MUTED WOMEN IN AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: QUIETING THE ...web02.gonzaga.edu/comltheses/proquestftp/Skingel_gonzaga_0736M... · MUTED WOMEN IN AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: QUIETING

MUTED WOMEN IN AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: QUIETING THE LOUD SILENCE

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty in Communication and Leadership Studies

School of Professional Studies

Gonzaga University

Under the Supervision of Dr. Heather Crandall

Under the Mentorship of Dr. John Caputo

Department of Communication and Leadership Studies

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Masters of Arts in Communication and Leadership Studies

By

Constance M. Skingel

December 2012

MUTED WOMEN IN AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE 2


Abstract This study examines the way women are denied an equal voice in American politics

through disparities in our language structure and overt sexism. This thesis begins with a

review of the literature which discusses the need for an equitable and just society and how

the underlying structure of our language system is flawed in such a way that it subjugates

women and inhibits the development of such a society. This is followed by a brief summary

of why it is necessary for us to examine this societal disparity from the perspective of

women themselves. This thesis uses a pentadic analysis to specifically examine the

“vaginagate” incident that occurred in June 14, 2012, where Michigan Representative Lisa

Brown was silenced on the House floor for saying the word “vagina”. The goal of this study

is to determine the motivation behind Lisa Brown’s “muting” in an effort to determine if we

can prevent female politicians from being silenced in the future.


Contents

Chapter One: Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 6

The Problem.......................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Importance of the Study ............................................................................................................................................... 6

Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................................................................ 6

Definition of Terms ......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Organization of Remaining Chapters ...................................................................................................................... 7

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature .......................................................................................................................... 8

Philosophical Assumptions and Theoretical Basis ............................................................................................... 8

Egalitarianism ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Muted Group Theory ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Standpoint Theory ........................................................................................................................................................ 12

Literature Review ............................................................................................................................................................. 14

Language and the Sexes ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Silencing Women ........................................................................................................................................................... 18

Women and Politics...................................................................................................................................................... 19

Rationale............................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Research Questions .......................................................................................................................................................... 26

Chapter 3: Scope and Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 27

Scope ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Scope of the Study ......................................................................................................................................................... 27

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Pentadic Criticism – Overview .................................................................................................................................. 28

Pentadic Criticism – Method ..................................................................................................................................... 29

Ethical Concerns ............................................................................................................................................................ 31

Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32

Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 32

Results of the Study ......................................................................................................................................................... 33

Discussion ............................................................................................................................................................................ 35

Chapter 5: Summaries and Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 39

Limitations of the Study .................................................................................................................................................. 39


Recommendations for Further Study ......................................................................................................................... 40

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Appendix I................................................................................................................................................................................. 41

References ................................................................................................................................................................................ 47


Chapter One: Introduction

The Problem

Importance of the Study

Throughout the history of the United States, men have held most positions of power.

There have been, and continue to be, numerous barriers that have prevented women from

seeking office. When they do run, they often find that they are held to a different standard

than their male counterparts. Research reveals that women’s mode of speak, style of dress,

physical appearance, family life, and personality are all critiqued far more closely than men

seeking the same office.

There are a multitude of examples that outline the unfair treatment of women in

politics, and this study will explore one such example. On June 14, 2012, Lisa Brown, a

Michigan House Republican, was forbidden from speaking on the House floor after she

used the word “vagina” when debating a bill that dealt with female reproduction. This act of

silencing will be examined through the lens of muted group theory which argues that our

current language system gives males in our society an unfair advantage.

Statement of the Problem – Masculine Bias

The goal of this study is to determine the motivation behind the silencing of Lisa

Brown by her male House colleagues. The goal is to determine if we can learn anything that

might move us closer toward the goal of a society where women have a full voice in

American politics.


Definition of Terms

Muting: Any act of limiting the speech or rhetoric of another. Includes actual silencing,

limiting opportunities for speaking or writing, limiting what words can be used, and using

words that favor one group over another and/or exclude a population.

Standpoint: An individual worldview or perspective.

Vaginagate: An incident on June 14, 2012 where Michigan Representative Lisa Brown was

silenced by her male colleagues for using the word “vagina” on the House floor.

Egalitarianism: The philosophy that the genders should not only be equal, but that gender

should not matter at all.

Organization of Remaining Chapters

This study is organized into five chapters. The first chapter contains this

introduction, the definition of any terms which may be unfamiliar, and a statement of the

problem. Chapter two establishes the philosophical lens through which the problem is

explored. Following that, a review of the literature explores some of the ways in which our

language system is biased towards men and how women have been subjected to a double

standard in United States politics. Chapter three outlines the scope and methodology of the

study. Chapter four explains the results of the analysis and discusses the implications of the

findings. Finally, chapter five summarizes all findings, outlines limitations of the study, and

proposes ideas for future research.


Chapter Two: Review of the Literature

Philosophical Assumptions and Theoretical Basis

Egalitarianism

This study assumes that women are an oppressed populace and, therefore, the

ultimate goal is equality between the sexes. As such, the guiding philosophy for this study is

egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is “the position that equality is central to justice” (Gordon,

2008, p. 1). A feminist interpretation of egalitarianism is argued by Brighouse in Strong

Gender Egalitarianism. He argues that society should be moving toward the goal of “a

structure of social relations in which the division of labor… is unaffected by gender” (2008,

p. 360). He defines “unaffected by gender” as “no specific activities would be thought of as

men’s work or women’s work; nor would any activities be seen as more appropriate for

men or for women” (2008, p. 363).

This view of egalitarianism promotes what Brighouse calls “a strong view of gender

equality” that “advocates not simply a world in which men and women should have equal

rights or even equal opportunities for jobs and power… but a world without a socially

constructed gendered division of labor” (2008, p. 363). This view of egalitarianism is the

basis of this research and this research supports the underlying assumption that strong

gender egalitarianism would result in all people—male and female—“flourish[ing]… even if

they do not recognize this under existing conditions” (Brighouse, 2008, p. 364).

Additionally, like much of feminist rhetorical research, this study will assume that

“the rhetor’s rhetorical obstacles are gender-linked, arising from her disempowered


position in society” and that “a central element in woman’s oppression [is] denial of her

right to speak” (Dow, 1995, p. 107)

Muted Group Theory

Muted group theory is a feminist rhetorical theory that specifically addresses the

disenfranchisement of women due to language. This theory posits that “the language of a

particular culture does not serve all its speakers equally, for not all speakers contribute in

an equal fashion to its formulation” (Kramarae, 1981, p. 1). Muted group theory specifically

examines western culture and the English language as it is used in England and the United

States and is outlined in the work of theorist Cheris Kramarae. Historically, Kramarae

argues, men have been the “dominant group” in western civilization and, therefore, are

responsible for the creation of the English language. She states that this has had a “muting”

effect on women because the “words and norms for their use have been formulated by the

dominant group, men.” Therefore, women “cannot as easily or as directly articulate their

experiences” due to the fact that the words have been created by a population who has

never actually been female (1981, p. 1).

