-Women’s March’ The ‘Mean Girls Need to Take a Look in the Mirror”)
The way Tomi Lahren presents these words to her audience, basically yelling at them, seems to be one of the trademarks of her show. This very emotional way of demonstrating her reaction to the Women’s March already reveals essential elements of the show’s outrageous quality. In their book, Berry and Sobieraj define outrage or outrage discourse as involving efforts to provoke emotional responses […] from the audience through the use of overgeneralizations, sensationalism, misleading or patently inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks, and belittling ridicule of opponents. Outrage sidesteps the messy nuances of complex political issues in favor of melodrama, misrepresentative exaggeration, mockery, and hyperbolic forecasts of impending doom. (7)
Furthermore, they define the outrage genre as “recognizably reactive”, which is the case in most of Lahren’s statements e.g. the one above (7). Most importantly, though, Berry and Sobieraj identified thirteen different types of speech and behavior patterns constituting outrage (36). In my paper, I will focus on a few examples of what I found to be the methods Lahren uses most.
First of all, when looking at and listening to many of the videos, her gestures and the tone of her voice indicate that she is highly upset and it seems like she needs to release her anger. Berry and Sobieraj call this variable of outrage “emotional display” and “emotional language” (36). Lahren’s way of speaking about these topics makes clear that she presents her subjective opinions and that she does not agree with liberal feminist actions. Furthermore, she often uses mockery/sarcasm, belittling, name-calling, and insulting language, and she makes use of at least one of these types in every video, but they are also often connected. For example, she uses name-calling, insulting language and belittling when speaking of Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton, by saying that a statement Obama made about female Trump voters was “verbal diarrhea” (0:17/0:18, “Tomi Lahren on Michelle Obama's Criticism of Female Trump Voters”) or calling Clinton “an E-Mail deleting, influence-selling, accountability-lacking pantsuit of lies” (0:39-0:42). Name-calling, insulting language, and belittling are also detectable in the videos specifically about the Women’s Marches and the International Women’s Day, for instance when she calls the marchers “nasty”, “snowflakes”, “disgruntled women” (in videos on Women’s March), or terms their cause “nasty feminist BS masqueraded as women’s rights” (1:31-1:34, International Women’s Day).
When speaking about Hillary Clinton and the Democrat’s attacks on the GOP’s policies as “dangerous to women,” Lahren’s entire presentation of the topic is sarcastic and full of mockery. Lahren terms Clinton “the pantsuit princess” (0:07-0:12, “Tomi's Final Thoughts on Hillary's Feminism”) and then goes on to explain to “Hill” that she is wrong when she “believes by virtue of being a woman and a Democrat she speaks for all of us ‘average women’” (1:10-1:14). Lahren also uses other types of outrage such as misrepresentative exaggeration, slippery slope argumentation, and ideologically extremizing language when she enumerates all the things Clinton cannot offer. Lahren argues that Clinton cannot win by standing in for her own positions and, therefore, she has to lie about the Republican party to appeal to women (1:32-2:20). She then closes the video with even more mockery:
I’m a Republican and I can buy my own ‘womanly’ things, thank you. And for the record, as a woman the only thing I get on my knees to do is pray, then I get on my feet and I work. (2:32-2:45, “Tomi's Final Thoughts on Hillary's Feminism: Sorry Hill, You Don't Speak for Me!”)
She repeatedly uses this type of mockery, sarcasm, and belittling to make fun of feminism as such, especially concerning their “victimhood narrative” as she calls it, for example in the video on International Women’s Day: “I’m here at work today, because I’m a woman, not a victim. […] I didn’t tell myself I deserve special treatment because I have ovaries and menstrual cycle” (0:13-0:29) or when speaking of the Women’s March: “[…] because nothing says take me seriously like marching around in pink hats, screaming profanities, demanding free things” (0:26-0:33, Tomi Lahren Blasts the ‘Anti-Women’s March’). A significant feature of this video is also that she addresses the audience, posing rhetorical questions combined with belittling of feminists, as she suggests that no “reasonable, decent” person would join a Woman’s March, thus, probably only confirming her audience’s views, as in: “Does that look like female empowerment to you? Does that look like a march by women, for women? Not to me and not to any reasonable, decent woman or man” (0:33-0:43). Berry and Sobieraj also point out that hosts of outrage shows create a space where people with the same opinions can feel connected to others and “hear their values rearticulated in compelling ways” (8). They state that the number of outrage media and its audience is ever growing, thus, other women watching Lahren attack feminism probably already share her opinions and see that there are many others who feel the same way (15).
