Discourse, Context & Media 51 (2023) 100667
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect 
Discourse, Context & Media 
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dcm 
Gendered discourses and pejorative language use: An analysis of YouTube 
comments on We should all be feminists 
Grace Diabah 
Department of Linguistics, P. O. Box LG 61, University of Ghana, Legon-Accra, Ghana   
A R T I C L E  I N F O   A B S T R A C T   
Keywords: Guided by Discourse and Ideology theory, this paper focuses on how authors of the YouTube comments on 
Feminism Chimamanda Adichie’s talk ‘We should all be feminists’ use pejoratives or insults to reinforce or challenge certain 
Gendered discourse gender ideologies and practices. Since feminism is already a thorny issue, Chimamanda’s call for all to be 
Gender ideology feminists is seen as controversial and, thus, a recipe for inflammatory language use. Under the protection of 
Gender stereotype 
Pejorative social media anonymity, some participants therefore attack her, gender groups (or characteristics) or individuals 
Social media who oppose their views. Emerging themes include perceiving feminism as toxic and women’s success as a po-
Chimamanda tential threat to male ego, among others. The paper concludes that reducing the discussion of such important 
social issues to insults does not only reify the dichotomy between men and women, which feminism seeks to 
bridge, but it also waters down the value and relevance of the socio-cultural issues being discussed.   
1. Introduction It is worth noting how, according to KhosraviNik and Esposito 
(2018), institutions have failed to treat issues of gendered hostility as 
Studies on gender as a social variable on internet (social media) hate speech because of the popular assumption that gender equality has 
usage abounds (see for example Bamman et al., 2014; Sun et al., 2015; been substantively achieved (see also Lazar, 2007). As I shall discuss in 
van Slyke et al., 2002; Zhang et al., 2013). Others have looked at the use Section 6.1, this is, indeed, an assumption which in itself engenders 
of language in the social media along gender lines (e.g., Bouvier, 2022; pejorative language use. I use pejoratives (and insults interchangeably) 
Coates, 2019; Felmlee et al., 2020; Hosseini and Tammimy, 2015; in this study to mean linguistic and paralinguistic forms (e.g., 
Nadim and Fladmoe, 2019). These studies often focus on how men and upper-case) that have negative connotations or affect and are intended 
women tend to use language in this space (e.g., Hosseini and Tammimy, to denigrate, disparage, or belittle the target. This is similar to Khosra-
2015) or how men and, especially, women are targeted in specific viNik and Esposito’s (2018: 49) use of flaming as “usually characterized 
gendered ways (e.g., Felmlee et al., 2020; KhosraviNik and Esposito, by profanity, insults, negative affect, and ‘typographic energy’ such as 
2018; Hardaker and McGlashan, 2016). This study aims at contributing capital letters and exclamation marks” and which entails “swearing or 
to the intersection between gender and language use in the social media using otherwise offensive language” (cf. Jane, 2015). 
space by analysing how the use of pejoratives (irrespective of whether To properly contextualise the study, a brief background of Chima-
they are used by a male or female) to insult gender groups, group manda and her TEDx talk is provided in Section 2. Section 3 provides 
characteristics, or individuals reflect, reinforce, or challenge certain additional context by situating the study within the literature on 
gender ideologies and practices. This is done through an analysis of gender/sexuality and language and social media. Section 4 focuses on 
YouTube comments on Chimamanda Adichie’s TEDx talk We should all van Dijk’s theory of Discourse and Ideology as a useful framework for a 
be feminists. While the talk provides useful insights into gender norms study that does not only revolve around gender ideologies and practices, 
and practices from Africa (an area which has received less attention), her but also one in which the discussion of those ideologies becomes akin to 
call for all (both women and men) to be feminists is seen as controversial conflicts, often creating an US/THEM dichotomy. Methods are pre-
and, thus, a recipe for inflammatory language use. This is so because the sented in Section 5, followed by the findings and discussion in Section 6 
issue of feminism is already a thorny-one, evidence of which is seen in and the conclusion in Section 7. 
how some participants attack her and other feminists merely based on 
the title without considering the content of the video. 
E-mail address: gdiabah@ug.edu.gh.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2022.100667 
Received 4 May 2022; Received in revised form 3 December 2022; Accepted 12 December 2022   
Available online 27 December 2022
2211-6958/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Diabah                                                                                                                                                                                                    D  i s  c o  u  r s e  ,  C  o n  t e  x  t  &   M   e d  ia 51 (2023) 100667
2. Background or irrelevant in CMC, or that CMC equalizes gender-based power and 
status differentials” (p. 568). For instance, with support from studies 
TEDx is a grassroot initiative of TED (Technology, Entertainment, that report of the use of aggressive tactics by men towards women and 
Design) which aims at researching and discovering “ideas worth participants suspected of being female (see Herring, 2003), they raise 
spreading” (https://www.ted.com/about/programs-initiatives/ted the question of how one can talk about a level-playing field (a blurring of 
x-program. As a hallmark of TEDx, their speakers share ideas that gender boundaries) when indeed gender disparity persists even in an 
spark conversations in their communities, including an online commu- anonymous medium that allegedly renders gender invisible. But of 
nity. One of the speakers whose talk has generated a lot of discussion in course, the question of anonymity in online communication is complex 
the online community and beyond is Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, a because traces of identity can sometimes be found, e.g., through the 
renowned Nigerian novelist, a feminist, and a public speaker. Her works linguistic forms employed and other modes of communication (Hosseini 
focus on issues of gender, race, and identity constructions generally. and Tammimy, 2015; Hardaker and McGlashan, 2016; see KhosraviNik 
With over 994,000 Facebook followers, and having received over 70 and Esposito, 2018 for a discussion of online anonymity as also 
awards, honors and nominations from across the globe for her contri- encompassing a mere perception of communication on virtual spaces, 
bution to African literature and gender advocacy, Ms Adichie is partly influenced by physical separation, as against face-to-face 
perceived as one of the influential African women of today. Social media communication). Indeed, online anonymity has been widely recog-
posts, either by her or on her by others, often generate a lot of debate. nized in the literature as one of the factors that boost online hostility 
Indeed, her 2012 TEDx talk We Should All Be Feminists, which was later (KhosraviNik and Esposito, 2018; Herring and Stoerger, 2014; Nadim 
published as a book (Adichie, 2015), received critical acclaim and and Fladmoe, 2019). Hardaker and McGlashan (2016), for instance, note 
started a worldwide conversation about feminism (see also McLoughlin, how it is often abused for the purposes of causing others distress without 
2021). The talk provides useful insights into an African perspective of repercussion, an example of which is online misogyny. 