Muted group theory originated in the 1960s when anthropologist Edwin Ardener

encouraged his fellow anthropologists to spend time researching commonly overlooked

groups. Ardener observed that the field of anthropology often focused on the experiences

of males as being representative of an entire society (Wall, 1999, p. 22). He hypothesized

that the women of a society likely had very “different models of reality” from the male-

centric ones his field was studying. He also noted that male discourse was more direct and

more easily accessible to ethnographers than the “non-verbal, inarticulate, veiled”


discourse of the females within a population (Wall, 1999, p. 23). Ardener was the first to

contend that there were “dominant modes of expression in any society which have been

generated by the dominant structure within it” and that “to be heard and heeded an

individual must use this dominant mode” (Wall, 1999, p. 22).

Muted group theory has been used as a framework for examining language and

communication for more than 30 years. Foss outlines three basic assumptions that are the

foundation for the theory:

1.) Women and men perceive the world differently.

2.) Men are politically dominant and their ideas are considered “normal”.

3.) Women need to conform to the male “norm” if they are to be heard (2004, p. 21).

Muted group theory deals primarily with “language”. The Merriam-Webster dictionary

defines language as: “the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them

used and understood by a community” (language, 2012). This definition is adequate, but

does not capture how language shapes and defines that same community. Spender

explains, “language is our means of classifying and ordering our world: our means of

manipulating reality. In its structure and in its use we bring our world into realization”

(1980, p. 3).

It is important to note that “muted”, as it pertains to muted group theory, does not

always mean “silent”. Muting can result in silence, but in the larger sense, it simply means

“whether they [women] are able to say all they would wish to say, where and when they

wish to say it” (Wall, 1999, p. 22). Ardener’s research was furthered by Kramarae who

shaped muted group theory into a “framework for looking at the ways a language, and the


accepted methods of using language, present images of what women are ‘supposed’ to be,

and of what is ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’” (Kramarae, 1981, p. 29).

This concept of “natural” or “normal” is central to understanding muted group

theory. An underlying assumption in the theory is that because men have historically held

political power over women, their perception of reality has, therefore, been dominant.

Alternate views of reality are considered abnormal and, therefore, women must conform to

the “male system of expression” (Foss, 2004, p. 21).

Spender argues that if the language structure of a community “is inherently

inaccurate, than we are misled. If the rules which underlie our language system, our

symbolic order, are invalid, then we are daily deceived” (1980, p. 3). “Deceit” is a strong

term, but it underscores the importance of language and the fact that its use has real-world

consequences. When we speak or write, we are not using “just words”, but powerful

symbols that shape and define the very world in which we live.

Kramarae supports Spender’s claim. She states that the English language was

constructed in such a way that it “does not include the ready means for women to express

the thoughts and behavior that result from their subjugation” (1981, p. 9). Herein lies the

problem—if the words do not exist for women to communicate the true experiences of

their existence, then they cease to matter on a large scale.

Muted group theory supports the concept that “language reflects a world view” and

that the dominant group within a society creates a language system that “supports its

conception of the world and then call it the language of the society, while at the same time

subjugating others to experiences that are not reflected in that language” (Kramarae, 1981,


p. 3). Scientific research has revealed that women have been largely excluded from

creating language. In fact, for more than one-hundred years etiquette books have explicitly

told women to avoid creating new words because “slang is unladylike” (Kramarae, 1981, p.

33).

All of these words and rules within the English language have the direct effect of

creating a populace of women who are muted, by Kramarae’s definition. Since they are

“unable to express their structurally generated views in the dominant masculine discourse,

women are neither understood nor heeded, becoming inarticulate, ‘muted’, or silent. Even

if they talk a lot they may not express their own, different social reality” (Wall, 1999, p. 24).

The result of this is that women choose two paths: “internalizing male reality—alienation”

or they find themselves “unable to speak at all—silence” (Spender, 1980, p. 24).

This inequity creates what Spender describes as a “loud silence” (1980, p. 54). She

argues that the problem lies in the fact that we cannot just go back in time and create a new

language. We also cannot just start adding new “women’s words” to the English language

while we’re still observing rules “constructed according to a patriarchal criteria” (1980, p.

59). Additionally, Dow argues that the creation of new words would be counter-productive

to the feminist cause. She states, “if feminism turns its back on the centers of power,

privilege and individual achievement that men have monopolized, those men will continue

to monopolize them and nothing significant will change” (Dow, 1995, p. 112).

Standpoint Theory

Muted group theory is useful in recognizing incidents of muting that occur within

our society, but standpoint theory takes it one step further and suggests that those who are


being muted may not even recognize their own subjugation unless their viewpoint is the

starting point for research and storytelling. According to the theory, “the process of

achieving knowledge begins when standpoints begin to emerge…They emerge when those

who are marginalized and relatively invisible from the vantage point of the epistemically

privileged become conscious of their social situation with respect to socio-political power

and oppression, and begin to find a voice” (2011, p. 1).

The goal of standpoint theory is to “create a more socially just world” (Bowell, 2011,

p. 1). Standpoint theory argues that researchers should study marginalized groups in order

to get a clearer portrayal of a society. Historically this theory has focused on women as the

marginalized group. Harding states, “starting off research from women’s lives will generate

less partial and distorted accounts not only of women’s lives but also of men’s lives and of

the whole social order” (1993, p. 56).

A “standpoint” is defined as “a place from which to view the world around us”

(Griffin, 2006, p. 482). Harding’s argument for beginning research with a marginalized

standpoint is “only through such struggles can we begin to see beneath the appearances

created by an unjust social order to the reality of how this social order is in fact constructed

and maintained” (1991, p. 127). Or, as Cady Stanton described it, “woman alone can

understand the height, the depth, the length, and the breadth of her own degradation”

(Kohrs-Campbell, 1989, p. 60).

Both muted group theory and standpoint theory are foundational to this study.

Muted group theory in that this study will seek to determine the motivations behind a

specific incident of blatant muting that occurred in the Michigan House of Representatives.


Standpoint theory is important because this research will focus on the standpoint of a

female politician in an effort to learn more about the social realities of the American

political system.

Literature Review

Language and the Sexes

Ever since the dawn of psychological study, there have been discernible differences

between the sexes. However, “since it is difficult to say ‘different’ without saying ‘better’ or

‘worse’, since there is a tendency to construct a single scale of measurement, and since that

scale has generally been derived from and standardized on the basis of men’s

interpretations of research and data drawn predominantly or exclusively from studies of

males”, the male behavior pattern emerged as the “norm” and female behavior emerged as

a “deviation from the norm” (Gilligan, 1982, p. 14).

A 1977 study of 517 words revealed “masculine words outnumbered feminine

words by a ratio of 3:1”. Words that were both masculine and prestigious were six times

more common than those that denoted feminine prestige. “Feminine words with negative

connotations outnumbered negative masculine words by about 20 percent in spite of the

predominance of masculine words overall” (Smith, 1985, pp. 37-38). There are also

substantially more words in the English language that describe sexual promiscuity of a

female than a male (Kramarae, 1981, p. 43) and Spender points out that there are no male

equivalents to “chatter, natter, prattle, nag, bitch, whine, and, of course, gossip” (1980, p.

107). These words are reserved for women only.


Therefore, language has largely been created by men within the confines of a

patriarchal society. On the surface, this may not seem like much of a problem. Clearly

society has moved forward just fine with the words we do have. But, as Kramarae explains,

when the women’s movement began there was not even a word to explain what they were

rallying against. “The word ‘sexism’ didn’t even exist. They were trying to solve a problem

with no name” (1981, p. 1).

