I'm all for equal rights, but don't call me a feminist”: Identity Dilemmas in Young Adults'...

Wotnen's Studies in Commutiicalion Volume 31, Number I, Spring 200S

"I'm all for equal rights, but don't call me a feminist":Identity Dilemmas in Young Adults' Discursive

Representations of Being a Feminist

Loreen N. Olson, Tina A. Coffelt, Eileen Berlin Ray,Jill Rudd, Renee Botta, George Ray, and Jenifer E. Kopfman

The purpose of the study was to understand how young adults identified with thefeminist labet. Focus groups were conducted with males and females age t8-30 toascertain the meaning they ascribed to the term. A theoretical identity frameworkemerged as a useful tool for understanding how participants were (not) identifying witlithe feminist identity. Participants expressed accepting or rejecting the label, the identity,and the ideals, materializing into four varieties of language called embracing, denounc-ing, reframing, and resisting. Keywords: feminist communication theory; social con-structionism; third wave feminism; identity; feminist

1 he feminist identity dilemma is especially salient today, given the factthat we are in the midst of what scholars and activists call the third waveof feminism (Orr, 1997), and the use of the label feminist seems to beespecially controversial to third wavers (Aronson, 2003; Bum, Aboud, &Moyles, 2000; Cowan, Mestlin, & Masek, 1992; Findlen, 2001; Renzetti,1987). Baumgardner and Richards (2000) note the fear of claiming afeminist identity because "they [people] don't want to be associated withspooky stereotypes about feminists and their freaky excesses" (p. 62).Susan Douglas (1995) provides a summary of these commonly heldstereotypes about feminists:

They are shrill, overly aggressive, man-hating, ball-busting, self-ish, hairy, extremist, deliberately unattractive women with abso-

Loreeh N. Olson is an Associate Professor and Tina A. Coffelt is a Doctoral Student inthe Department of Communication, University of Missouri-Columbia. Eileen Berlin Rayis a Professor and Jill Rudd an Associate Professor, School of Communication, Cleve-land State University. Ren6e Botta is an Assistant Professor in the Department of MassCommunication and Journalism Studies, University of Denver. George Ray is anAssociate Professor, School of Communication, Cleveland State University, and JeniferKopfnian is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication, College ofCharleston. Direct correspondence to the first author at the Department of Communi-cation; 115 Switzler Hall, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO, 65211.Email: [email protected].

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented at the 2006 NCA convention inSan Antonio.

Loreen N. Olson 105

lutely no sense of humor who see sexism at every turn. Theymake men's testicles shrivel up to the size of peas, they detest thefamily and think all children should be deported or drowned.Feminists are relentless, unforgiving, and unwilling to bend orcompromise; they are single-handedly responsible for the highdivorce rate, the shortage of decent men, and the unfortunateproliferation of Birkenstocks in America, (p. 7)

Others also have noted similar reasons for rejections of the label feminist,including, for example, a desire to avoid identification with radical fem-inists (Ashcraft, 1998), a distaste for the lack of inclusion of men (Kamen,1991), a rejection of a separatist-oriented political strategy (Freedman,1979), and a denunciation of the narrow focus on white, middle-class,heterosexual women (Shugart, Waggoner, & Hallstein, 2001).

While writers, such as Barbara Findlen (2001), note that second-wavefeminists and others decry concern that young adults seems to lackidentification with the word feminist, the negative images of feministscontain so much baggage that it is easy to understand why young adultsmight reject the label. It appears that we are in the midst of a paradoxicaltime that Douglas (1995) calls, "I'm not a feminist, but." In other words,many young adults may live feminist lives and promote feminist ideals butrefuse to use the label feminist. Ashcraft (1998) succinctly describes theparadox when she states, "I became an increasingly avid feminist, thoughI battled the label arduously" (p. 590).

At this point, one might ask, why are labels so important? In brief,identity-based labels are extremely important to our sense of self as theyare the symbolic means for creating and reflecting aspects of our identity.In turn, the label assigned to the corresponding aspect of self interacts withthe individual and social practices of enacting the role, thereby givingmeaning to its enactment. Using the label feminist to describe one's self isa specific example of the interaction between labels and identity. Manyhave embraced the \abe\ feminist and its corresponding role as an essentialpart of their identity. Conversely, others have distanced themselves fromthe. label and the identity, refusing to self-identify as a feminist. Still,others have experienced more of a contested identity by practicing therole, but rejecting the feminist label.