feminism and how this runs counter to what ‘true’ feminism is or should Almost a decade from Herring and Stoerger’s (2014) study, and right 
be, and more importantly, why we should all be feminists. For instance, at the heart of talks about gender empowerment and activism, research 
she attempts to correct a popular misconception that feminism is anti- on a popular Ghanaian quiz shows very stereotypical representation of 
men, ‘un-African’, and that it only describes a group of unhappy the female contestants on various social media platforms (Agyepong and 
women who cannot find husbands (see also Atanga, 2013, for a dis- Diabah, 2021). Through the analysis of various linguistic and para-lin-
cussion of what constitutes ‘African’ feminism). She, instead, reiterates guistic strategies, the authors show how the social media posts (from 
the major tenet of feminism as encompassing the fight for equality be- both males and females) represent women not just as unfit for science 
tween males and females. But Atanga (2013) provides a useful summary and math, but also as “usurpers who need to be kept where they 
of how the so-called ‘Western’ feminism has often been criticized for ‘belong’”, i.e., the kitchen (Agyepong and Diabah, 2021: 287). The use 
over-emphasizing male privileges and female subordination – something of such gendered pejoratives was considered not only as demoralizing 
which resonates with Chimamanda’s concern about how masculinity for the girls (as reported by the Chief Gender Officer for Gender Watch 
also constrains men (see Diabah, 2022). With several personal (and Ghana), but they also “spit in the face of the significant progress women 
other) experiences of gender inequalities in Nigeria, she advocates for have made over the years to break through the glass ceiling” (Agyepong 
rethinking how girls and boys are socialized into thinking and behaving and Diabah, 2021: 287). From their study on misogyny in the cyber-
in certain gendered ways. Again, in addressing the issue of why we sphere, KhosraviNik and Esposito (2018) attribute online misogyny to 
should all be feminists, she problematizes how masculinity has been women’s precarity in the cybersphere. This is linked to the argument 
conceptualized (e.g., by teaching men to be afraid of expressing fear, that women’s participation in the cybersphere violates gendered social 
weakness, and vulnerability) and describes it as a ‘cage’ for men. Thus, norms. In other words, “being less recognizable and, therefore, less 
pursuing gender equality should be of interest, not only for women, but powerful, their active participation in the online public sphere may 
also for men. easily translate into a non-compliance with the social norms of gender 
Whereas some see her as a source of empowerment for women, ideology, and trigger harmful, sexualized speech to restore the order” 
others perceive her assertiveness and strong views on issues of gender (p.53). The awareness of this precarity is largely achieved and main-
and feminism as threats to sociocultural norms and values, and it is tained through harmful speech acts targeted at women. Felmlee et al 
against this background that the participants make their arguments and (2020) similarly argue that online aggression toward women is aimed at 
counterarguments. This paper however looks at the pejoratives or insults reinforcing traditional feminine norms and stereotypes. Taking the ste-
(not necessarily directed at her) arising out of the various discussions reotype on beauty norms, for instance, they indicate how tweets which 
generated by her talk. enforce these stereotypes are particularly negative, since they “aim to 
promote traditional, cultural beliefs about femininity, such as beauty 
3. Gendered discourses and the social media ideals, and they shame victims by accusing them of falling short of these 
standards” (202: 16). These messages suggest that there is a proper way 
Following Sunderland’s definition of ‘gendered’ to mean “gender is of ‘doing gender’ (see West and Zimmerman, 1987), and women should 
already a part of the ‘thing’ which gendered describes” (2004: 20–21), therefore “align themselves with these traditional images of beauty, 
my use of ‘gendered discourses’ in this study refers to discourses that sweetness, and innocence” (Felmlee et al., 2020: 25). They also argue 
potentially constitute gendered social practices; or more broadly, when that gendered insults like ‘bitch’, ‘slut’, ‘whore’ reinforce feminine ste-
communication is influenced or shaped by gendered social practices (see reotypes and significantly inflate the negative sentiment of tweets. 
Wodak, 2008; Litosseliti, 2006; Sunderland, 2004). In the words of On their part, Nadim and Fladmoe’s (2019) work on gender differ-
Sunderland (2004), this suggests that “something to do with gender is ences in online harassment experiences in Norway indicated that, con-
going on” (p.21). Thus, Chimamanda’s talk about feminism and mas- trary to popular expectations, more men experienced online harassment 
culinities is already gendered, and so are the social media discussions than women. They attribute this to men receiving more comments 
(including the use of pejoratives or insults) unpacking the truth, or directed at their opinions and attitudes, although both men and women 
otherwise, of her claims. This also brings to the fore Herring and were equally exposed to harassment directed towards group character-
Stoerger’s (2014) question of whether computer mediated communi- istics. This and other studies such as Sánchez et al. (whose study shows a 
cation (CMC) alters deeply rooted cultural patterns of gender inequality, prevalence rate of 18.4 % males, as against 16.8 % females, being targets 
or whether such patterns are carried over into on-line communication, of Personal Sexual Cybervictimization; 2017: 177) suggest that both 
and the role of anonymity in these. They argue that “the body of evi- males and females (including group characteristics) can be targets of 
dence taken as a whole runs counter to the claim that gender is invisible various kinds of abuses – examples of which can be found in my study. 
2
G. Diabah                                                                                                                                                                                                    D  i s  c o  u  r s e  ,  C  o n  t e  x  t  &   M   e d  ia 51 (2023) 100667
All these can be attributed to how the social media provides large tension and anger (e.g., from anti-feminists); and as some of the par-
public platforms, which are largely unregulated for content, to circulate ticipants rightly observe, some people begin their comments with insults 
and perpetuate disparaging sexist comments. As rightly pointed out by without even watching the video to know Chimamanda’s line of 
Bouvier (2022), unlike in the past where the analysis of discourse pat- argument. 
terns and ideologies revealed “ideologies in texts disseminated to a 
population in a ‘top-down’ manner by monolithic centralized media 5. Methods and analytical underpinning 
institutions” (p.179), the social media landscape provides space for 
tracing dominant ideologies from various angles. This is a pluri- Data for this study were sourced from YouTube comments on Chi-
directional space in which all users can participate in the creation and mamanda’s TEDx talk We should all be feminists, from May to September 
dissemination of content, and where content is more fragmented, 2021. The talk, which was first posted by TEDx on YouTube on April 
moving in more complex and shifting ways (see also KhosraviNik and 2013 (see Adichie, 2013), had generated a total of 21, 541 comments 
Esposito (2018). I therefore agree with KhosraviNik and Esposito’s and over 7 million views by the end of September 2021 (note that this 
(2018) argument that the proliferation of the largely unregulated huge number for comments covers all entries, some of which are just 
user-generated content has been one of the major drawbacks of social emojis, tagging other people etc.). After reading through all comments, 
media, as it contributes to the increasing incidence of cyberhate. Such 59 comments which address my research aim (see Section 1) were 
uncivil language creates polarizations considered as part of the perpet- purposively selected for further analysis (but 30 have been cited here as 
uation of the US/THEM dichotomy (Bouvier, 2022; see also Section 4). examples because the rest point to similar themes). These include 
gendered pejoratives or insults – where a gendered pejorative or insult 
4. Discourse and ideology here refers to a comment which is aimed at insulting Chimamanda, 
because she is a woman or because of her feminist views, or to someone 
This paper generally follows a critical discourse analytic approach to (whether male or female) for expressing views considered to be 
the study of gender and language (see Lazar, 2005, 2007; Litosseliti, gendered. I also considered comments targeted at women and men in 
2006). It is particularly guided by van Dijk’s (1995a, 1995b, 2004, general, as well as those targeted at specific gender groups or group 
2006) theory of Discourse and Ideology, in which discourse analysis is characteristics (e.g., feminists, anti-feminists, male chauvinists). In 
seen as ideological analysis (van Dijk, 2004). Because discourses do other words, I considered all pejorative/insulting comments that tar-
ideological work (Fairclough et al., 2011), “ideologies are expressed and geted specific people and gender groups or group characteristics in ways 
generally reproduced in the social practices of their members, and more that reinforce or challenge certain gender ideologies and practices. 