At first blush, it is sometimes challenging to see how our vocabulary is lacking. It is

not easy to recognize instances where we may need the addition of new words. A good

example of this, however, is the idea of “motherhood”. Spender states that this word is an

excellent example of how the words in our language do not always capture the whole

female experience. “Motherhood”, as far as language goes, “represents something beautiful

that leaves women consumed and replete with joy” (Spender, 1980, p. 54). But what about

when it doesn’t? What if motherhood is an entirely different experience for a woman?

There is no word in the English language for this.

For those women for whom motherhood may have represented neither joy nor

beauty, a substantial problem arises. There is no reference point for their

experience, no way of making it seem real, with the result that they can be left

feeling extremely inadequate, convinced that there is something wrong with

themselves, because their meanings do not mesh with the accepted ones. This in

itself can place even more pressure on them to be silent. They are not willing to

advertise their own ‘neurosis’, and risk being labeled ‘unnatural’. (Spender, 1980, p.

54)


This is why it is important to examine language critically. It would be easy to just

accept that we have enough words, or all of the right words because there is a familiarity to

the language we have used throughout our lives. We are accustomed to seeing words on a

page in a particular way, are comfortable with the rules of grammar and punctuation, and

have mastered spelling most words that we think we will need to use on a regular basis—

but it would be a mistake to think that the work of creating language is “done”. Research

has shown time and time again that our current language, while functional, is not equitable.

Masculine bias in the English language is not confined to word meanings alone. It is

built into the very structure of the language and supports the “male-as-norm” paradigm.

There are a number of “overtly masculine words that are sometimes used in a generic

sense, including bachelor’s degree, brotherhood, fellow man, mankind, master, spokesman,

and workmanlike. Feminine generics do not occur” (Smith, 1985 p. 47). Smith explains:

If a woman is swept off of a ship into the water, the cry is ‘Man overboard!’ If she is

killed by a hit-and-run driver, the charge is ‘manslaughter’! If she is injured on the

job, the coverage is ‘workman’s compensation’! But if she arrives at a threshold

marked ‘Men Only’, she knows the admonition is not intended to bar animals or

plants or inanimate objects. It is meant for her. (Graham, as cited in Smith, 1985, p.

49)

Spender (1980) asserts that gendered language is one of the ways that men

“intimidate and belittle” women into silence, and this assertion can all too easily be

supported. Textbooks given to school children have historically told the stories of males

and they present a world in which everything important that has ever happened has been


primarily because men have done it. “Women have ‘made’ just as much ‘history’ as men but

it has not been codified and transmitted” (p. 53).

Word order and word pairings are another common way in which the female

experience is excluded from language. Commonly, when men and women are referred to

together, the male is referred to first. Examples of this include: “male and female, husband

and wife, son and daughter, brother and sister, host and hostess, king and queen, Adam and

Eve” (Smith, 1985, p. 47).

Religious writings are also male-centric. In the first chapter of the Bible, God gives

Adam the right to name world around him (Kramarae, 1981, p. 42). Additionally, English

translations of the Bible ascribe “more male characteristics” to Adam, God, and Jesus “than

they have in the Hebrew texts” (Kramarae, 1981, p. 42). Much of classic literature also

portrays women as evil. Take, for example, “Pandora, Clytemnestra, Lilith, Eve, succubae

and witches” (Okin, 1979, p. 100). Even philosophers, whom we often think of as the

greatest, most open-minded thinkers in humanity have historically defined woman “in

terms of her function—that of her sexual and procreative purpose in life” whereas men are

“categorized in terms of a generally limitless potential” (Okin, 1979, p. 99).

One can only wish this were an exhaustive list of the ways in which women have

been belittled into submission, but it is barely a beginning. Take, for example, the words of

the English language themselves. Spender states that “men are namers, women, the named”

(Smith, 1985, p. 56). Kramarae observes that “most words used for labeling women, no

matter their original meaning, acquire derogatory connotations” (1981, p. 36).


In recent decades, there has been a significant effort to counteract some of this

male-heavy language. Terms such as “chairperson” and “worker’s compensation” have

been introduced in our vocabulary. Foss laments, however, that any progress that has been

made “has been dampened by the use of gender-neutral words only being reserved for

women” (2004, p. 14). So, while “chairperson” is used for a female, a male is still often

referred to as “chairman”. This supports Spender’s assertion we simply cannot just add

woman-words to the vocabulary and expect that they are going to “stick” in a patriarchal

society (1980, p. 59).

Silencing Women

Word choice and word usage are not the only ways in which women are

disenfranchised. Spender states that women are also literally muted in two ways: by

providing limited opportunities for speech and by intimidating and discrediting them

(1980, pp. 106-107). Women’s rights activists have argued for decades that “a central

element in women’s oppression was the denial of her right to speak” (Kohrs-Campbell,

1989, p. 12) and that “femininity and rhetorical action were mutually exclusive” (Kohrs-

Campbell, 1989, pp. 10-11). Women speakers find that “unless their views are presented in

a form acceptable to men, and to women brought up in the male idiom, they will not be

given a proper hearing” (Foss, 2004, p. 20).

Emma Hart Willard is an excellent example of this. Willard was an early women’s

rights activist and worked on school reform. In 1819 she was invited to present her ideas

on school reform to the New York legislature. Her speech was well-received, but only

because Willard “carefully remained seated to avoid any hint that she was delivering a


speech” (Kohrs-Campbell, 1989, p. 11). Willard’s behavior is a prime example of how a

woman “must suppress her own mode of expression in favour of the dominant mode”

(Wall, 1999, p. 22). One would hope that in nearly 200 years, women would have made

progress in this regard, but, as will be discussed in greater detail shortly, women are still

denied public speaking opportunities in American politics.

As long as women are trying to communicate their experience in a language system

not designed for their use, they will never be able to fully articulate what it is to be a

woman. Throughout history, women have tried and time and time again they have been

“seen as selfish, [and] as wanting to abandon their traditional womanly roles to enter the

spheres of men” (Kohrs-Campbell, 1989, p. 15). There is a “code of morality and conception

of rights for women distinctly different from those that have been prescribed for men”

(Okin, 1979, p. 9).

Everything discussed thus far impacts women in all walks of life and makes the case

that even if they do not realize it, or are not willing to admit it, all women are all “muted” in

some way. Much of this “muting” is subtle, however, and commonplace, so many women do

not even notice when it happens. In certain circumstances, however, the muting becomes

more blatant and apparent—such as when women enter the political arena.

Women and Politics

As mentioned earlier, politics has historically been a “man’s world”. For many, many

years in United States history, women were not represented in public office in any

significant way. It wasn’t until 1917 that the first woman, Jeannette Rankin of Montana,

was elected to the U.S. Congress. In fact, “prior to the 1960s, the most common path


traveled by women to Congress was through ‘widow’s succession,’ whereby women

succeeded their late husbands who died in office” (Peters, 2010, p. 199). The second most

common way for women to get into politics has been “by way of economic privilege or

social and political connections” (Peters, 2010, p. 199).

There has been substantial progress since 1917 and presently the 112th U.S.

Congress has 90 female members, which represents 16.8% of its membership (Rutgers).