While feminist ideals seem to permeate popular culture, little empiricalresearch has been conducted examining how young adults feel about thelabel feminist and to what degree they associate with it. The pertinent

106 Women's Studies in Communication

focus herein relates to the label of feminist as it relates to identity, ratherthan the social movement of feminism. While the two are interconnected,the former is of particular import to the current analysis. Because of thelimited amount of research that has examined the duality inherent inconsciously rejecting a feminist identity and living a feminist life, thepurpose of the project is to ascertain how males and females between theages of 18 and 30 in the early 2000s discursively identify with feministideals and the label feminist. We focus on young adults between 18 and 30because their age situates them in the third wave of feminism. We locatethird-wave feminism in a socio-historical context beginning in the early1980s (Wolf, 1993) and continuing to present. The counterpoint to thesocio-historic approach to feminism is a political position whereby dif-ferent feminist political agendas organize feminists (Hogeland, 2001).This study closely adheres to the influence of the socio-historic context butalso acknowledges the political nature of the work. However, our empha-sis is to seek discursive representations by young adults of the labelfeminist rather than with a feminist political agenda. Throughout the text,we refer to young adults when describing potential members of the thirdwave, and we use third-wavers when we have specific evidence or makeunique reference to self-identified feminists.

The present study has important theoretical and practical implications.First, grounded in social constructionism and feminist communicationtheory, it is vital to these perspectives that theorizing remains fluid,flexible, and grounded in current ideologies. Thus, a need exists tounderstand young adults' perceptions of the feminist identity in order forfeminist theories and social constructionist perspectives to remain con-nected to their worlds and to maintain relationships with the new gener-ation! Second, on a related, practical note, it is also important for feministscholars and activists to remain abreast of current trends in order tomaintain a feminist agenda that responds to the needs of its constituents—young and old. Young adults believe in the tenets of the feminist move-ment, but by rejecting the label, disunity results, disabling activists tocontinue to forge new legislation and social changes that support genderequality. To achieve the goals of the study, we first describe the intersec-tion of social constructionism and feminist communication theory, fol-lowed by an explanation of how the theoretical frameworks provide a lensfor understanding identity. Second, we review and connect identity tolanguage and the label feminist for women and men in the past andpresent.

Loreen N. Olson 107

The Intersection of Social Constructionism and FeministCommunication Theory

Social constructionism is a theoretical perspective grounded in the ideathat all reality is created by members of society through interaction(Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Events occur and conversations ensue thatimpact our worldview and thus frame our view of reality. Throughinteraction with others, we mold our identities of self and develop per-ceptions of others' identities. Indeed, as noted by Hall (1992), the socio-logical view of identity requires social interaction in order to project andconvey images to others and, conversely, to send feedback to others thatconfirms or denies identity images. An important distinction in under-standing identity is that identity is constructed in two, non-mutuallyexclusive ways.

The first construction of self-identity occurs over time, forming a fairlystable structural element whereby an individual projects a desired andperceived self-image (Barak, Mathur, Lee; & Zhang, 2001). Second, whileidentity emerges during conversation as output, it also descends andtransforms based on reactions from significant and marginalized others(Mead, 1934). For example, women who project a desired feminist iden-tity in work or family contexts periodically experience negative andcondescending feedback from others in the same milieu. As a result ofsuch reactions, women transform their communication and invoke moreemotion work in subsequent interactions with family members or cowork-ers (Hercus, 1999). Thus, dual efforts of identity construction occur toexpress a self-imposed identity and to moderate identity projections basedon others' reactions as conveyed during interaction. Salient in both con-struction methods is how talk does identity work by creating a stage toperform identities.

Thus, as interactions occur, experiences influence the way we view theworld and communicate to others, thereby placing discourse at the centerof the social construction of reality. Within a given language system andcontext, labels harbor meaning and serve as a discursive tool to assistcommunicators with identity construction. Moreover, labels facilitate theconstruction of identity because they are value laden as a result of meaningattached to them (Seelye & Wasilewski, 1996). Labels are seen as positiveor negative, to be associated with or not, leading to stigmatization (Harter,Berquist, Titsworth, Novak, & Brokaw, 2005), (dis)respect, or (dis)admi-ration. Despite labels' ability to convey unified meaning about identities.


varying meanings of a label may also disconnect and divide membersassociated with the label. As we will explore later, the word feminist is oneexample of the value-laden nature of labels as well as their uniting anddivisive power.

