Feminist+Spring+14



**Feminist Criticism **

What is feminist criticism?
Feminist Criticism, as defined by Tyson (2006), is concerned with “the ways in which literature (and other cultural productions) reinforces or undermines the economic, political, social, and psychological oppression of women” (Tyson, 2006, p.83). Tyson also points out, however, that like other critics, feminists have their own individual opinions on many different things (Tyson, 2006).

Feminist criticism has followed what is known as the three waves of feminism (Brizee & Tompkins, 2010):
 * 1) First wave feminism (late 1700s to early 1900s), when writers like Mary Wollenscraft highlighted the inequalities between the sexes, and the suffrage movement won women the right to vote.
 * 2) In the second wave (early 1960s to late 1970s), feminist theories began to take shape as women fought for equal working conditions.
 * 3) In the third wave (early 1990s to present), expands on the experiences of marginalized populations.

It is worth noting that, by its very nature, feminist rhetorical criticism can be one-sided. Foss and Griffin (1992) state “scholars of rhetoric, because they seek to discover how and to what degree our rhetoric constructs our worlds, are constantly reminded of the truism that theories provide particular perspectives on the data they present” (p. 330).

Who and what has influenced modern-day feminist criticism?
“Feminist scholarship and criticism began in the communication discipline with three key texts” (Foss, 2009, p. 213).
 * = [[image:https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/items/picture/290378.jpg]] ||< ==“The Rhetoric of Women’s Liberation”==

Campbell “suggested that the rhetoric of the contemporary women’s movement consists of substantive and stylist components so distinctive that it constitutes a unique genre” (Foss, 2009, p. 213).
Image source: https://apps.cla.umn.edu/directory/items/picture/290378.jpg ||
 * ~ Karlyn Kohrs Campbell ||~  ||
 * = [[image:http://pages.uoregon.edu/cheris/cheris.jpg]] ||< ==“Women’s Speech: Separate but Unequal?”==

==Kramarae “raised the possibility of sex-linked linguistic signals, but [she] also urged that women as language users be considered individually rather than as part of a general category” (Foss, 2009, p. 213).==

Image source: http://pages.uoregon.edu/cheris/cheris.jpg ||
 * ~ Cheris Kramarae ||~  ||
 * = ==[[image:http://sallymillergearhart.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ReadingWanderground.jpeg width="235" height="191"]]== ||< ==“The Womanization of Rhetoric”==

==“Gearhart challenged a fundamental tenet of rhetorical studies – the definition of rhetoric as persuasion – and suggested that feminism necessarily transforms rhetorical constructs and theories” (Foss, 2009, p. 213).==

Image source: http://sallymillergearhart.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ReadingWanderground.jpeg ||
 * ~ Sally Miller Gearhart ||~  ||

=Performing Feminist Criticism= Feminist criticism contributes to the ideological criticism theory. Feminist criticism is employed "to discover how the rhetorical construction of identity markers such as gender are used as a justification for domination, how such domination is constructed as natural, and how the naturalness can be challenged" (Foss, 2009, p. 213).

The method of feminist criticism is performed by:
 * Viewing the artifact from a stance of domination or oppression of women through the construction of social institutions
 * Identifying and describing the elements involved that project the ideology, and
 * Determining how this ideology interacts with the feminist perspective



=The Artifact - Hobby Lobby Case News Webpage=


 * Hobby Lobby and The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty created a entire website, Hobby Lobby Case Homepage, as a way to spread information about the landmark case, Sebelius v Hobby Lobby.
 * The case began oral arguments on 25 March 2014
 * As of this writing, the Supreme Court has not issued a decision (Supreme Court: Docket Number 13-354, n.d.)

=Why is feminist criticism of this webpage relevant?=

The rhetoric and symbols used on the page point towards a meta-narrative that Hobby Lobby is creating about their position which has a dramatic effect on women’s reproductive rights, family planning, and legal treatment of certain health issues. Hobby Lobby’s position in their appeal of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) is based around religious freedom.

Two identity markers are at stake: gender and religion. They conflict in the mandatory health insurance coverage provisions of the ACA, whereby 20 birth control medications are legally required to be covered at no cost to the employee. Hobby Lobby posits that these medications cause abortion, which is against their religious beliefs.

This artifact is a news feed full of Op Ed and news articles with headlines that draw your attention, such as:
 * “The Real Parade of Horribles in the Hobby Lobby Case” (Whelan, 2014),
 * [|“Here’s What the Hobby Lobby Case is Actually About: Freedom”] (Flowers, 2014), or
 * “In Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, the Greens Display the Family Values that Built America” (Fuelner, 2014).

=Question to be Answered:=

Through a feminist criticism of this webpage, we want to the answer the question: How much power should an employer have over their employee’s family planning decisions?



**Purpose and Audience of the Webpage**

Audience - Individuals that share a similar ideological perspective as the owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family.


The rhetorical elements assume the audience believes -
 * in religious freedom
 * in the freedom of business to do as they please
 * that the only way to see Hobby Lobby in err is to use a “parade of horribles trotted out by the government to deny Hobby Lobby’s Religious Freedom Reform Act [RFRA] rights…as a matter of simple statutory interpretation, [and that the] RFRA’s reach shouldn’t be stunted by the government’s Chicken Little Act” (Hobby Lobby Case News, n.d.).

=Resource Subtleties= One main rhetorical strategy is an appeal to an authoritative position by creating a very professional looking website and intermixing Op Ed articles with News articles.