Five years ago, the 110th U.S. Congress had 89 female members, however, so it is a very

slow progress. One would think that these 90 women would have a very different

experience from Emma Hart Willard when she gave her presentation on education reform

in the early 1800s, but unfortunately many things are unchanged.

Women who aspire to political roles still find themselves needing to communicate

within the male-centric norm and conforming to the societal expectation of femininity.

“Women who initiate aggressive or forceful attacks may be viewed as unfeminine, shrill,

vicious, nagging… and therefore dismissed as abnormal (Rieser as cited in Edwards, 2009,

p. 52). Analyses of women who have climbed the ranks in politics, such as Madeline

Albright and Condoleezza Rice, have determined that they “have the ability to ‘speak like a

man’” (Rieser as cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 52).

Female political hopefuls who have not learned how to “speak like a man” or who

have violated expectations of femininity have been either unsuccessful in their political

aspirations, or have been ridiculed and shamed publically. When Elizabeth Dole

campaigned for the presidency in 1999, she used what some researchers refer to as the

“feminine style” of speak, which is “personal in tone, [and] relies heavily on personal


experiences, anecdotes, and other examples” (Kohrs-Campbell, 1989, p. 13). Analysis after

her failed campaign concluded that this style of speaking made her look “acquiescent”

because it is difficult, if not impossible, to attack an opponent while maintaining a soft,

feminine appearance (Rieser as cited in Edwards, 2009, p. 52).

Kramarae’s research of women in politics revealed that “they appear, although

infrequently, on the floor of state legislative bodies, yet they talk even more infrequently on

the floor…historical survey[s] of women’s efforts to speak in public reveals that their public

presence has been tolerated at times when their speech was not (Kramarae, 1978, p. xiv).

Peters and Rosenthal argue that women in politics fall into several categories: “some

political women seek to become ‘one of the guys’. Others choose to be feminist agitators.

Still others prefer to be accommodators, blending into the background. All of these choices

play to or against the feminine stereotype” (2010, p. 225).

This “feminine stereotype” is still pervasive in our culture and it presents an

obstacle for women when they seek public office. In 1975 Smith observed: “women are

encouraged to be responsible for the integrity of the domestic sphere of life, including

working at home and caring for children. Since most of this activity is devoted to

maintaining the nuclear family, women are not as easily thought of as active participants in

the sphere of public debate and political decision-making.” (1975, p. 56).

In the late 1980s, The Saturday Evening Post published a story on Congresswoman

Patricia Schroder where they referred to her as “capable of being a serious public official”.

Her status as both woman and congressperson was still seen as a bit of a novelty, and this

reporting revealed the gender bias still present at the time (Sullivan, 1993, p. 532). Sullivan


argues that this was due to the “old symbolic molds” still present in American politics that

“dictate[d] that women should not be taken seriously when they [sought] public office”

(1993, p. 532).

Geraldine Ferraro encountered the same challenges when she was nominated to the

vice presidency in 1984. The media described her as “feisty” and “pushy but not

threatening”, and she was “even asked if she knew how to bake blueberry muffins” (Carlin,

2009, p. 329). “When she stood before the Democratic National Convention in San

Francisco, anchor Tom Brokaw announced: ‘Geraldine Ferraro…The first woman to be

nominated for vice president… Size 6!’” (2008, p. 329).

One would hope that the intervening decades would have ushered in significant

change in this regard, but in their 2010 publication, Peters and Rosenthal continue to

lament the “three Hs that plague women politicians: hair, hemline, husband” (2010, p. 198-

199). Women who do attain political office often find themselves excluded from powerful

roles within Congress and they experience “exclusion from insider gatherings, assignment

to powerless committees, and denial of privileges that are the norm for men” (Peters, 2010,

p. 210). Interestingly, terms have been added to the English language to attempt to define

this experience. These words include: “glass ceilings, sticky floors, pink-collar ghettos, dead

ends, mommy tracks, and critical mass” (Peters, 2010, p. 207).

There continues to be a double standard in American politics when it comes to male

and female candidates. For example, Lisa Madigan, the current Attorney General of Illinois,

has been named as a potential challenger for the governor’s seat in the next election. The

press has directly questioned whether she believes she could simultaneously be a good


mother to her young children and serve as the state’s governor (McKinney, Spielman &

Korecki, 2012). There is nothing to indicate that her male opponent has been asked a

similar question.

A similar situation occurred in 2001 when Lieutenant Governor Jane Swift replaced

Massachusetts governor Paul Celucci when then President George W. Bush tapped him to

be the U.S. Ambassador to Canada. At the time of her reappointment she happened to be

pregnant and this caused a public uproar. “What became clear as the controversy unfolded

was that the combination of pregnancy and power disturbed many people” (Edwards,

2009, p. 129).

The double standard in the way male and female candidates are treated was

perhaps most apparent during the 2008 U.S. presidential election. In, Have you Come a Long

Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage, Carlin notes

that “women who are considered feminine will be judged incompetent, and women who

are competent, unfeminine” (2009, p. 326). Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential

nominee, was perceived to be attractive and the media made frequent references to her

“sexiness” (2009, p. 330), and even the American public seemed preoccupied with her

appearance. A research study into web search terms revealed that “Sarah Palin Bridge to

Nowhere” was the 79th most popular term searched, whereas “Sarah Palin legs” and “Sarah

Palin sexy photos” ranked 16th and 49th respectively (Anderson, 2011, p. 339).

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Hillary Clinton, a Democratic candidate for the

presidency, was not sexualized, however, she was described in unflattering terms. The

media made several references to her wardrobe, which was perceived as “not feminine


enough”, but they still strongly encouraged her to cover her “cankles (thick ankles)” (Carlin,

2009, p. 330).

Additionally, in response to Clinton’s run at the presidency, a Facebook group was

established called “Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich” (Carlin, 2009, p.

330), and a pantsuit-clad nutcracker was sold that was made in her likeness whereby users

opened her legs and cracked nuts on two stainless steel thighs (2009, p. 330).

Anderson argues that “the 2008 election was “pornified” in a way that has never

been seen in a U.S. political election cycle” (2009, p. 328) and that this emergence of a

“pornification frame signals a twenty-first century backlash against the gains women have

made in the U.S. political system” (2009, p. 329). Carlin’s research supports this claim. She

states, when women are sexualized, “it reduces their credibility or may cause them to be

seen as less human” (2009, p. 328).

These examples clearly demonstrate that women in American politics continue to

face gender discrimination and experience “muting” that Kramarae and Spender described

decades ago. It also demonstrates that although the women’s movement has made

progress in helping women gain access to positions of power, that unless the social

expectations of women change, they will never truly have a full voice in American politics.

Womanhood and power are two ideas that seem to generally bring about discomfort

in American culture. Even those who write books on the topic, such as Peters and

Rosenthal, which have been quoted in this study, do not seem terribly comfortable with the

idea of a truly powerful woman in the government. In their book, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and

the New American Politician, they commend Pelosi for accepting sexism in Congress. “To


Pelosi’s credit,” they state “…she has never made sexism an issue during her house career”

(2010, p. 214). And, “faced with raw sexism, Pelosi never made it an issue. Quite the

contrary, she adopted a very graceful and feminine style that won her allies… she eschewed

an in-your-face feminism that some other women of her generation embraced” and, “her

hostess sensibilities gave her a softer touch as she sought to secure the votes of her more

conservative male colleagues” (2010, p. 216). The fact that a book written in the year 2010

could celebrate a female politician’s “hostess sensibilities” is evidence that we still have a

long way to go.