particularly acquired, confirmed, changed and perpetuated through While my focus was not to analyze posts from females vs posts from 
discourse” (van Dijk, 2006: 115). In other words, people communicate males, it is important to mention that some participants directly self- 
their beliefs, ideas, and values as members of a group through their identified as male, female, feminist (e.g., ‘us women’) and others just 
speech or writing; and these beliefs, values etc. can be uncovered aligned their views with particular gender groups (e.g., using words like 
through a close reading of the text (either spoken or written) – bearing in ‘them’ [as against ‘us’] when referring to men in a discussion of male/ 
mind the context of the text, including the social practices that give rise female privileges suggests the person identifies as female; OR using 
to the text (Fairclough, 1992). This is similar to Chandler and Munday’s sentences like ‘we fought the wars for them … we make your house, 
(2011) description of ideological analysis in the Oxford Reference Dic- everything around you was made by a man’ suggests the person iden-
tionary of Media Communication as encompassing “the investigation of tifies as male). These were useful in discussing the US-THEM dichotomy. 
embedded values, beliefs, biases, and assumptions within a specific text, It is also worth noting that although Chimamanda’s talk was based 
in some domain of discourse, or in social practices within a particular on perspectives and experiences from Africa (but applicable to other 
cultural context, and of the motivations and power relations underlying contexts), I cannot claim that the comments are also African-centered 
these” (2011: no page). because it was difficult to categorize them into those from Africans 
As van Dijk (1995a) rightly observes, ideologies show a polarizing and those from non-Africans. It was only in few cases that participants 
structure between US (our group) and THEM (other groups) based on clearly indicated where they come from (some of whom were Africans). 
certain group interests (see also Bouvier, 2022). For example, feminists However, some participants also made references to Africa (but it was 
may see themselves as lacking equal rights in the family, access to ed- not clear whether they themselves are Africans). 
ucation, among others; but anti-feminists and male chauvinists may In addressing how certain gender ideologies, norms and stereotypes 
think otherwise (something which is a recurring issue in my data). From are reflected, reinforced, or challenged through the use of pejorative 
this self-serving nature of ideologies, they become akin to questions of language, I considered discourse analysis as ideological analysis (van 
power, conflicts, competition, and social antagonisms (Persson and Dijk, 2004). As van Dijk rightly points out, “the point of ideological 
Neto, 2018). This means that ideologies are often involved in social discourse analysis is not merely to discover underlying ideologies, but to 
conflicts between members of opposing groups (van Dijk, 1995a) and, as systematically link structures of discourse with structures of ideologies” 
such, they create room for pejoratives or insults to be used. Language, (1995a: 143). This can be done by analysing the expressions (including 
therefore, becomes the domain of dispute “where ideological clashes, para-linguistic forms) that point to people’s opinions (e.g., about 
social struggles and structural contradictions take place” (Persson and ‘Others’). It is often the case that ingroup members will choose (para-) 
Neto, 2018: 280; see also Lacerda, 2015). Because there is a ‘positive linguistic forms that describe them positively and ‘Others’ (their ‘en-
self’ and a ‘negative other’ perception (van Dijk, 2004), a speaker or emies’) negatively. In line with van Dijk’s (1995a, 1995b, 2004, 2006) 
writer is prone to using insulting language to represent the Other for approach, therefore, I offer an analysis of discourse structures and 
opposing their views. While much of such pejoratives or insults may be examine how they reinforce or challenge certain gender ideologies. I 
geared towards groups or group characteristics (e.g., feminists or male focus on (para-)linguistic forms and devices such as allusion, metaphor, 
chauvinists), there are others that target individuals for expressing simile, sarcasm, irony, rhetorical questions, capitalization, as well as 
opposing views or views considered to define them as members of the discourse semantics properties like implication, presupposition, and 
Other group. This approach is therefore useful in analysing the gendered lexicalization, which are useful for ideological discourse analysis. 
pejoratives or insults in the YouTube discussion of Chimamanda’s talk The findings are discussed in the following section. Pseudonyms, 
We should all be feminists – considering that uncivil language can fester consisting of the initials of participants, have been used. 
because the social media landscape provides space for all users to create 
and disseminate content in a largely unregulated manner (Bouvier, 2022). 
Indeed, the call in the title for all to be feminists is even enough to create 
3
G. Diabah                                                                                                                                                                                                    D  i s  c o  u  r s e  ,  C  o n  t e  x  t  &   M   e d  ia 51 (2023) 100667
6. Results and discussion instance, expresses the fear that “once certain equality indicators …. are 
[believed to have been] achieved by women, feminism is considered to 
This paper set out to investigate how the use of certain pejoratives or have outlived its purposes and ceases to be of relevance” (p.17), despite 
insults (including para-linguistic strategies) reflects, reinforces, or the fact that there is still “subtle sexism” (p.20). KhosraviNik and 
challenges certain gender ideologies and practices. The emerging Esposito (2018: 52) similarly argue that this widespread assumption that 
themes are discussed below. gender equality has been substantively achieved leaves a residue of 
sexism in popular culture, and this may account for the reluctance to 
6.1. Tensions with gender (in)equality discuss sexist speech in terms of hate speech. 
The depth of CVA’s insult is, however, seen when we consider 
Key among the YouTube comments on the TEDx talk We should all be together the description of AC’s brain as “tiny” and the conditional 
feminists (Adichie, 2013) is the feminist ideology of gender inequality. clause “if you are capable to do so”. Note that the condition for the 
Indeed, this forms the basis for the talk – hence, a call for equal rights realization of the proposition expressed in the main clause (“you will 
and treatment. But as already indicated, because ideologies show a find your privilege”) is AC’s ability to observe a little and reflect – but 
polarizing structure between US and THEM (e.g., whereas feminists may will her “tiny brain” be able to do that? In other words, CVA’s sarcasm 
see themselves as lacking equal rights in the family, anti-feminists may implies that because AC has a tiny brain, she is incapable of observing 
think otherwise), they often become akin to conflicts and social antag- and reflecting on the fact that women have privileges, an argument 
onisms between members of opposing groups or people with opposing which does not only challenge the ideology of gender inequality, but 
views (van Dijk, 1995a; Persson and Neto, 2018). This, therefore, creates also blurs the lines between US and THEM. The counterattack from FR 
room for insults and other pejoratives to be used, examples of which are (“pathetic little patriarchal dwarf!”; 1d) positions her as supporting the 
discussed below (see Adichie, 2013 for the data): feminist ideology of gender inequality. By describing CVA as a “patri-
Example 1  archal dwarf”, FR indirectly argues that CVA’s views are suggestive of 
male supremacy, something which is at the heart of the feminist quest 
a. CS: We need equality. Not female privilege. Not male privilege. for equal rights and treatment. However, considering that the word 
Equality.  ‘dwarf’ already entails ‘short’, ‘small’ or ‘little’, describing CVA further 
b. AC: Where is my female privilege? lmao I want it  as little and pathetic diminishes his status as a man, and likewise his 
c. CVA: @AC… Observe a little bit and reflect with your tiny brain, views. 
if you are capable to do so. Then you will find your privilege.  In Example (2a), DS (who identifies as a male and a feminist) at-
d. FR: @CVA. Pathetic little patriarchal dwarf! Do you feel better tempts an explanation of why male chauvinists detest equality – the 
minimizing other people? Do feel bigger then? Your comment is just desire to keep holding on to their privileges. This, therefore, makes the 
a very fine example for toxic masculinity. Congratulation! discourses against women’s quest for equality part of a male conspiracy 
or ploy to keep the gender order in place because it favours them. JC’s 
Example 2  insult “you’re a fucking fool” (2b) is however intended to discredit DS’ 
accusation because he believes “there are privileges associated with 
a. DS: The reason why men are so hostile towards feminism is both sexes”. These tensions or “struggles” (cf. Fairclough, 1989, p. 28)) 
because feminism seeks the end of male supremacy and male which either reify or blur the US/THEM gender dichotomy are indeed 
privilege. When you have privilege, you don’t want to give it up … always part of competing gender ideologies in any society (Bouvier, 
The realization that we benefit from the structural oppression of 2022). They also reflect how social media content moves in complex and 
women is too much for many of us to handle … I’m proud to be a shifting ways (Bouvier, 2022). 