This creates:
 * no discernable way for someone to know which kind of article is being read unless the dateline or the website header are examined for words like "opinion" or “Op Ed."
 * an effective method of information propaganda.

The intertwining of Hobby Lobby’s legal briefs with court updates and Op Eds that only show Hobby Lobby’s perspective creates a false sense of balance and evidence-based information. The main source of news blurbs comes from other conservative news outlets like The National Review Online and the Washington Times. Other articles are links to briefings or posts that are hosted on its own site.


 * Usage of Social Media **
 * By clicking the button titled, “SUPPORT HOBBY LOBBY” in the top left corner of the page, you are greeted with a Facebook message for re-posting that says, “I support Hobby Lobby’s right to operate their business according to their religious convictions.”
 * As of this analysis, there are 21, 445 people who “liked” this on Facebook.com.
 * Follow Hobby Lobby’s case via twitter (@hobbylobbycase) or by posting a tweet: "Join me in supporting Hobby Lobby’s fight for religious liberty. Visit hobbylobbycase.com and follow @hobbylobbycase.”
 * Webpage informs viewers of Hobby Lobby’s Supreme Court updates and it also //creates action by turning passive readers into rhetors themselves when they mimic the same rhetoric through their own dissemination channels//, social media.
 * Hobby Lobby is interested in winning their case in court and in public opinion.

**Hobby Lobby Message and Feminist Perspective**

Though Hobby Lobby consistently takes the stance that they deserve religious freedom in their business and the government does not have a right to require them to act against their beliefs, the result is a lack of concern for the individual woman's rights. Hobby Lobby uses trigger words like “religious” and "freedom” to divert the audience from what the issue is really about: healthcare. Through their media site, Hobby Lobby posts only stories that back their position, with the approach that their audience already believes as they do. By not addressing the other side of the issue, Hobby Lobby’s attempts at persuasion are incomplete.

=Conclusion=

Hobby Lobby has created an effective, but one-sided rhetorical artifact. When looking at it through a feminist critique, it is clear that the Green's Hobby Lobby is putting its own individual opinions, beliefs and dogma over its employees personal needs. Hobby Lobby does not only employ people of like minds. This is not a religious organization with overt ideologies that are explicit by its very existence. Rather, this is a secular, for-profit store that is open to the public and, by law, is not allowed to discriminate in its hiring processes.

Since Hobby Lobby is a large, private corporation, it inevitably has a diverse employee pool, and it is safe to assume that there is a mix of men, women, Christians, atheists, and every other ideological identity marker that makes up the United States of America. However, the Green family is placing its own personal, religious beliefs above other people's beliefs (or lack there-of). While corporations should not be required to do everything the government desires, it also does not make sense for a company to dictate if you are going to be covered for cancer treatment, a sexually transmitted disease, or spinal problems. Simply because one family's individual religious beliefs runs contrary to some methods of legal, FDA-approved birth control, does not allow that company to decide how its employees should act in their own personal beliefs, values, and lifestyles.

Feminist criticism ultimately cares about the empowerment, fair treatment or domination over any particular identity marker, and women in particular. This case certainly does not empower women, and it seems to be clear that it does dominate women's health decisions without their input. Opponents will proclaim that an employee is free to leave a company, but should someone need to chose their employment based on health insurance policies, especially when the desired treatments and procedures are mainstream, legal and safe?



References

Brizee, A. & Tompkins, J. (2010). Feminist criticism: 1960s to present. //The Owl At Purdue.// Retrieved on 4-17-14 from []

Flowers, C. (2014, April 6). Here’s What the “Hobby Lobby” Case is Actually About - Freedom. PennLive.com. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from @http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/heres_what_the_hobby_lobby_cas.html

Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. L. (1992). A Feminist Perspective on Rhetorical Theory: Toward a Clarification of Boundaries. //Western Journal Of Communication//, //56//(4), 330-349.

Fuelner, E. (2014, March 31). FEULNER: Honoring Hobby Lobby, Conestoga Wood Specialties for Living Their Faith. The Washingtion Times. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from @http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/31/feulner-honoring-those-who-honor-their-faith/

Hobby Lobby News - Hobby Lobby Case. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2014, from @http://www.hobbylobbycase.com

Hobby Lobby - Straightforward Statutory Interpretation. National Review Online. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from @http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/374371/hobby-lobby-straightforward-statutory-interpretation-ed-whelan

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved April 19, 2014, from http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/13-354.htm Whelan, E. (2014a, March 27).

Tyson, L. (2006). //Critical theory today: A user-friendly guide.// Rutledge: New York, New York.

Whelan, E. (2014b, March 27). Hobby Lobby - The Real Parade of Horribles. National Review Online. Retrieved April 19, 2014, from http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/374379/hobby-lobby-real-parade-horribles-ed-whelan

Image Sources

Rally for Reproductive Rights. Retrieved from @http://www.wvfree.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/10003920_682093005167388_683542621_n.jpg

David and Barbara Green. Retrieved from @http://images.catholic.org/ins_news/2014033303greens_300.jpg

Facebook/Twitter. Retrieved from @http://northversailleslibrary.org/test/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/twitter_facebook1.jpg

Activists holding signs on March 25, 2014. Retrieved from @http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/140325_JURIS_HobbyLobbyOralArguments.jpg.CROP.promo-mediumlarge.jpg