Rationale

The underlying assumption of this study is that women are oppressed through the

use of language. They are “muted”—sometimes subtly, but sometimes overtly. This study

will seek to identify the motivation behind one incidence of muting in an effort to

determine if we can learn anything that will help prevent it from happening again. If we

maintain the status quo we will never bring about real change, but by identifying the

motives behind the act of muting, we could potentially determine how to begin to bring

about change so our male and female political leaders can more effectively communicate

and, as a consequence, more effectively govern.

On June 14, 2012, Michigan State House Representative, Lisa Brown, was literally

muted by her male colleagues. Brown, a Democrat, was arguing on the House floor against

a bill that would additionally regulate abortion providers and would ban all abortions after

20 weeks when she said, “And finally, Mr. Speaker, I’m flattered that you’re all so interested

in my vagina, but ‘no’ means ‘no’” (Peralta, 2012).


Due to this comment, Brown was forbidden by Republican House leadership from

speaking on a bill that concerned the retirement of school employees. Additionally, her

colleague, Barb Byrum, also a Michigan House Democrat, was silenced that same day for

“causing a disturbance” by loudly saying the word “vasectomy” because she was forbidden

from speaking on an amendment to the abortion bill that she had proposed that would “ban

men from getting a vasectomy unless the sterilization procedure was necessary to save a

man’s life” (Peralta, 2012).

This study will endeavor specifically to discern why women in the American

political system, as elected representatives, continue to be silenced. Specifically, it will

attempt to determine the motives behind the act of muting Lisa Brown in an effort to

determine if, by addressing the motives, we might possibly end the cycle of muting and give

female politicians a full voice.

Research Questions

RQ1: What was the motivation behind the muting of Representative Lisa Brown?

RQ2: What can we learn from this incident that might enable change?


Chapter 3: Scope and Methodology

Scope

Scope of the Study

This study examines only the first written news stories that were published

following the Lisa Brown and Barb Byrum “vaginagate” incident discussed earlier. One

story from each of the major news companies was chosen for analysis within the date

range of June 14, 2012 – June 15, 2012. The reason only the first written news stories were

selected was because after this incident occurred there was a strong reaction from both

political parties and the public-at-large. As the subsequent backlash played out in the press

there was naturally less emphasis on the original situation and more coverage of the

resulting uproar.

Since this study seeks to specifically analyze only the actual acts of silencing, not the

resulting backlash, analyzing these subsequent stories for motive is not necessary and will

not assist in answering the research questions. Therefore, the scope of this study is the

original written news story from news outlets that represent each of the major news

corporations that have print news divisions. It is important to include all of the major news

corporations to acquire a broad cross-section for sampling. Blogs and social media

accounts were excluded from this study in an effort to obtain the most impartial reporting

possible.

Additionally, only the silencing of Lisa Brown is analyzed in this study. Barb Byrum’s

silencing, though significant, was seen as more of a reaction to Lisa Brown’s treatment and,


as such, was not as widely reported or commented on. For the purposes of this study, only

Lisa Brown’s silencing as reported in the news was analyzed.

Methodology

Pentadic Criticism – Overview

The research method used for this study is pentadic criticism. Pentadic criticism

was developed by the noted philosopher and rhetorician, Kenneth Burke, who attributed

its origins to “Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and Talcott Parson’s The Structure of Social

Attraction” (Foss, 2009, p. 355). Pentadic criticism is an extension of Burke’s notion of

dramatism, which posits that every act of rhetoric is driven by motives and that is it up to

each individual to determine the rhetor’s motivation.

Rhetorical criticism is “a qualitative research method that is designed for the

systematic investigation and explanation of symbolic acts and artifacts for the purpose of

understanding rhetorical processes” (Foss, 2009, p. 6). By its nature, rhetorical criticism is

inherently subjective. It is the critic’s role to make an argument for why his or her

interpretation of a text, speech, or object has merit. Rhetorical criticism is an “exercise in

argument” (Zarefsky, 2006, p. 386) that is different from traditional literary criticism in

that it is not “concerned with permanence or beauty but with effect” (2006, p. 383).

Burke argues that “humans create and present messages in much the same way a

play is presented” (Foss, 2009, p. 356). He states, humans “seek for vocabularies that will

be faithful reflections of reality. To this end, they must develop vocabularies that are

selections of reality. And any selection of reality must, in certain circumstances, function as

a deflection of reality” (Burke, 1969, p. 59). According to this description, “the words we


use to reflect our perceptions select certain aspects of what we are describing while

simultaneously deflecting, or neglecting, other aspects” (Stewart, 2002, p. 186). Therefore,

the language that we choose “provides clues to our motives or why we do what we do”

(Foss, 2009, p. 356).

In that spirit, this research will employ the use of pentadic criticism, which is also

known as Burkean analysis. This method is appropriate for this study because pentadic

analysis is concerned with determining the motivation behind a rhetorical artifact and also

examining how that motive fits into a larger “historical and political context” (King, 2006, p.

367). This method of analysis has been used for several decades to examine political

rhetorical artifacts including analysis of campaign rhetoric (Kelley, 1987, pp. 204-217),

congressional testimony (Darr, 2008, pp. 1-27), and political speeches (Ling, 1970, pp.

2181-86).

Pentadic Criticism – Method

Burke outlines five elements that need to be identified during this process of

pentadic analysis. These comprise his “pentad” and consist of “what was done (act), when

or where it was done (scene), who did it (agent), how s/he did it (agency), and why

(purpose)” (Burke, 1969, p. xv). The ratios between the five elements of the pentad are

systematically analyzed with a goal of determining if there is a pattern that indicates an

overall dominating factor, which is then considered to be the rhetor’s motive (Foss, 2009, p.

363).

The original news articles published following the Brown/Byrum “vaginagate”

incident were identified by searching for “Lisa Brown” in the online news archives on the


websites of each of the major news corporations: CBS Corporation, Comcast Corporation,

Gannett, News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, and the Walt Disney Company.

Each article was analyzed using the pentadic criticism methodology whereby act,

agent, agency, scene and purpose were identified and documented. Each element of the

pentad was systematically paired in the following order: scene-act, scene-agent, scene-

agency, scene-purpose, act-scene, act-agent, act-agency, act-purpose, agent-scene, agent-

act, agent-agency, agent-purpose, agency-scene, agency-act, agency-agent, agency-purpose,

purpose-scene, purpose-act, purpose-agent, and purpose-agency.

The analysis of the pentad is accomplished by paring each element of the pentad

with each of the others and “trying to discover if the first term influences or directs the

nature of the second term” (Foss, 2009, p. 361). This can be accomplished in a number of

ways, but is commonly done by listing the 20 resulting pairs and determining one-by-one if

the first term in the pair influences the second. A “yes”, “no”, or “unknown” answer is

documented and, once the process is complete, the results are analyzed. The pentadic

element with the most “yes” answers is identified as the motive.

Once this has been accomplished, Burke offers a corresponding philosophical

system so that we may develop a more thorough understanding of the motive. The motives

and their corresponding philosophical systems are as follows:

If act is the motive, the corresponding philosophy is realism, “the doctrine that

universal principles are more real than objects as they are physically sensed”.