feminist and to stand with women as they continue the fight for In a similar example, a comment from someone (who identifies as a 
equality.  male) which supports feminist ideologies attracts various comments, 
b. JC: @DS If you think women don’t have a ton of privileges that men some of which criticize him for his views. The comment is reproduced in 
don’t then, you’re a fucking fool. I think there are privileges asso- Example (3a), with some responses in (b) and (c). 
ciated with both sexes why focus on just the ones that men have? Example 3  
Comments in both Examples (1) and (2) touch on the issue of gender a. JJ: Frankly, I feel ashamed because I, being a man, did a lot of those 
inequality, the major ideology that drives the feminist movement (or so things that she mentioned. Now I cannot change the society, but I can 
we are expected to believe). Lazar (2007) argues that there is an definitely change myself. At least, I will try to. And I will raise my son 
“ideological structure of gender that privileges men as a social group, and daughter appropriately, as individuals.  
giving them what Connell (1995) terms a ‘patriarchal dividend’, in b. CM: You shouldn’t listen to them, we fought the wars for them … we 
terms of access to symbolic, social, political, and economic capital” make your house, everything around you was made by a man. AND 
(p.146). It is in line with these understandings that CS, for instance, YOU FEEL BAD FOR THEM, shame on you!  
reiterates the core mandate of feminism Chimamanda talked about (1a). c. RA: RL if one man making one comment about how he will raise his 
However, because the feminist ideology of inequality is a contested one, children makes you ashamed he is man like you then your sense of 
it creates room for inflammatory language use. AC’s sarcastic rhetorical self must be fragile like a tiny little hollowed egg shell. 
question (“where is my female privilege?”, 1b) in response to CS’ 
comment generates more direct personal attacks and counterattacks By arguing that he feels ashamed for behaving in ways that undercut 
from other participants (see 1c and 1d). Through her use of “lmao” (an the spirit of gender equality, JJ was vilified by CM (“shame on you!”, b) 
acronym for the slang ‘laughing my ass off’), AC considers the existence because he (CM) believes in male supremacy – “everything around you 
of a female privilege ridiculous. In other words, it is non-existent. By this was made by a man” (b). Also worth noting is how CM dichotomizes the 
she aligns herself with and reinforces the feminist ideology of gender relationship between men and women in ways that set them against each 
inequality - something which underscores an US/THEM dichotomy be- other (men equals US, positive self-representation; women equals 
tween females and males. It is her alliance with this view that makes THEM, negative other-representation; see van Dijk, 1995a). He does so 
CVA attack her intelligence (1c). CVA’s statement may superficially through the use of pronouns such as “we” (men) and “them” (women, 
mean “if you pay more attention, then you will see your female privi- feminists), and as Bouvier (2022) rightly observes from a feminist crit-
leges”, suggesting that feminism has probably outlived its relevance ical discourse studies perspective, such pronouns are very commonly 
(KhosraviNik and Esposito, 2018; Gamble, 2006). Lazar (2005), for used in CDA to express and manipulate social relations. Although it is 
4
G. Diabah                                                                                                                                                                                                    D  i s  c o  u  r s e  ,  C  o n  t e  x  t  &   M   e d  ia 51 (2023) 100667
not clear if RA’s comment in (c) is a direct response to CM’s comment second-class citizens or inferior, c), something which befits women – the 
(there was no name with the initials ‘RL’ in the thread), this attack is still reason why any man who disagrees with his comment is described as 
worth considering because it castigates men (like CM) who criticize JJ “trying to get laid”. Worth noting here is the passivity of the construc-
for his comments. The depth of the insult is seen in the use of the simile tion. Thus, this is a denigrating comment that suggests unmanliness or 
“your sense of self must be fragile like a tiny little hollowed egg shell” (c). inferiority. SS, on the other hand, substitutes being a feminist (what is 
The target’s ego or self-esteem is compared to not just an eggshell, but stated in Chimamanda’s title) with being an ape in his disparaging 
one that is tiny, little and hollow. Indeed, putting the synonyms tiny and comment in (e). By this metaphor, SS suggests that feminists are less 
little together creates a vivid image of something that is almost non- human (and since apes are closer to humans than any other animal, I 
existent (note that in Examples 1c and 1d, CVA and FR also use the di- believe it makes this pejorative even more painful, i.e., almost human). 
minutives tiny and little to belittle their targets, something which is This indirectly questions Chimamanda’s call for all to be feminists and 
common in social media flaming, KhosraviNik and Esposito, 2018; Jane, provides a reason for it not to be complied with. 
2015). Additionally, this eggshell, which is already fragile, is considered In all, these comments align with van Dijk’s (1995a, 2004) argument 
hollow, which can make breaking it much easier. This therefore re- about positive self and negative other representations – representations 
inforces the image of this man’s alleged low self-esteem. By this insult, which perpetuate an anti-men discourse. AP, for instance, uses insulting 
RA upholds the feminist ideology of inequality that Chimamanda raises language (both directly and indirectly) to represent the ‘Other’ in a 
in her talk. Through the discourse semantics property of implications negative light. While much of these insults are geared towards the 
(see van Dijk, 1995b), a deeper understanding of RA’s insult can be feminist group and/or its characteristics, there are others that target 
arrived at by juxtaposing it with the discourses around insecure mas- individuals for expressing opposing views or views considered to define 
culinity (see Diabah, 2020), where a man feels threatened by women’s them as members of the ‘Other’ (feminist) group, just as AP sees men 
independence (see Section 6.4 for further discussion). By raising girls who disagree with the view that feminism is satanic as “trying to get 
and boys equally, there will be no male supremacy, and as such, men laid”. 
who depend on this “patriarchal dividend” (Connell, 2005: 79) for their 
survival or to boost their egos will have them (egos) easily maimed like 6.3. Women and decency in dressing 
breaking “a tiny little hollowed egg shell”. 
Decency in dressing is one of the ideals of femininity in many cul-
6.2. Feminism as a toxic movement? tures. While it is expected of everyone (whether male or female) to show 
some decency in their appearance, it is practically perceived as though it 
People, especially in social media spaces, often make a distinction is a requirement for women. In Ghana, for example, when someone is 
between true feminism (the advocacy of women’s rights based on the referred to as a responsible girl, this includes the feminine ideals of hard- 
equality of the sexes) and toxic feminism (creating a false perception of work, submissiveness, engaging in domestic duties (like cooking, 
feminism, e.g., through discriminatory attitudes or hostility towards cleaning etc) and dressing properly (see Fiaveh et al., 2015 for similar 
men) - see Atanga (2013) for some reviews. But there are others who also comments). Indeed, some research on sexual violence have shown the 
believe that everything feminism is toxic, and as such, a call for all to be perpetuation of a ‘blame-the-victim’ discourse in which female rape 
feminists is a recipe for gendered pejoratives. This anti-feminist victims are accused of indecent dressing, which may have lured ‘inno-
discourse is captured in the following comments in Example 4: cent’ men into committing the act (see Clark, 1998; Diabah, 2013). 