These examples of Lahren’s use of outrage methods should suffice to prove that Tomi Lahren counts into the growing outrage media sector. First of all, because of the reactive format of her show and second, because she makes heavy use of the various outrageous methods described by Berry and Sobieraj such as mockery, sarcasm, and belittling to make fun of opponents of conservatives and the liberal feminist movement. Lahren displays an emotional behavior toward the subjects she presents and sometimes even “performs” her “Final Thoughts” in a melodramatic, overly exaggerated, and very subjective way, which Berry and Sobieraj mention as a feature of outrage (8). Thus, she gives like-minded women a voice and presents herself as one of them.
2.2 Conservative Feminism vs. Liberal Feminism: Two Different Ideologies
One aspect that Tomi Lahren keeps repeating in her videos about liberal feminism is her disdain for their “victimhood mentality”. For her, they cast themselves as victims, and instead of trying to overcome challenges and really empowering women, they only “whine”, demand special treatment, and “skip work to march for abortion or paid contraceptives” (0:36-0:39, “International Women’s Day”). On top of that they malign the President and dismiss everyone who speaks out against them (2:12-2:19, “Tomi Lahren Blasts the ’Anti-Women’s March’”). In her opinion, liberal feminists are selfish, ungrateful, and have unrealistic/irrational views. In comparison, “real women”, namely conservative, Republican women care about what is really important for the nation, e.g. illegal immigration or national security (1:23-1:28, “Tomi's Final Thoughts on Hillary's Feminism”). “Real women” are strong, confident, can meet challenges and do not demand even more rights, as they understand that “true equality doesn’t mean special treatment” (0:43-0:46, “International Women’s Day”). Lahren loudly proclaims that Hillary Clinton and liberal feminists try to tell people what to think and believe in, and they claim to speak for all women, but she feels misrepresented by them. She is definitely not alone with her views, also not among younger women and a lot of her ideas are evident in many conservative women’s groups. As Binder and Wood show in their study of conservative students on campuses across the United States, many of the young female interviewees stated a “concern that feminists do not speak for all women’s interests, and most certainly not their own” (276). Just like Lahren, these interviewees share the belief that mainstream feminists view women as helpless victims and ask for more than simply equal rights (277/278).
Lahren also accuses liberal feminists of being hateful against and “demeaning, degrading and delegitimizing successful and accomplished women […]” or in fact everyone who does not share their opinion (0:46-0:50, “Tomi Lahren Blasts the “‘Anti-Women’s March’”). In her book, Deckman explains how Palin and other conservative women try to reclaim what they think to be feminist and declare themselves “freedom feminists” (179). For them, core values of “the true nature of feminism” are “self-reliance, empowerment, and personal responsibility” (183). Just like Lahren, they argue that liberal feminism is very narrow in its definition of what might be of interest to women, which therefore means that they do not feel represented by them. On top of that, they reject government intervention in their lives and the economy, as their belief is that this does not empower them, quite the opposite, it “reduces women’s capabilities to take care of themselves” (199). This idea is indicated in Lahren’s frequent statements that she can pay for her own “womanly things”. Ronnee Schreiber also mentions this importance of independence and free thought in conservative women’s groups’ promotion of a “smart, savvy woman, who can make up her own mind” (70).