If scene is the motive, the corresponding philosophy is materialism, “the system that

regards all facts and reality as explainable in terms of matter and motion or physical

laws”.

If agent is the motive, the corresponding philosophy is idealism, “the system that

views the mind or spirit as each person experiences it as fundamentally real, with

the universe seen as mind or spirit in its essence”.

If agency is the motive, the corresponding philosophy is pragmatism, which is

defined as “the means necessary for the attainment of a goal... the meaning of a

course of action lies in its observable consequences, and the sum of those

consequences constitutes its meaning”.

If the agency is purpose, the corresponding philosophy is mysticism, in which “the

element of unity is emphasized to the point that individuality disappears.

Identification often becomes so strong that the individual is unified with some

cosmic or universal purpose” (Foss, 2009, p. 353).

Ethical Concerns

It is worth noting that since this study was conducted completely with publically-

accessible written rhetorical artifacts, and that no human subjects were involved, there are

no ethical issues to take into consideration.


Chapter 4

Introduction

The initial news story from the Lisa Brown incident was retrieved from each of the

major media outlets news sites by searching for the term “Lisa Brown” and identifying the

story that was printed on the day, or as was often the case, the day after the incident. Every

effort was made to identify the initial news story and all news stories used in this study

were printed on June 15, 2012, with the exception of the Walt Disney Story (published on

the ABC News website) that was printed on the day of the incident, June 14, 2012.

Data Analysis

The news stories were read for content first. Then, each story was analyzed

individually and their act, agent, agency, scene, and purpose were identified and

documented according to the pentadic analysis technique outlined earlier. A number of the

stories were determined to contain more than one pentad. Burkean analysis allows the

researcher to determine if he or she would prefer to focus on one pentad or all. For the

purposes of this study, all pentads were analyzed and coded. In total, six news stories were

found to have 11 pentads for analysis.

Once the five elements of the pentad were documented, each of the elements were

systematically paired and analyzed in an effort to determine the nature of their

relationships and to identify the dominant element. This was accomplished by asking

questions suggested by Foss (2009) including “Does the first term in the ratio require that

the second term be a certain way?” or “Is there something in the first term that determines


the nature of the second term in the ratio?” (p. 361). The coding system of “yes”, “no” or

“undetermined” was applied and documented (see appendix 1).

Once all of the pairings were analyzed and coded for each of the 11 pentads, the

dominating element of each pentad was identified. This was accomplished by determining

which element of the pentad had the most “yes” answers. This element was determined to

be the motive. Once these were identified, the corresponding philosophy was documented

with the motive for further analysis.

Results of the Study

Once all of the pentads were analyzed and the coding was finalized, there were

identifiable patterns. First, there were four pentads in which House Republicans were the

agent and their motives were equally divided between purpose and agency. In two of the

pentads the motive was determined to be purpose (there were two purposes

represented—“maintain decorum” in one and “justify Brown’s silencing” in the other). In

the remaining two pentads, the motive was determined to be agency, which in both cases

was “defending social norms”.

Since “defending social norms” was identified twice, for the purposes of this study it

is considered the primary motivating factor. However, it is worth noting that “maintaining

decorum” and “justifying Brown’s silencing” were also very important. Social norms are

the “customary rules that govern behavior in groups and societies” (Stanford, 2011, p. 1).

Hirschman argues that social norms are very powerful and can motivate people to conform

based on their need to maintain a “given social identity”. He states that oftentimes


individuals are not motivated based on the norm itself, but “to the identity that a norm

supports” (Stanford, 2011, p. 1).

This concept of “defending social norms” was present in a number of articles in

some capacity. Many of the quotes directly from members of the Republican legislature

reflect this idea. Rick Johnson, Republican House Speaker until 2005, was quoted in both

the CBS and News Corp articles admonishing Brown for the “inappropriateness” of her

comments and asking “You have young children? Is that something you would want them

to hear from your state rep?” (2012). Republican Representative Lisa Lyons called Brown’s

comments “disgraceful” (News Corp, 2012) and Republican Representative Mike Callton

stated “What she said was offensive. It was so offensive, I don’t even want to say it in front

of women. I would not say that in mixed company” (Gannett, 2012).

Pentads that identified Lisa Brown or other Democrats as the agent were also very

telling. There were three pentads where Brown or other Democrats were speaking to the

media in defense of her actions. In the two pentads where Brown was the agent, the

purpose of “defending her word choice” was the motive. In the remaining pentad where

other Democrats were the agent, the act of “defending Brown” was the motive.

Perhaps most telling, however, are the remaining four pentads where Brown is the

agent and the scene was “speaking on the House floor”. In all four of these pentads, the

scene of the House floor was determined to be the motive. According to Burke, if scene is

the primary element, the corresponding philosophy is materialism, which Foss describes as

“the system that regards all facts and reality as explainable in terms of matter and motion

of physical laws” (2009, p. 363).


Discussion

What this pentadic analysis reveals is that Lisa Brown’s motivation when saying

“vagina” on the House floor was likely not to shock and offend her colleagues, but to use

correct terminology to communicate her opinion on a piece of legislation. If she was indeed

motivated by materialism, as the analysis revealed she was, then she was simply trying to

get across a message in as scientific and precise a way as possible.

It appears that her Republican colleagues were motivated to silence her based on

the philosophy of pragmatism, which Burke outlines as the corresponding philosophy.

Pragmatism is defined as “the means necessary for the attainment of a goal… in this

doctrine, the meaning of a proposition or course of action lies in its observable

consequences, and the sum of these consequences constitutes its meaning” (Foss 2009, p.

363).

Burke explained pragmatism as follows:

The pragmatist says simply: ‘The universe is’. And, the universe being, it does—so

the pragmatist will situate his knowledge, not in what the universe is, but how it

works. He will seek to understand operations, to find in what order things generally

precede and follow one another. He will also consider himself as involved in the

process, will recognize that one discovers ‘reality’ in accordance with one’s

terminology, that shift in the vocabulary of approach will entail new classifications

of the same events. (Burke, as cited in Blakesley, 1999, p. 71)

When examining the situation that occurred between Brown and her House

colleagues, and taking into account that the House Republicans were primarily motivated


by their desire to defend social norms, this definition of pragmatism is applicable. The

central concept of the philosophy of pragmatism is that practical considerations are more

important than theoretical ones. Based on what we know about the history of women and

their perceived role in society, this study would indicate that House Republicans were

likely motivated to silence Brown because she used a word that violated their

understanding of how House proceedings typically work. She, motivated by her need to

communicate in the appropriate terminology, created a situation where that same

terminology violated their sense of what is right. House Republicans reacted in a way that

seemed to them to be a sensible solution to a woman who said something that violated a

social norm—they silenced her.

Black (1965) notes that there are three elements present in any rhetorical

transaction—“rhetorical strategies, rhetorical situations, and audience effects” (p. 133).

Most of our rhetorical transactions proceed with uninterrupted, unsurprising flow between

the three elements. However, if one of these elements is perceived as atypical in some way

there “will likely be concomitant variations in the other two”(p. 134). This is precisely what

Brown experienced. While the rhetorical situation (a woman presenting on the House

floor) was presumably something her audience accepted, her rhetorical strategy of using

the word “vagina” in this situation caused an immediate, and in this case, hostile, reaction

from her audience.