Feminist theory (Donovan, 1990; hooks, 1984) shifts our attention ona specific context (gendered interactions) and provides an additionaltheoretical lens from which to view the interconnectedness of languageand identity. Further, this theoretical perspective examines the dominantpatriarchal culture that influences nieaning-making and simultaneouslyexplores how some identities are marginalized while others are privileged(Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004). Identities that are especially prone to mar-ginalization are those that are viewed as threatening to the patriarchalpower structure. Rakow and Wackwitz's (2004) explanation of feministcommunication theory conjoins communication to feminist theory withfour meaningful properties—explanatory, political, polyvocal, and trans-fonnative. The explanatory property likens feminist communication the-ory to other communication theories, while the political, polyvocal, andtransformative properties distinguish the theory (and others with similiu"ideologies, such as Marxism and post-colonialism) from other post-posi-tivist communication theories. The explanatory property connects livedexperience with theoretical concepts, rather than using theory to predictcommunication outcomes. The political property assumes "the world isunjust and requires change" (p. 6). The polyvocal property allows multi-ple, and at times contradictory, voices to be heard to grasp a richer senseof reality. Such voices are typically the marginalized voices frequentlysilenced or unacknowledged by non-feminist scholarship. The transfor-mative property seeks to help "individuals and groups make sense ofcommunication practices and the realities they engender" (p. 6).

The present study applies Rakow and Wackwitz's (2004) perspectiveon feminist communication theory in several ways. First, the study at-tempts to explain contradictions in labels and identities or words andactions. Second, the concept of the study in and of itself is political as itexarnines the label feminist and feminist identities. Third, multiple voicesare heard to ensure a polyvocal exploration of the label feminist. Finally,sharing the results of the study contribute to the transformative property.Our goal is to show how many young adults live feminist lives but use thelabel feminist in various ways. By demonstrating inconsistencies betweenlabels and identities, we hope to shed light on not only the acceptability of

Loreen N. Olson 109

feminist labels and identity among young adults, but also transformscholars' perceptions and understandings of some of the participants in thethird wave of feminism.

Social constructionism and Rakow and Wackwitz's feminist commu-nication theory share several features. First, reality is socially constructedvia language and interaction. Second, lived experience is the foundationfor meaning-making and sense-making. Third, meaning-making does notoccur in a personal vacuum, but, rather, is influenced by and influences thelarger social world. Fourth, some identities are embraced while others arenot. Fifth, an emphasis on context exists. Therefore, using labels duringinteraction assists interlocutors in meaning-making within specific con-texts and the larger society. Thus, language becomes the intersectionbetween social constructionism and feminist communication theory, for itis through communication that gendered identities are constructed. In sum,social constructionism and fetninist theory provide a theoretical frame-work for viewing how language and interaction construct identities. Thesocially constructed view of the world frames the present study because ofthe multiple meanings derived from the word feminist.

Changing Feminist Identities and Shifting Language

Socio-historic reviews of the meaning of the label feminist provideevidence that the word is socially constructed and has represented differ-ent forms of identity over time. The first appearance of the word feministis debatable (Freedman, 2001), but Baumgardner and Richards (2000)assert that it was first recorded in the United States in 1906. The labelsuffragist appears to be the dominant term used during the late 1800s andearly 1900s based on the establishment of the National Woman SuffrageAssociation (NWSA) in 1848 (Freedman, 2001) and personal journals ofwomen from this era (Spongberg, 2002). Interestingly, the term women'sliberation was often used rather than the word feminist during the secondwave, perhaps because of its ability to identify both liberal and radicalfeminists (Baumgardner & Richards, 2000), during the heightened activ-ism of the mid 1960s through the 1970s.

A resurgence of activism in the 1980s and 1990s resulted in thenomenclature of waves describing three feminist movements as first wave,second wave, and third wave. Each wave reflects the sociohistoricalcontext in which it existed or exists (Bum et al., 2000; Suter & Toller,


2006; Zucker, 2004). Moreover, just as each wave was influenced bysocio-historic events, so too, is the meaning derived from the wordfeminist and the degree to which individuals identify with it. The contra-diction between identifying as a feminist and advocating for women'srights appears to be more pronounced in third wave feminists than in theirpredecessors and may be indicative of an identity dilemma for thirdwavers. Douglas (1995) contends that the supposed motto of women in thethird wave is "I'm not a feminist, but" (p. 70). She further expounds onthis phrase by explaining, "The comma, however, is the fulcrum of thewhole statement, which marks the divisions—and, more important, theprofound connections—between the disavowal of feminism in the firstpart of the phrase and its embrace at the end" (p. 270). Gilmore (2001)further posits that third wave feminists support "another kind of languagefor feminism," (p. 219) resulting from their real or imagined identitydifferences from second-wave feminists.