In another video, Lahren shares her concerns that “radical feminists” want to make people believe that sexual misconduct has something to do with masculinity and traditional gender roles (0:13-0:52, “Tomi Lahren on Masculinity and Feminism”). Lahren says they are “man-hating” (2:31) and that erasing traditional gender roles will not fix anything (0:57-1:11). She continues that nowadays fatherless homes are glorified: “Popular culture tells women their children don’t need fathers”, and that “male leadership” and the love of a father has been replaced by checks from the government (1:33-1:55). Here again Lahren is consistent with conservative women’s groups’ ideologies. In her book Righting Feminism, Schreiber describes how groups like Concerned Women for America or the International Women’s Forum see feminists as “scapegoat[ing] men” and cultivating a climate where women are encouraged to “require government intervention to remedy their problems” (58). Like them, Lahren uses essentialist frames concerning gender, promotes separate gender roles, and even seems to be afraid of feminists supposedly trying to erase traditional gender roles. To conservative feminists, thus, these gender roles are not to be seen as taking power away from women, but rather as strengthening it, for instance by showing that women can balance both a family and a career (Smith, 119) and that women do not have to sacrifice “conventional femininity” and feminine appearance (Binder and Wood, 275). Lahren herself repeatedly points out how she was raised in a family with traditional gender roles (1:22, “Tomi Lahren on Masculinity and Feminism”) by a real, hard-working woman and that she will maintain these traditional values (2:08-2:26, “International Women’s Day”). Conservative women, then, admire beautiful, confident, “unambiguously feminine” women who can be successful as mothers and wives as well as professionals (Binder and Wood, 279). To conclude, these women and other conservatives believe that “their way of life is under assault” and that traditional values are diminishing more and more (Burke, 95). However, while conservative women might feel empowered by maintaining a belief in a gender binary, it also “reifies gender inequality” (92).
In this chapter, I have established that Lahren is in line with major ideas of other conservative women concerning liberal feminism and, thus, in her position as an outrage host, represents conservative women’s views. She argues against liberal feminism, because, to conservative women, it claims to represent all women, but overlooks that there are women who have different opinions. She promotes a feminism in which women should see themselves as already empowered and responsible for themselves. Conservative women are strong and positive, while liberals supposedly turn themselves into victims and, therefore, take away women’s power rather than enhancing it. Furthermore, conservative feminists believe that liberal feminism is “man-hating” and wants to erase traditional gender roles and family values, which also plays a role in their distaste for “mainstream” feminism.
2. Conclusion
In this paper, I have shown that Tomi Lahren gives a voice to those women who cannot or do not want to identify with liberal feminism. Lahren uses her position as a host of an outrage show to vilify liberal feminism and to fight for a different feminism. She herself embodies conservative feminism and, thus, creates a space in her show where like-minded women can feel accepted and confirmed in their opinion about what they think truly empowers women. I can conclude that women like Lahren feel that liberal feminists do not take them seriously enough. Evidently, she is not at all uncommon with her views, especially among young, college-educated women. These conservative women with their mostly traditional views on family and gender roles feel marginalized in a world that gets more and more liberal and diverse and in which feminists do not only fight for equal rights but also for a liberal agenda including abortion rights and same-sex marriages. In this respect, conservative women have a problem with liberal feminism because they find that it does not take into account those aspects that they find more important and they also do not want to be pressured into agreeing with liberal policies. They believe that liberal feminists claim to speak for all women’s interests, but do not consider that there can also be conservative women who do not share liberal opinions when it comes to topics like family, marriage, and gender roles. Therefore, Lahren speaks the mind of many other conservative women when she says that feminists are too selective about what empowerment means and that they point fingers at those who disagree, thus, maybe even silencing different opinions. Nevertheless, Lahren is just as “hateful” towards liberal feminists as she claims them to be against her and those who think differently, although in the end their goal might not be that different, namely to empower women. Perhaps in order to further empower themselves and each other, both sides have to try to be more open-minded, rather than denouncing and ignoring each others’ beliefs and ideas.
[...]
- Quote paper
- Katharina Gerhardt (Author), 2018, Differences between Liberal and Conservative Feminists. Tomi Lahren As a Young Voice for Conservative Feminists, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/924275