The fact that Brown’s male House colleagues were so swift in silencing her for use of

the word “vagina” is interesting and we, as a society, should be questioning why some still

find it objectionable for a woman to use the word in public, particularly when she is


debating legislature that concerns a woman’s reproduction system. The fact that the

motivation for her silencing was to “uphold social norms” supports the underlying

assumptions of muted group theory that women are not free “to say all they would wish to

say, when and where they wish to say it” (Wall, 1999, p. 22).

This is very problematic for women in politics. Politics, by its very nature, is talk. If

women are muted, they cannot participate. As discussed earlier, we cannot simply add new

words that would be less offensive to the societal norm. There are already a number of

synonyms for “vagina” and it is highly doubtful that any of them would have produced less

of a response by members of the House.

Spender (1980) argues that “to maintain control of rhetoric, the dominant group

will often not attack the message, but will attack the delivery”. Spender explains that that

by not focusing on the message, “the dominant group can still retain control, and it is the

female who is ‘in the wrong’ and must adjust” (p. 85). Since the motive for her silencing

was upholding social norms, this certainly seems to be applicable. Spender’s solution to

this problem is a call to action. To acquire a voice and to end the muting of women, we must

have a complete societal shift. She states, “if and when sufficient numbers of a society no

longer give consensus to the myth of male superiority, if and when they no longer act in a

manner which acquiesces to that superiority and permits it to go unchallenged, then, rather

than being taken for granted, that power will need to be defended or transformed” (1980,

p. i). This call to action can be supported by standpoint theory.

What we can learn from the “vaginagate” incident is that women need to continue to

speak and to fight for an active and equal political voice. Societal norms, though powerful,


can and do change. In fact, psychological research has shown that members of a group

change their perceptions “very rapidly” when they “believe that others have changed their

beliefs” (Stanford, 2011, p. 1). This is good news for women—it is not necessary to change

the mind of every man one-by-one. It appears we simply need to keep pushing for change

and eventually we will reach a tipping point where we will see a shift in the way political

women are perceived.


Chapter 5: Summaries and Conclusions

Limitations of the Study

This research study was limited in a number of ways. It was intentionally limited in

scope, focusing only on print news stories that were published immediately following the

Lisa Brown “vaginagate” incident. It was also intentionally limited to only include Lisa

Brown’s experience, and not that of her colleague, Barb Byrum, who was also silenced by

House members that same day.

The study was also limited by the use of the pentadic analysis methodology. Though

the methodology is a very useful tool, it is a qualitative analysis tool and the conclusions

drawn are inherently subjective. Additionally, this study sought to identify motive and

motives are often complex and complicated. As Burke himself states, “as soon as we

encounter, verbally or thematically, a motivational simplicity, we must assume as a matter

of course, that it contains a diversity” (Burke, 1969, p. 101).

The theories discussed in this study have limitations of their own. Muted group

theory, though useful in providing a general framework for understanding the concept of

women’s disenfranchisement through language structure, relies heavily on generalizations

about language. Standpoint theory is limited in that it makes a general assumption that

women share commonalities in their standpoint that would enable them to relate to the

standpoint of one another. Additionally, both of these theories create an us-vs-them

mentality between men and women which is not conducive to constructive dialogue or

relationship building.


Recommendations for Further Study

Since this study was, by design, narrow in scope, future research could include

pentadic analyses of other incidences of muting in politics to determine if any patterns of

motive can be identified. Pentadic analyses could be conducted from a sampling of silencing

incidences throughout history to determine if the motives have remained constant, or if

there is a pattern that suggests change. Additionally, research could also look at incidences

throughout history where men were silenced and determine if there is anything we can

learn by comparing the motives behind silencing men to the motives behind silencing

women.

Conclusions

This study endeavored to determine why a female politician was denied a voice in

the very place where she had taken an oath to be a voice for her constituents. Though the

findings were limited, this research has implications for all women who aspire to hold

office. As has been demonstrated over and over, women are held to a different standard

than men once they enter the political arena, and the very structure of our language system

has stacked the deck against them. However, if we are to truly achieve an egalitarian

society where women are not only welcome to campaign for political office, but are

encouraged to do so, it will take a shift in societal expectations about what is “woman’s

work” as well as continued gains in creating a language system that reflects a woman’s

experience.