Example 4  Yet, one of the feminist ideologies is independence – including that of 
women’s bodies and what they do with them (Ampofo et al., 2004; see 
a. FM: We should all be part of a toxic movement that has lied its way also Jewkes and Morrell, 2010), aspects of which may be in contra-
all throughout history till now? Wow what a “brilliant” idea.  vention of cultural prescriptions of decency. An example of this was 
b. TSV: The misandry in this video is insane.  echoed in Chimamanda’s talk, and this generated a lot of discussion. 
c. AP: a bunch of betas in this comment section, feminism is satanic. Among the comments were pejoratives that either reinforce or challenge 
If you say you disagree and you’re a man, you’re trying to get laid.  the notions of ‘keeping oneself’ (i.e., fidelity) and ‘decent’ dressing as 
d. TV: This woman Ngozi Adichie is a total Lunatic ,- and all the many ideals of femininity (note that Chimamanda has been criticized by 
pure nonsensical statements she makes in this Presentation are McLoughlin [2021] for allegedly asserting some connection between 
absurd and astounding.  feminism and appearance by foregrounding makeup wearing and 
e. SS: “We should all be apes” fashion, among others, as conditions for women’s fulfilment). KE quotes 
Chimamanda’s comment in Example (5a), which generates the re-
Without considering the contents of the video, some participants in sponses in (b-d): 
the comments section attack the notion of feminism and those who Example 5  
support it (a, c, e). For instance, FM describes feminism as toxic and 
therefore questions the call for all to get involved (his use of a rhetorical a. KE: … “close your legs! cover yourself! we make them (girls) feel as 
question here is important). The sarcasm in his comment is highlighted though by being born female they’re already guilty of something“ 
through his ironic statement “what a ‘brilliant’ idea” (also note the use of WOW  
the scare quotes). It is obviously not a brilliant idea to be part of a b. RL: Shouldn’t you cover your legs though? Isn’t that common 
movement that is considered “toxic”. The so-called toxicity of feminism sense? And yes, if you don’t use your common sense, you ARE 
is also seen in how TSV describes Chimamanda’s views about feminism guilty.  
as “misandry” (i.e., anti-men), hence a reflection of insanity (b) – this is c. KE: @RL. Hello! Are you implying that men are animals with no 
similar to Geisler’s (2004) argument that ‘Western’ feminism focusses self-control that have to JUMP on a “prey” because her legs 
on “fighting against men” (p. 9, cited in Atanga, 2013: 303). TV ex- aren’t covered? I hope not.  
presses similar concerns in a much stronger way, and with more d. PA: @KE. Teach your daughters to exercise their open leg rights well. 
derogatory terms, when he describes Chimamanda as “a total lunatic” They’ll bring you a lot of medals they’ll win. You can as well leave 
for making “pure nonsensical statements” (d). By their comments, these your doors open since the thief has no right to steal, “wise woman.” 
participants use pejoratives to challenge the feminist ideology of 
inequality. In response to KE’s original post in (a), RL (b) draws on what may be 
On his part, AP does not only perceive feminism as satanic (implying considered as a common-sense ideology discourse – it is common sense 
that it is evil), but he also sees its supporters as “a bunch of betas” (i.e., for someone not to expose sensitive parts of her (or his) body. This view 
5
G. Diabah                                                                                                                                                                                                    D  i s  c o  u  r s e  ,  C  o n  t e  x  t  &   M   e d  ia 51 (2023) 100667
of what constitutes common sense aligns with the interpretation of for great and positive achievements). He also draws on the discourse 
‘common sense’ associated with Gramsci (see for instance Hall et al., semantics property of implications and a common-sense ideology when 
1978). According to van Dijk, the notion of ’common sense’ associated he makes an analogy between women’s so-called rights to their bodies 
with Gramsci encompasses “what social members ‘take for granted’” and stealing. The implication of his statement is that although the thief 
(1995b: 245). This also aligns with the principles of hegemony – that has no right to take what does not belong to him, even if it is exposed 
hegemonic beliefs are common-sensical (cf. Gramsci). From a Feminist (which may be the right of the owner), they do it anyway. So common 
Critical Discourse Perspective, Lazar (2007) expresses a similar view sense should tell people not to always insist on their rights. 
when she argues that: On the back of this discussion, calling her a “wise woman” is ironic 
Gender ideology is hegemonic in that it often does not appear as and insulting. It presupposes that it is only a fool who will expose her 
domination at all, appearing instead as largely consensual and body and argue that it is her right when the dangers are glaring. van Dijk 
acceptable to most in a community. The winning of consent and the (1995b: 273) notes that because presuppositions “pertain to knowledge 
perpetuation of the otherwise tenuous relation of dominance or other beliefs that are not asserted, but simply assumed to be true by 
(Gramsci, 1971) are largely accomplished through discursive means, the speaker, they are able to ’introduce’ ideological propositions whose 
especially in the ways ideological assumptions are constantly re- truth is not uncontroversial at all”. In this case, PA introduces an anti- 
enacted and circulated through discourse as commonsensical and feminist discourse whose ‘truth’ is unquestionable. Indeed, both impli-
natural. The taken-for-grantedness and normalcy of such knowledge cations and presuppositions “allow speakers or writers to make claims 
is what mystifies or obscures the power differential and inequality at without actually asserting them” and, presuppositions, in particular, 
work (Lazar, 2007: 147) “take specific beliefs for granted although they might not be” (van Dijk, 1995b: 273). This creates room for the perpetuation of ideologies about 
This common-sense ideology makes the quest for women to “cover social norms, values, group rights and interests. 
up” appear unquestionable as it emphasizes cherished values. It is based 
on this common-sense ideology that defaulting women “ARE guilty” 6.4. Women’s success as a potential threat to the male ego 
(note RL’s use of upper-case for emphasis, what Jane [2015] refers to as 
“typographic energy”, p.66). This aligns with van Dijk’s argument that One of Chimamanda’s statements in the talk which has become a 
“the most fundamental way of establishing a distinction between THEM popular quote in the YouTube conversation thread is “we teach girls to 
and US is not only to describe ourselves in benevolent terms and them in shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller, we say to girls you can 
negative terms, but to emphasize that the Others violate the very norms and have ambition- but not too much, you should aim to be successful but 
values we hold dear” (1995a: 156; my emphasis). not too successful otherwise you will threaten the man … a man who 
Like McLoughlin (2021), KE deconstructs RL’s text, by preblema- would be intimidated by me is exactly the kind of man that I would have 
tising that which is passed off as ‘common sense’ (Lazar, 2007 also ar- no interest in”. In one of the conversation threads, CC shares her per-
gues that irrespective of the hegemonic nature of prevailing gender sonal experience in the light of Chimamanda’s comments above (see 
ideologies, they are contestable). That is, KE questions this common- Example 6a). This generates the responses in (b-d), some of which are 
sense ideology by highlighting the feminist ideology of equal human gendered pejoratives. 
rights (c). She believes that women have the right to their bodies and to Example 6  
how they dress. Through a combination of linguistic and paralinguistic 
strategies like indirection, metaphor, and rhetorical questions (which a. CC: I’ve been told a lot of times by my teachers and mentors that I’m 
work together as a form of a gendered pejorative), she constructs men as too ambitious and I will not get married because no man will have me 
people with no self-control. For instance, her question in (c) can best be under their roof. Today my career has been all about growth and I’m 
interpreted as a rhetorical question because the answer is embedded in married. The modern man will love an ambitious woman for all she 
the question. Her use of the verb ‘JUMP’ (including the upper-case for stands for. Don’t ever let your ambition be disregarded because 
emphasis or prominence, what Bouvier calls “shouting”, 2022: 191) to people believe you shouldn’t be as successful as your counterpart. 
describe the action of such men and the noun ‘prey’ (vulnerable and Thanks Chimmanda for speaking out!  