Faludi (1991) argues that backlashes have occurred after each "revo-lution" (p. 48) of feminist activism, and Zucker (2004) contends that abacklash regarding the label has received considerable attention in recenthistory. To examine this contemporary issue more systematically, addi-tional attention of the lived experiences and daily dialogues of youngadults who are in the midst of managing the possible identity dilemmanoted by others is needed. Therefore, to empirically explore how someyoung adults relate to a feminist label and identity, the following researchquestion was posed:

RQ: How do young adults in the early 2000s discursively iden-tify with the label feminist and its corresponding identity?

Method

Corresponding with the emergent, subjective nature of reality guidingthe social constructionist and the feminist perspective taken in this study,a cohstructivist methodological paradigm (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) waschosen for this project. The goal of this paradigm is to understand the livedexperience of social actors—or to grasp "the actor's definition of asituation" (Schwandt, 1998, p. 221). Constructivists, specifically, arguethat what humans believe to be knowledge and truth are created throughcomplex discursive practices rather than discovered objectively by one's

Loreen N. Olson 111

mind (for a detailed discussion, see Schwandt, 1998). Moreover, accord-ing to Fuss (1989), "Constructionists are concerned above all with theproduction and organization of differences, and they therefore reject theidea that any essential or natural givens precede the process of socialdetermination" (p. 3). These differences result in correspondingly diver-gent constructions of reality, which are embraced by constructivists. Yet,amidst the plurality, truth to the constructivist becomes a matter of whichconstruction has the most sophistication and consensus at any given time(Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Thus, what is known to be true is historicallyrelative and pluralistic. Finally, because the observer cannot be disentan-gled from the process of inquiry, the results of the inquiry are alsosocial constructions.

In sum, the constructivist paradigm guided the present analysis becauseof our overarching goal of seeking to understand the socially constructedviews of the word feminist and the discursive practices employed byindividuals in their attempts to assign meaning to the word and itscorresponding identity. Moreover, the paradigm also encourages us torecognize that the results (aka "truthful representations of the participants'constructions") are a combination of our participants' creations and ourown constructions—for the knower cannot be separated from the known(Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Data Collection Procedures

The data in the present analysis were part of a larger, multiphaseproject, examining participants' thoughts about the word feminist andhow their identification with the label related to their media consump-tion patterns. Specifically, a convenience sample of students from anurban university in the northeastern United States was recruited forparticipation. It is important to note that this university is comprisedmostly of nontraditional aged students, many of whom are first gen-eration college students, work full time, and have families of their own.A subsample of these students (N = 53) was asked to participate infocus groups conducted by faculty who were part of the research team.The research team established several different times and dates for thevarious types of focus groups that we wanted to conduct. Thereafter,we asked those who were interested in participating to sign up for agroup in which they met the selection criteria and that was scheduledfor a time convenient to them. Thus, the students who comprised each


focus group came from a variety of communication classes and may ormay Inot have had the facilitator as a current instructor. Extra credit wasgiven to students who participated, while those choosing not to par-ticipate were given an alternative assignment. The focus groups wereheld'in departmental rooms reserved for research purposes. Each roomhad a one-way mirror with all of the recording equipment on the otherside 'of the mirror. Thus, all of the equipment was out of view of theparticipants, making it less intrusive. To encourage as much conver-sation as possible, participants and the facilitator sat around a circleof tables.

Each facilitator began each focus group session by saying, "Thismeeting is part of a study examining various opinions about the word,'feminist.' One way to get people's opinions is through a group discussion.It no only allows you to share your ideas but also allows you to commentupon others' ideas and thoughts. My job is to facilitate this conversation.I have some general questions to guide our discussion. I value yourcomments, so please speak openly about your thoughts—even if they areunpopular. We are very interested in your opinions and ideas. As you readin your consent forms, we will be videotaping and audio taping thediscussion. These tapes are for research purposes only. Are there anyquestions before we begin?"