Appendix I

Article Pentad Pentadic Elements

Does the first

term

determine the

second? Motive Philosophical System

Walt Disney 1 scene - act Yes

scene - agent No

scene - agency No

scene - purpose Yes

act - scene No

act - agent No

act - agency No

act - purpose Yes

agent - scene Yes

agent - act Yes

agent - agency No

agent - purpose No

agency - scene No

agency - act Yes

agency - agent No

agency - purpose Yes

purpose - scene Yes Maintain Decorum Mysticism

purpose - act Yes

purpose - agent No

purpose - agency Yes

Walt Disney 2 scene - act Yes House Session Materialism

scene - agent No

scene - agency Yes

scene - purpose Yes

act - scene No

act - agent No

act - agency No

act - purpose Yes

agent - scene No

agent - act No

agent - agency No

agent - purpose No

agency - scene No

agency - act Yes

agency - agent No


purpose - scene No

purpose - act No

purpose - agent No

purpose - agency No



Does the first

term

determine the


Time Warner 3 scene - act Yes Floor of legislature Materialism

scene - agent No

scene - agency No

scene - purpose Yes

act - scene No

act - agent No

act - agency No

act - purpose No

agent - scene No

agent - act No

agent - agency No

agent - purpose No

agency - scene No

agency - act Yes

agency - agent No

agency - purpose No

purpose - scene No

purpose - act Yes

purpose - agent No

purpose - agency No

Time Warner 4 scene - act Yes

scene - agent No

scene - agency No

scene - purpose Yes

act - scene Yes Defending Brown and Byrum Realism

act - agent No

act - agency Yes

act - purpose Yes

agent - scene No

agent - act No

agent - agency No

agent - purpose Yes

agency - scene No

agency - act Yes

agency - agent No


purpose - scene No

purpose - act No

purpose - agent No

purpose - agency No



Does the first

term

determine the


CBS 5 scene - act Yes

scene - agent No

scene - agency No

scene - purpose Yes

act - scene No

act - agent No

act - agency No

act - purpose Yes

agent - scene No

agent - act No

agent - agency No

agent - purpose Yes

agency - scene No

agency - act No

agency - agent No


purpose - scene No To defend her own actions Mysticism

purpose - act Yes

purpose - agent Yes


CBS 6 scene - act Yes

scene - agent No

scene - agency No

scene - purpose No

act - scene No

act - agent No

act - agency Yes

act - purpose Yes

agent - scene No

agent - act No

agent - agency No

agent - purpose No

agency - scene Yes Defending social norms Pragmatism

agency - act Yes

agency - agent No


purpose - scene No

purpose - act Yes

purpose - agent No




Does the first

term

determine the


Comcast 7 scene - act Yes House floor Materialism

scene - agent No

scene - agency Yes

scene - purpose Yes

act - scene Yes

act - agent No

act - agency Yes

act - purpose No

agent - scene No

agent - act No

agent - agency No

agent - purpose Yes

agency - scene Yes

agency - act Yes

agency - agent No

agency - purpose No

purpose - scene No

purpose - act No

purpose - agent No


Gannett 8 scene - act Yes House floor Materialism

scene - agent No

scene - agency No

scene - purpose Yes

act - scene No

act - agent No

act - agency No

act - purpose Yes

agent - scene No

agent - act No

agent - agency No

agent - purpose Yes

agency - scene No

agency - act No

agency - agent No


purpose - scene No

purpose - act Yes

purpose - agent No

purpose - agency No



Does the first

term

determine the


Gannett 9 scene - act No

scene - agent No

scene - agency No

scene - purpose Yes

act - scene No

act - agent No

act - agency No

act - purpose Yes

agent - scene No

agent - act No

agent - agency No

agent - purpose Yes

agency - scene No Defending Social Norms Pramatism

agency - act Yes

agency - agent No


purpose - scene Yes

purpose - act No

purpose - agent No

purpose - agency No

News Corp 10 scene - act Yes

scene - agent No

scene - agency No

scene - purpose No

act - scene No

act - agent Yes

act - agency No

act - purpose Yes

agent - scene No

agent - act Yes

agent - agency No

agent - purpose Yes

agency - scene No

agency - act No

agency - agent No

agency - purpose No

purpose - scene Yes To defend her word choice Mysticism

purpose - act Yes

purpose - agent Yes

purpose - agency No



Does the first

term

determine the


News Corp 11 scene - act Yes

scene - agent No

scene - agency No

scene - purpose Yes

act - scene No

act - agent No

act - agency Yes

act - purpose Yes

agent - scene No

agent - act No

agent - agency No

agent - purpose No

agency - scene No

agency - act Yes

agency - agent No


purpose - scene Yes To justify her silencing Mysticism

purpose - act Yes

purpose - agent No



References

Anderson, K. (2011). Rhymes with blunt: pornification and u.s. political culture. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(2), 327-368.

Bicchieri, C. (2011). Social Norms. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Spring 2011.

Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/social-norms/

Bingham, A. (2012, June 14). Two women reps. banned from speaking in michigan house.

ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/two-

michigan-state-democrats-banned-from-speaking-on-house-floor/

Brighouse, H. W. (2008). Strong gender egalitarianism. Politics & Society, 36(3), 360-372. Burke, K. (1969). A grammar of motives. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Carlin, D. B., & Winfrey, K. L. (2009). Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton,

Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage. Communication Studies, 60(4),

326-343. doi:10.1080/10510970903109904

CBS. (2012, June 15). Mich. lawmaker barred for "vagina" comment in abortion debate. CBS

News. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=

s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDEQFjAA&url=http://www.cbsnews.com/83

01-201_162-57454431/mich-lawmaker-barred-for-vagina-comment-in-abortion-

debate/&ei=v9K7UKCJG4nh0QGE6YD4DQ&usg=AFQjCNFC6dd254ueVCOrO2xNf5y

VIzEf-A

CNN Political Unit. (2012, June 15). Michigan lawmakers barred from floor after 'vagina,'

'vasectomy’ remarks. CNN Politics. Retrieved from http:// politicalticker.blogs.

cnn.com/2012/06/15/michigan-lawmakers-barred-from-floor

Darr, C., & Strine, H. (2008). A Pentadic Analysis of Celebrity Testimony in Congressional

Hearings: Giving Voice to the Voiceless. Conference Papers -- National

Communication Association, 1.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/two-

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q


Dow, B. (1995). Feminism, difference(s), and rhetorical studies. Communication Studies,

46(1-2), 106-116.

Edwards, J. (2009). Gender and political communication in america. Plymouth, UK :

Lexington Books.

Foss, S. K., Foss, K. A., & Griffin, C. L. (2004). Readings in feminist rhetorical theory.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Foss, S.K. (2009). Rhetorical criticism: exploration and practice. (4th ed.). Waveland Press, Inc.: Long Grove, IL

Fox News. (2012, June 15). Mich. lawmaker silenced for abortion bill comments. Fox News.

Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/15/mich-lawmaker- silenced-for-abortion-bill-comments/

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. ( ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gordon, J. S. (2008). Moral egalitarianism. In Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved

from http://www.iep.utm.edu/moral-eg/

Griffin, E. (2006). A first look at communication theory. (6th ed.). New York, NY : McGraw

Hill

Harding, S. (1991). Whose science / whose knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press Harding, S. (1993). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: what is strong objectivity? In L.

Alcoff and E. Potter, eds., Feminist Epistemologies, New York/London: Routledge, Kelley, C. E. (1987). The 1984 Campaign Rhetoric of Representative George Hansen: A

Pentadic Analysis. Western Journal Of Speech Communication: WJSC, 51(2), 204- 217.

King, A. (2006). The state of rhetorical criticism. Rhetoric Review, 25(4), 365-368.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/15/mich-lawmaker-


Kohrs-Campbell, K. (1989). Man cannot speak for her (Vol. I ). New York, NY : Praeger

Publishers. Kramarae, C. (1980). Women and men speaking. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House

Publishers.

language. 2012. In merriam-webster.com. Retrieved October 5, 2012, from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language.

Ling, D. A. (1970). A Pentadic Analysis of Senator Edward Kennedy's Address to the People

of Massachusetts, July 25, 1969. Central States Speech Journal, 2181-86.

McKinney, D., Spielman, F., & Korecki, N. (2012, September 4). Lisa madigan refuses to tip

hand on governor's race. Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved from

http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/14938617-505/lisa-madigan-refuses-

to-tip-hand-on-governors-race.html

NBC National News. (2012, June 15). Michigan state representative lisa brown banned from

speaking on house floor during abortion debate. NBC News. Retrieved from

http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/national-news/michigan-state-representative-lisa-

brown-banned-from-speaking-on-house-floor-duri

Okin, S. M. (1979). Women in western political thought . Princeton, NJ : Princeton

University Press.

Peters, Jr. , D. M., & Rosenthal , C. S. (2010). Speaker nancy pelosi and the new american

politician. New York, NY : Oxford University Press.

Roberts, C. (2012, June 15). Michigan lawmaker silenced for 'vagina' remark. Daily News.

Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/michigan-state-rep-

lisa-brown- silenced-vagina-comments-article-1.1096480

Smith , P. M. (1985). Language, the sexes and society. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Publisher,

Ltd.

Spender, D. (1980). Man made language. Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd.

Sullivan, P. (1993). Women's discourse and political communication: A case study of

http://www.nbc33tv.com/news/national-news/michigan-state-representative-lisa-

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/michigan-state-rep-


congressperson patricia schroeder. Western Journal of Communication, 57(4), 530-

545.

Wall, C. J., & Gannon-Leary, P. (1999). A sentence made by men: Muted group theory

revisited. The European journal of women's studies, 6, 21-29.

Young, M. J. (2008). Thoughts on malcolm sillars' "persistent problems in rhetorical criticism": problems or opportunities in rhetorical criticism? Southern Communication Journal, 73(4), 347-349.

Zarefsky, D. (2006). Reflections on rhetorical criticism. Rhetoric Review, 25(4), 357-387.

Documents

MUTED WOMEN IN AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: QUIETING THE ...web02.gonzaga.edu/comltheses/proquestftp/Skingel_gonzaga_0736M... · MUTED WOMEN IN AMERICAN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: QUIETING