defenseless) for the women/girls indeed suggests that she sees such men b. KJ: … She [CC] might be married, but her husband is a feminine 
(and men in general) as not only lacking self-control, but they are man. Not on the outside but within. This lady is full boss, in her 
metaphorically seen as ‘animals’. That is, it is only an ‘animal’, with no relationship. That’s not equality, but rather greed.  
self-control, that can “JUMP” on a vulnerable or defenseless person. Her c. ET: A modern man wants a woman who can live by her own money.  
rhetorical question and the following statement (“I hope not”) function d. IM: @ET A modern man wants a mommy-wife who provides for 
as a form of indirection which can let her off the hook for using gendered him because he symbolically gets stuck in the nurturing womb for 
pejoratives – after all, she is only asking whether they are animals, and ever. Men today are not men anymore. 
she hopes it is not what she suspects. These tie in with the hetero-
normative ideology around sex which assumes that women are passive In response to someone’s comment thanking CC for sharing her 
sex objects and potential victims, while men are active sex agents experience, KJ castigates CC in Example (b). In his view, a married 
(driven by sexual urges) and potential predators (see Diabah, 2020). But woman who is able to fulfil her ambitions and becomes successful can 
Diabah (2020) also emphasizes the “power of the vagina” which can better be described as a “full boss” in her relationship, thereby emas-
“make and unmake men” (p.114), an indication of the post-structuralist culating her husband. Using the gendered pejorative “feminine man”, KJ 
understanding of diverse subject positionings (Baxter, 2008). constructs CC’s husband as unmanly for accommodating the ambitions 
In response to KE’s comment in Example (c), PA also makes a of his wife. Indeed, such comments reiterate Chimamanda’s argument 
comment which is loaded with a lot of linguistic forms and strategies because the reason why CC’s husband has been emasculated by KJ is 
such as metaphor, sarcasm, irony, presupposition, implication, and because he has allowed his wife to fulfil her ambition and become suc-
analogy. First, PA alludes to the feminist ideology of women’s rights to cessful – which contradicts traditional gender norms/practices. This 
their bodies by advising KE to teach her daughters to “exercise their aligns with feminist critical studies which have suggested that “de-
open leg rights” (d). This advice is indeed sarcastic, especially when it is viations from gender-appropriate norms are policed and contained in 
interpreted in the light of the subsequent sentences. For instance, the the presence of a prevailing discourse of heteronormativity” (Lazar, 
consequence of exercising this “open leg rights” could be unwanted 2007: 148). Since no man wants to feel emasculated, a woman’s success 
pregnancy, rape or even contracting sexually transmitted diseases. is a potential threat to the male ego. But the discussion here also ref-
Ironically, PA sees these as “medals” (which are supposed to be rewards erences the post-structuralist understanding of diverse (and sometimes 
6
G. Diabah                                                                                                                                                                                                    D  i s  c o  u  r s e  ,  C  o n  t e  x  t  &   M   e d  ia 51 (2023) 100667
complex) subject positionings (Baxter, 2008). h. IM: @RSM Exactly. It is us women who are so arrogant whenever we 
With reference to KJ’s interpretation of being ambitious as a sign of feel superior to men. It is us who lose total respect for men when we 
greed in women, it may be argued that KJ alludes to the gendered feel they are beneath us. The Western woman is the epitome of 
traditional role of men as the breadwinners. If the man is the bread- arrogance and rebellion. 
winner, then a woman’s ambition in relation to career progression or 
success can be interpreted as greediness – after all, it is the man’s re- In Example (b), BB responds to MO by describing her not only as 
sponsibility to take care of her material needs. Contrary to this implied arrogant but also as a narcissist who is too full of herself, giving herself 
assertion by KJ, ET argues that “a modern man wants a woman who can more credit than she deserves. This is further strengthened through 
live by her own money” (c). Although IM’s comments in (d) appear to hyperbole, as BB metaphorically compares MO’s ego to Jupiter (the fifth 
support ET’s argument (which is intended to discredit Chimamanda’s planet from the sun and the largest in the solar system). Other pejora-
argument that men get threatened or emasculated by women’s ambi- tives (both direct and indirect) have also been used to reinforce this so- 
tions and success), a critical analysis of the sarcasm in these comments called arrogance associated with feminists and successful women (e, g, 
shows otherwise. IM reinforces the gender stereotype that men are the h) – something which challenges the traditional gender expectation of 
breadwinners. They are therefore not expected to depend on their wives, women’s submission to men. For instance, people who believe that men 
like a child will depend on his mother for nurturing (but perhaps more feel intimidated by women’s success instead of viewing it as a source of 
conspicuous is the stereotype that women or mothers are nurturers). In arrogance are described as delusional (e). IM also believes that because 
other words, what makes a man is his ability to provide for his wife (and women are unable to stand the “equality lie” (implying women are not 
family), and not the other way round – note the use of the phrase “a really interested in equality but in sustaining the gender order), they 
mommy-wife” to suggest that the wife is also playing the role of a become “crazy” (arrogant) when they have a little taste of power or 
mother, the reason why “men today are not men anymore”. So, yes, IM superiority – more like misplaced power (g); and the western woman is 
agrees with ET that men of today do not have a problem letting their the prototypical example of such arrogance and rebellion (h). 
wives shine or become successful; but that, in fact, is the problem. The On his part, PE casts insinuations that imply that feminists or these 
problem with letting women follow their passion and become successful so-called successful women are some old, ugly and infertile women who 
is that such men are weaklings who only want “mommy-wives”, instead cannot get men for themselves (c). In fact, this alludes to one of the 
of fulfilling societal expectations of them as men. These comments popular perceptions or myths that feminists are a bunch of frustrated 
denigrate not only such ‘liberal’ men, but modern men in general. It women who cannot get husbands, or feminists who simply hate men (see 
positions them not only as babies but also as irresponsible. Bouvier chapter 3 of Anderson, 2020).1 But of course, this is a perception that 
(2022) refers to such language use as ‘hate speech’, in that “it de- people like DN disagree with, as she describes such people as “weak, 
humanizes a whole group of people by attributing to them certain pathetic, scared and afraid” (d). By these adjectives, DN reinforces 
fundamental qualities given as inherent to all”, an example of which is Chimamanda’s and MO’s argument that some men feel intimidated by 
“moral and intellectual inferiority or criminality” (p.190). This “aims at women’s achievements. 
the affective level to foster clear polarizations” (Bouvier, 2022: 190), From the responses to MO’s quotation, women’s success (and inde-
which are evidence of the US vs THEM dichotomy (van Dijk, 1995a). By pendence) is generally perceived as making them arrogant and bossy, 
their pejorative language use, these participants reinforce certain gender which is what men detest and not that they feel intimidated or threat-
norms and stereotypes: men as breadwinners/women as dependents; ened. However, men detest such arrogance and bossiness because these 
men as heads of the family/women as subordinates; women as nurturers challenge their authority, e.g., as heads of the family. If that is the case, 
or providers (an allusion to women’s dyadic power in the family). then the question is whether that is not, indeed, a feeling of intimidation 
In Example (7a), MO also quotes an aspect of Chimamanda’s argu- or threat? Whilst this may be true, we must also not lose sight of the 
ment above. This generates many responses, some of which are captured other perspective – that the so-called arrogance stems from the fact that 
in (b-i). most women feel uncomfortable when they are seen in the eyes of so-
Example 7  ciety as more successful than their husbands (see IM’s comment in 
Example g). IM’s use of the US/THEM (women/men) dichotomy in both 
a. MO: a man who will be intimidated by me is exactly the kind of man examples (g) and (h) also highlights what she sees as a deeply 
I’d have no interest in.  entrenched gender belief or unequal power relations between women 
b. BB: Maybe it’s not that they’re “intimidated”. Maybe it’s just that and men, thus seeing the fight for equality as a “lie” (g). These argu-
you’re an arrogant narcissist with an ego the size of Jupiter.  ments are reflections of the traditional gender order, the unquestionable 
c. PE: They are not intimidated. They are just not interested. Men and taken-for-granted superiority of men and the subordination of 
prefer young, pretty and fertile women.  women (see also Lazar, 2005, 2007) – which is also in line with the 
d. DN: After reading all these comments I think her point is perfectly notions of hegemonic masculinity and femininity (Connell, 2005; Con-
proven. You can’t attack the accuracy of her theory, so it comes down nell and Messerschmidt, 2005; Schippers, 2007). 