As indicated in the above introduction script, the groups were audio-and videotaped. The videotapes were collected in the event that thetranscriptionist needed help identifying speakers during the transcriptionprocess. They served no other purpose than as a back-up method to theaudio tape. While we had a semi structured interview protocol to follow(see Table 1 for the list of questions), our goal as facilitators was to makethe interactions as much like a casual conversation as possible. This meantthat participants were encouraged to speak when they wanted to, not onlywhen, asked, and that they could interact with each other without thefacilitator's constant prompting or guidance. Additional follow-up ques-tions were asked to gain further elaboration, explanation, or clarification,and included such questions as, "Can you say more about that? What dothe rest of you think about that idea? Do you agree? Disagree?" Onaverage, each discussion lasted approximately one hour. As with anyconversation, some groups were more interactive than others and neededless prompting, while others were less so and needed the facilitator tointerject to move the discussion forward.

Loreen N. Olson 113

Table 1

Focus Group Interview Protocol

1. What is the stereotypical image of a feminist?2. What does a feminist look like to you? What images are conjured

up when you think of a feminist? How do you think your viewsabout feminists compare to your mothers'? Fathers'?

3. What does being a feminist mean to you? To your generation?4. Do you think you are a feminist? Why or why not?5. What impact have feminists had on your life? What are the

benefits of feminism, if any? Costs?6. Do you think you engage in feminist behavior? If yes, what are

some of those behaviors? If no, why not?7. Do you think we still need to fight for women's rights? Why or

why not?8. Why do you think you and/or your generation resist the label

"feminist"?9. Can males be feminists? Why or why not?

10. What thoughts or opinions do you have about feminists that wehaven't brought up?

Participants

Six focus groups comprise the data for the present study. Because ourprimary interest was in the perspectives of young adults who would beconsidered members of Generation X and whose age situated them withinthe socio-historic era of third wave feminism, the focus groups werecomprised of individuals between the ages of 18 to 30. The groups weresegregated by sex with a same-sex facilitator in order to allow for what webelieved would be more open, honest discussions, whereby participantscould voice their feelings without the added dynamic of feeling pressuredto say what they think the "other" sex may want to hear. Focus groups 1(n = 13), 2 (n = 7), and 3 (M = 3) consisted of males only. A maleprofessor who was part of the research team facilitated these groups.


Female professors who also were on the research team conducted threegroups with females only [(Group 4 (n = 9); Group 7 (n = 8); Group 8in = 13)].

Analysis

Data from each focus group were transcribed verbatim, netting 156pages of data. Participants were given a pseudonym by which to bereferred. True to the constructivist paradigm, data analysis involved the"'dialectic' of iteration, analysis, critique, reiteration, reanalysis"(Schwandt, 1998, p. 243). Specifically, four members of the research teamindividually read the transcripts multiple times, created a preliminaryinterpretive framework, and met to discuss their various understandings.Once an initial framework was agreed upon, two members continued toanalyze the data, refining their interpretations. Data were reread withnoticeable, meaningful, and recurring ideas noted and pooled together.Finally, themes emerged, capturing the joint (researchers' and partici-pants') constructions of the multiple images of a feminist and the multipleways of identifying with the label feminist.

Verification

To evaluate the fit of the joint constructions with the data, several formsof vei-ification were employed. In general, verification provides trust andauthenticity (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) in the data and can be performedemploying a variety of techniques. This study utilized three various formsof evaluation. First, persistent observation (Creswell, 2003) occurred insitu by checking for inconsistencies in the participants' responses. Theresearcher asked probing and clarifying questions to achieve this goal.Second, thick, rich quotes were included in the results section for furtherverification. Finally, Guba and Lincoln (1989) also note that constructionscan be evaluated based upon the degree to which they work (provide acredible level of understanding), are relevant, and are modifiable. Theanalysis team remained mindful of the degree to which the results refiecteda credible level of understanding and made changes as necessary. All ofthese forms of verification were used throughout the analysis process toinsure the authenticity of the interpretations. However, due to the nature ofthe qualitative process of verification, the readers became active partici-pants in assessing the quality of this overall process.

Loreen N. Olson 115

Results

Discursive (Non)Identification with the Feminist Label

The research question guiding the present analysis asked: How doyoung adults in the early 2000s discursively identify with the labelfeminist and its corresponding identity? In responding to this question, wefocused on the language participants utilized to express their identificationwith the label feminist. The discursive interactions within the focus groupsrevealed even more about their understanding of and identification with afeminist identity.

We realized that in order to capture the complexity of the participants'relationship with a feminist identity, a theoretical framework was neces-sary (see Table 2). In other words, a binary approach to understandingtheir identification with the label (e.g., yes, I am a feminist or no, I am not)proved insufficient in describing how these young adults were processingthe label feminist and its corresponding relationship to their sense of self.Therefore, the first concept to emerge was the degree of acceptance orrejection they noted toward the label. As such, an accepting-rejectingcontinuum formed the central concept of our framework. From there, wenoted that individuals articulated various approaches toward accepting orrejecting a feminist identity. Three constructs—label, identity, and ide-als—emerged as important ways of making sense of how our participantswere (not) identifying with a feminist identity and, along with the accep-

Table 2

Discursive Identity Processing Model: Language ofAccepting or Rejecting Feminist Ideals, Identity, and Label

Types of

Identifying

Language Fmbracing Denouncing Reframing Resisting

Label

Identity

Ideals

Accept

Accept

Accept

Reject

Accept

Accept

Reject

. Reject

Accept

Reject

Reject

Reject


tance-rejection continuum, constituted our Discursive Identity Processingmodel. The term label refers only to the word feminist and its applicationby young adults, whereas, ideals denotes the values and principles offeminism. Identity reflects a projection of perceived and/or desired selfimage (Barak et al., 2001). Thus, participants expressed accepting orrejecting the label, the identity, and the ideals, materializing into fourvarieties of language we call embracing, denouncing, reframing, or resist-ing. Descriptions of each variety combined with illustrative exemplarsfrom the participants follow. The examples included are raw, verbatimaccounts of the participants' responses and, accordingly, are often inartic-ulate and filled with dysfluencies and awkward, incorrect grammar. Whilewe were tempted to "clean" the data, we felt it more important to leavethem unchanged in order to maintain the data's integrity and to reveal whatmay tie the individuals' lack of clarity surrounding their thoughts on theissue of a feminist identity.

Embracing

Embracing discourse indicated an acceptance of the values of femi-nism, the incorporation of the values into the self-image, and the use of thelabel feminist. Participants who used embracing language shared similarsocial I constructions of feminist ideals and were able to Iconfidently iden-tify as feminists and embrace the use of the label in interactions. Asevidenced in Marge's comments, embracing discourse reflected a beliefthat being a feminist meant supporting equal rights, "I'm definitely afeminist because when I think of feminism I think of equal rights andequal choices . . . . I do not see feminists as male hating bitches or anythinglike that. I just see it as equal opportunity for choice. (8: 487-494)'

Moreover, we found that those who used embracing language also usedit as a form of political advocacy. In other words, individuals like Donnaused the label feminist as a way to not only express their own identities butalso as a way of educating others about what it means to be a feminist byspecifically denouncing the negative stereotypes. Specifically,Donna noted:

I was just gonna say, I went to like an all girls' school. So, I like,learned the feminist roles so early. Like, so most of my friendsare from all girls' schools. We consider ourselves feminists. But,I, I call myself a feminist naturally to say like hey, not to try to

Loreen N. Olson 117

like say something about, I like sexuality or something like that.But, I say it to try to prove to 'em, it's like, look, I'm not like astereotype. I'm not exacUy like the stereotype says. And I wantpeople to understand that about me. And I just, I try to force it on'em a lot of times. But, it gets received bad. But, I just do it just'cause I, I think it needs to be done. (7: 162-166)

In general, participants who used embracing language shared similarsocial constructions of feminist ideals and were able to identify confi-dently as feminists and embraced the use of the label in interactions. Theydisapproved of the stereotypical images of male-bashers or radical bra-burners and articulated a common belief in advancing women's rights. Wenoted that many of these individuals articulated backgrounds in whichthey had either been exposed to more explicit feminist teachings (e.g., allgirl school or family environment) or had experienced some genderdiscrimination in the workplace. As such, they seemed more aware ofsexism in their social worlds and, therefore, more willing to embrace afeminist identity, to self-identify as a feminist, and to fight for genderequality. Interestingly, we found that individuals who expressed an em-bracing language during the focus groups were not treated negatively byother participants, despite the perceived negative stereotype of feministsshared during several discussions. The participants who espoused theideals, identity, and label expressed their views and the conversationscontinued. The absence of criticism or presumption of radicalism by theother participants is noteworthy, particularly in light of a subsequentsection on resisting language.