to who want to date her!!! All you persons are just weak, pathetic, 
scared and afraid  7. Conclusion 
e. RSM: women who think men are threatened by women (for any 
reason), are delusional. you need to watch Kevin Samuels. Men This paper set out to analyze gendered discourses and the use of 
don’t like the arrogance of women who make more money than insults and other pejoratives in social media spaces, focusing on You-
they do. Men are not intimidated or threatened by any women for Tube comments on Chimamanda’s We should all be feminists. The find-
any reason ings show that, by their pejorative language use, participants reinforce 
f. GA:@RSM isn’t it just the male ego that misinterpret and misun- as well as challenge certain gender ideologies and practices, often using 
derstand the women and call it arrogance? Just because A man feels an “US” vs ‘THEM’ framework (van Dijk, 1995a, 2004; Bouvier, 2022). 
it’s arrogance doesn’t necessarily mean so, it might be from bias  
g. IM: @GA Stop projecting! It is us women who cannot respect a man 
who earns less than us. No woman truly respects a man who is 1 For examples, among the myths about feminism are the following quota-
beneath her. Men are not threatened. It is us women who get tions: "Feminists are just angry because they can’t get laid/boyfriends", "Fem-
totally crazy when men are not superior. Because deep down inists are fat/ugly/hairy/lesbians" (See https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/ 
inside, we cannot stand that equality lie at all.  wiki/Myths_about_feminism; https://medium.com/@beckyroe8400/5-myths 
-about-feminists-d6fa3dcab732). 
7
G. Diabah                                                                                                                                                                                                    D  i s  c o  u  r s e  ,  C  o n  t e  x  t  &   M   e d  ia 51 (2023) 100667
That is, a gender ideology may be reinforced or challenged depending on Ampofo, A.A., Beoku-Betts, J., Njambi, W.N., Osirim, M., 2004. Women’s and gender 
which side of the US/THEM dichotomy-one belongs. For instance, by studies in English-Speaking Sub-Saharan Africa: a review of research in the social 
sciences. Gend. Soc. 18, 685–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204269188. 
supporting Chimamanda’s argument against socio-cultural constraints Anderson, K.J., 2020. Benign Bigotry: The Psychology of Subtle Prejudice. Cambridge 
on girls’ ambition and success, some participants who support the University Press, Cambridge.  
feminist ideology of gender inequality and the quest for equality chal- Atanga, L., 2013. African Feminism? In: Atanga, L., Ellece, S., Litosseliti, L., 
Sunderland, J. (Eds.), Gender and language in Sub-Saharan Africa: Tradition, 
lenge the notion of women’s subordination to men or their dependence struggle and change. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 301–314. 
on men. On the other hand, others (subtly) reinforce male superiority by Bamman, D., Eisenstein, J., Schnoebelen, T., 2014. Gender identity and lexical variation 
interpreting women’s success (or independence) as making them arro- in social media. J. Socioling. 18 (2), 135–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12080. 
gant and rebellious. It must be noted, however, that much of the dis- Baxter, J., 2008. Feminist Post-structuralist Discourse Analysis – A new theoretical and methodological approach? In: Harrington, K., Litosseliti, L., Sauntson, H., 
cussion is tilted towards (subtly) reinforcing gender stereotypes and Sunderland, J. (Eds.), Gender and language research methodology. Palgrave 
practices, as well as keeping the gender order and power relations in MacMillan, Basingstoke, pp. 243–255. 
place: men as breadwinners/women as dependents; men as heads of the Bouvier, G., 2022. From ‘echo chambers’ to ‘chaos chambers’: discursive coherence and contradiction in the #MeToo Twitter feed. Crit. Discourse Stud. 19 (2), 179–195. 
family/women as subordinates; women as nurturers, the expectation of https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2020.1822898. 
women to be ‘covered up’ in their dressing and be submissive to their Chandler, D., Munday, R., 2011. A Dictionary of Media Communication, first edition. 
male partners. The role of insults and other pejoratives in all these is, of Oxford University Press, Oxford. Accessed on June 5, 2021, from https://www.oxf ordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199568758.001.0001/acref-9780199 
course, to be expected because in the title of the talk (We should all be 568758-e-1259. 
feminists) is a call for all to be part of something that has been viewed Clark, K., 1998. The linguistics of blame: Representations of women in The Sun’s 
negatively – a challenge to gender norms and practices, which have reporting of crimes of sexual violence. In: Cameron, D. (Ed.), The Feminist Critique 
of Language. Routledge, London, pp. 183–197. 
hitherto been part of our common-sense. And social media provides Coates, S., 2019. Language choice and gender in a Nordic social media corpus. Nordic J. 
more fertile grounds for such insults to fester (KhosraviNik and Esposito, Linguist. 42, 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586519000039. 
2018; Hardaker and McGlashan, 2016; Bouvier, 2022). Because of the Connell, W.R., 2005. Masculinities, second ed. University of California Press, California.  
Connell, R.W., Messerschmidt, J.W., 2005. Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the 
anonymity the social media provides, and the fact that it is less regulated concept. Gend. Soc. 19 (6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639. 
for content, people use language to injure the feelings of others in ways Diabah, G., 2013. ‘I cannot be blamed for my own assault’: Ghanaian media discourses 
that they would ordinarily not be able to do in face-to-face conversations on the context of blame in Mzbel’s sexual assault. In: Atanga, L., Ellece, S., 
or before Web 2.0. Indeed, Hardaker and McGlashen (2016: 82) rightly Litosseliti, L., Sunderland, J. (Eds.), Gender and Language in Sub-Saharan Africa: Tradition, Struggle and Change. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 275–299. 
note that “users may experience a sense of disinhibition such that they Diabah, G., 2020. Projecting masculinities or breaking sociolinguistic norms? The role of 
become willing to express opinions online that they would never voice if women’s representation in students’ profane language use. Gend. Lang. 14 (1), 
they knew that those opinions could be attributed to them offline”. 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.37943. Diabah, G., 2022. Masculinity as a ‘hard small cage’? Reflections from Chimamanda 
Herring and Stoerger (2014) argue that while anonymity (or its close Adichie’s We should all be feminists. Legon J. Humanit. 33 (1), 39–62. https://doi. 
relative, pseudonymity) is often claimed to promote gender equality, org/10.4314/ljh.v33i1.2. 
this claim is problematic for various reasons. For example, anonymity Fairclough, N., 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press, Cambridge.  Fairclough, N., Mulderrig, J., Wodak, R., 2011. Critical discourse analysis. In: van Dijk, T. 