Denouncing

Contrary to embracing discourse, denouncing language expressed ac-cepting ideals and identity but condemned the label feminist (see Table 2).This type of language refiected a belief in mainstream feminist ideals (aslong as the ideals were based upon an equal rights agenda) and, viadescriptions of self-image, decisions made, and actions taken, an accep-tance of a feminist identity. However, individuals who used denouncinglanguage seemed to be infiueneed by the negative social image of the labelfeminist and thereby rejected the label. In many ways, this discoursereflected the "I'm not a feminist, but" ideology described by Susan


Douglas (1995). For example, Julie responded to the question, "Why doyou think that members of your generation resist the label feminist,"by stating:

I think that just because of the negative connotation that goesalong with it. Like everyone already said, nobody wants to be afeminist and specially you know guys and people around uslooked down on us if we say that and it is not a good word, it isa' bad word and that is just the way that it is looked upon.(7: 721-727)

The denouncing language of men and women alike echoed the supportof feminist ideals and the acknowledgement of a feminist identity, yetclearly denied the apphcation of the label feminist to themselves. In thefollowing example, Tim illustrated denouncing language by expressing aresistance to be labeled, in general, and a distaste for the label feminist,specifically because of the negative connotations associated with it:

That is why we call it the "F" word around the office, becausewhy would you want to put that label on someone? I meaneyerybody in this room believes that women should have everyopportunity as men and have no boundaries except for thewoman that can't fill the need for the physical limitations, and Iguess by some people's definition that we are feminists, but Iwould rather say that we are the people, that we are individuals.(2: 517-522)

In another group, Paul also articulated a dislike for being categorizedvia labeling and, with regard to the label feminist specifically, a desire todistance himself from the "extreme, crazy feminists":

Because you do not like to be labeled. And if you say that youare a feminist, it kind of implies that you are extreme, and peopledo not want to be extreme to anything, or people think that theyare crazy, and they are not worthy of listening to. (3: 593-595)

Tim's and Paul's explanations attested to the acceptance of a feministidentity and its corresponding ideals. However, these two, among other

Loreen N. Olson 119

participants, maintained that speakers should abstain from using the other"F" word in their daily discourse because of the accompanying baggage.

In Maria's group, she proclaimed her own adherence to feminist idealsand the performance of a feminist identity, yet provided discouragingstatements about the negative image of second-wave feminists, whichrationalized her denouncement of the label feminist.

I grew up with two sisters. So between my mom and raising threedaughters, she raised us to make our own choices, I know, wecould, we could do whatever we wanted to do. We were no lessthan men, and but we were no better than men. But we had all thesame opportunities as any son, if they were to have a son, wouldhave. But, in which, I think over all the ideals of what a feministis, but we never placed that name on what my mom taught us.And we actually look at feminists like, Gloria Steinem? Welooked at her like, "Oh geez, what a witch!" You know? Shedoes, she gives women a horrible name. She's so, like brash and,and, and just out there, that she actually, she had all the ideas ofhow we felt and how we were living our lives, but I guess it wasjust that idea of going out there and yelling at men and [laughs],and you know, it was just, epwh, that's what, I, I, I didn't like, Idon't like the idea of, of a feminist but I guess I like the ideal offeminism. (7: 130-139)

In brief, denouncing language demonstrated the contested identity ofyoung adults. The participants clearly desired to perform an identity thatreflected feminist ideals, but resisted the label. For some, denouncing thelabel feminist was grounded in their lack of desire to be pigeon-holed bybeing placed in any category. For others, denouncing discourse reflectedthe degree to which the negative, mediated images of feminists hadpenetrated their consciousnesses. They were very much influenced by thestereotypical images and, having bought into that image, were unwilling to"choose" that label for themselves. Yet, the individuals' discourse revealedan acceptance of "women are equal to men" mentality, revealing a ratherunconscious performance of a feminist identity.

Reframing

Reframing discourse reflected stances that accepted the equal rights forall aspect of the second-wave feminist ideals, but rejected a more specific


feminist identity and therefore the label (see Table 2). Having been bominto a world of rights that the first and second-wave feminists fought for,several of these individuals discussed how there was no longer a need forfeminism because "it just is." They were living feminist lives and believedin the systems that gave them choices but, without realizing it, they hadreframed the ideals of the feminist movement. Instead of seeing the needto cdntinue to fight for women's rights and use embracing language,reframing language conveyed beliefs that any struggle should be basedupon [human rights. Thus, these individuals reframed the issues of femi-nism and the idea of being a feminist into one of human rights (as opposedto only women's rights). They preferred the label humanist to describethemselves. "We're all just humans" was an anthem sung by many of theparticipants, including Betty who made the following comment whendescribing her perspective on being a feminist:

I think that there is always this ladder. At the top there is alwayssomeone that believes in equal rights. At the bottom there issomeone that is going to bum down the abortion clinic. Then,there is the middle. Probably a lot of women are there, but theydo not want to admit it, of course, because they don't want to beknown as a feminist. And you want to be who you are, a humanbeing. That it is all that we want to be. (4: 1142-1146)

Interestingly, Betty's use of the ladder metaphor allowed her to positionon a continuum the fight for equal rights with the violent actions ofanti-choice individuals. Safely nestled inbetween is the "human being,"which, according to Betty, is where and who she and a lot of women are.