“reduces social accountability, making it easier for harassers to engage (Ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Sage, London, 
in hostile, aggressive acts” (Herring and Stoerger, 2014: 576). This is pp. 357–378. 
shown in how both males and females in this study freely use pejoratives Felmlee, D., Inara Rodis, P., Zhang, A., 2020. Sexist slurs: reinforcing feminine 
stereotypes online. Sex Roles 83, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019- 
or insults targeted at gender groups, group characteristics, and in- 01095-z. 
dividuals who oppose their views. Reducing the discussion of such Fiaveh, D.Y., Izugbara, C.O., Okyerefo, M.P.K., Reysoo, F., Fayorsey, C.K., 2015. 
important socio-cultural issues to insults does not only reify the di- Constructions of masculinity and femininity and sexual risk negotiation practices 
among women in urban Ghana. Cult. Health Sex. 17, 650–662. https://doi.org/ 
chotomy between men and women which feminism seeks to bridge, but 10.1080/13691058.2014.989264. 
it also waters down the value or the relevance of the socio-cultural issues Hall, S., Lumley, B., McLennan, G., 1978. Politics and ideology: Gramsci. In: Hall, S., 
being discussed. A more effective way of addressing the issue of gender Lumley, B., McLennan, G. (Eds.). Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (Ed.) On 
imbalances in the society (or the lack of it, as argued by some partici- Ideology. Hutchinson, London, pp. 45–76. Gamble, S., 2006. Postfeminism. In: Gamble, S. (Ed.), The Routledge companion to 
pants) is not by throwing words at each other, but by accommodating, feminism and postfeminim. Routledge, New York, pp. 36–45. 
and even encouraging, opposing views in a more civil way. This is key to Hardaker, C., McGlashan, M., 2016. ‘‘Real men don’t hate women’’: Twitter rape threats 
unearthing deeply-rooted gender ideologies so they can be addressed and group identity. J. Pragmat. 91, 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2015.11.005. 
holistically. Herring, S.C., 2003. Gender and power in on-line communication. In: Holmes, J., 
Meyerhoff, M. (Eds.), The Handbook of Language and Gender. Blackwell, Oxford, 
Funding pp. 202–228. Herring, S.C., Stoerger, S., 2014. Gender and (a)nonymity in computer-mediated 
communication. In: Ehrlich, S., Meyerhoff, M., Holmes, M. (Eds.), The Handbook of 
This work was supported by the Fulbright African Research Scholar/ Language, Gender, and Sexuality, second ed. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 567–586. 
Visiting Scholar Program; [Grant No. SGH10021IN3016, 2021]. Hosseini, M., Tammimy, Z., 2015. Recognizing Users Gender in Social Media Using 
Linguistic Features. Department of Information Technology, Faculty of Industrial 
Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Iran.  
Declaration of Competing Interest Jane, E.A., 2015. Flaming? What flaming? The pitfalls and potentials of researching 
online hostility. Ethics Inf. Technol. 17 (1), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676- 
015-9362-0. 
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Jewkes, R., Morrell, R., 2010. Gender and sexuality: emerging perspectives from the 
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence heterosexual epidemic in South Africa and implications for HIV risk and prevention. 
the work reported in this paper. J. Int. AIDS Soc. 13 (6), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-2652-13-6. 
KhosraviNik, M., Esposito, E., 2018. Online hate, digital discourse and critique: 
Exploring digitally-mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility. Lodz 
References Pap. Pragmat. 14 (1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2018-0003. 
Lacerda, D.S., 2015. Rio de Janeiro and the divided state: analysing the political 
Adichie, C.N., 2015. We Should All be Feminists. Anchor Books, New York, NY.  discourse on favelas. Discourse Soc. 26 (1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 
Adichie, C.N., 2013. We should all be feminists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h 0957926514541346. 
g3umXU_qWc&t=5s (accessed May-September, 2021). Lazar, M.M., 2005. Politicizing gender in discourse: Feminist critical discourse analysis 
Agyepong, D.P., Diabah, G., 2021. ‘Next time stay in your war room and pray for your as political perspective and praxis. In: Lazar, M.M. (Ed.), Feminist Critical Discourse 
boys’ or return to your kitchen: sexist discourses in Ghana’s 2019 National Science Analysis: Gender, Power and Ideology in Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, 
and Math Quiz. Discourse Soc. 32 (3), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Basingstoke, pp. 1–28. 
0957926520977220. Lazar, M.M., 2007. Feminist critical discourse analysis: articulating a feminist discourse 
praxis. Crit. Discourse Stud. 4 (2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 
17405900701464816. 
8
G. Diabah                                                                                                                                                                                                    D  i s  c o  u  r s e  ,  C  o n  t e  x  t  &   M   e d  ia 51 (2023) 100667
Litosseliti, L., 2006. Gender and Language: Theory and Practice. Hodder Education, van Dijk, T.A., 1995b. Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse Soc. 6 (2), 243–289. 
London.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006002006. 
McLoughlin, L., 2021. Multimodal constructions of feminism: the transfiguration of van Dijk, T.A., 2004. Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In: Schäffner, C., 
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in Vogue. In: Angouri, J., Baxter, J. (Eds.), The Wenden, A.L. (Eds.), Language & Peace. Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 17–33. 
Routledge Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality. Routledge, Abingdon, van Dijk, T.A., 2006. Ideology and discourse analysis. J. Polit. Ideol. 11 (2), 115–140. 
pp. 494–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908. 
Nadim, M., Fladmoe, A., 2019. Silencing women? Gender and online harassment. Soc. van Slyke, C., Comunale, C., Belanger, F., 2002. Gender differences in perceptions of 
Sci. Comput. Rev. 39 (2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319865518. web-based shopping. Commun. ACM 45 (8), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 
Persson, E., Neto, L.M., 2018. Ideology and discourse in the public sphere: a critical 545151.545155. 
discourse analysis of public debates at a Brazilian public university. Discourse West, C., Zimmerman, D.H., 1987. Doing gender. Gend. Soc. 1 (2), 125–151. https://doi. 
Commun. 12 (3), 278–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481318757765. org/10.1093/OBO/9780199756384-0229. 
Sánchez, V., oz-Fernández, N.M., Vega-Gea, E., 2017. Peer sexual cybervictimization in Wodak, R., 2008. Controversial issues in feminist critical discourse analysis. In: 
adolescents: development and validation of a scale. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 17, Harrington, K., Litosseliti, L., Sauntson, H., Sunderland, J. (Eds.), Gender and 
171–179. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.04.001. Language Research Methodologies. Palgrave McMillan, New York, pp. 193–210. 
Schippers, M., 2007. Recovering the feminine other: masculinity, femininity, and gender Zhang, Y., Dang, Y., Chen, H., 2013. Research note: examining gender emotional 
hegemony. Theory Soc. 36 (1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9022- differences in web forum communication. Decis. Support Syst. 55 (3), 851–860. 
4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2013.04.003. 
Sun, Y., Wang, N., Shen, X., Zhang, J., 2015. Location information disclosure in location- 
based social network services: privacy calculus, benefit structure, and gender 
differences. Comput. Hum. Behav. 52, 278–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Grace Diabah is a Senior Lecturer of Linguistics at the Department of Linguistics, Uni-
chb.2015.06.006. versity of Ghana, Legon. She has a PhD in Applied Linguistics from Lancaster University 
Sunderland, J., 2004. Gendered Discourses. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.  (UK). Her teaching and research focus on language and gender, and language use in 
van Dijk, T.A., 1995a. Ideological discourse analysis. New Courant 4, 135–161. 10.18 specific domains. Her scholarly works cover a range of language and gender issues in 
542/moara.v2i6.2896. African contexts – in domains such as media, politics, education, and business. 
9