Another aspect of reframing was how participants often discursivelypositioned equal rights for all as more important than and different fromthe fight for women's rights. This position is clear in the following excerptwhere Laurie used firm, reframing language to describe how equal rightsare different from feminism. Unfortunately, the reframing that occurs inthe fpllowing conversation also reflects an inaccurate recollection ofhistory, which the facilitator did not correct during the conversation. Asfrustrating as it was to listen to these inaccuracies, the facilitator refrainedfrom interjecting and assuming an authoritative role in order to maintainthe egalitarian tone of the conversation. As a result, we are able to see howincorrect historical accounts of the feminist movement contribute to some

Loreen N. Olson 121

individuals' misunderstanding of its impact on current laws and societalpractices. Without accurate knowledge of the ways in which feministshave changed the world, individuals co-opt that reality into one that is"less extreme" and more about human rights, reflecting once again thebacklash associated with anything feminist.

Laurie: It was the Equal [sic] Rights Act of 1964 for race and forwomen, everyone has the same rights. To me that's not . . .people will disagree, but I do not think of it as a feministmovement. That was a government thing because that is how itshould be fair. So, I don't put how my life is and give credit tofeminists. I give credit to my government that decided to say thatwomen have the same rights as men. That's just my opinion.Betty: I don't agree with that.Kim: So what about the women that picketed for that right?Sue: It's a mutual thing. I mean.Kim: I'm. just saying that somebody did have to push for it. Imean ultimately the government did push for it. They are re-sponsible for giving us that right, but somebody had to push forthat right. And it was women, and I mean, I'm not saying thatthese were necessarily like like I said, everyone has their owndefinition of feminist, but to me just because it was a woman thatwas pushing for our rights, and I am not saying to me I don'tknow if that is necessarily feminists.Laurie: See, I don't call those feminists.Kim: Obviously someone that wanted rights.Laurie: See, I don't call that feminist.Bonny: So obviously somebody, you know, the men imposed it.Mary: Someone that wanted rights.Laurie: I think some of the extreme nature and that is a stereo-typical and I apologize. Is just crazy about women's rights asfeminist, and that is my definition. And that could be stereotyp-ical, someone that stood up and wanted equal rights, I do not callthat a feminist. (4: 814-845)

Aside from troubling historical interpretations of the women's rightsmovement, the interactions in this conversation not only indicated howone woman used language to reveal her reframing of the meaning of the


word feminist, but also how the interactions revealed a discursive forcesurrounding the label feminist and how that force literally pushed indi-viduals away from anything associated with it and toward a more com-fortable reframed reality. More specifically, Betty, who directly refutedLaurie's position by indicating disagreement, is quickly closed out of theconversation, thereby discursively closing what could have been an op-portunity for others to hear a more accurate historical rendering of thewomen's movement. Kim tried a less direct approach in her disagreementwith Laurie. However, she too eventually reframed her stance by backingdown from equating women who fight for their rights with being femi-nists. It is really the voices of agreement about the need to reframe thenotion of a feminist that prevailed in this conversation.

In sum, the essence of reframing language represented an acceptance ofan "equality for all" ideology coupled with a distancing association witha feminist identity and label, more specifically. It appeared from theindividuals' conversations that reframing was often the result of thepositioning of the feminist image (identity) and corresponding label as the"othei"," making it a cognitively and emotionally undesirable position toassurne and, therefore, necessary for individuals to reframe any need forequahty into one that centered on human rights.

Resisting

Finally, resisting language indicated a rather active rejection of feministideals, identity, and label (see Table 2). Participants who used resistinglanguage upheld ideals of distinct, traditional male and female genderroles and expressed a sentiment that—because we already had equalrights—there was no longer a need to fight for them. Moreover, in manycases, the language expressed an extremely negative view of feministsand, in some cases, even expressed a disdain for them. Perhaps, notsurprisingly, we revisited the focus group mentioned above with Laurieand others. In this conversation, Laurie's story and the other participants'reactions illustrated resisting language:

Laurie: I have a comment real quick. I think that a reason that Iget a lot of my views is because I took Sociology in Gender classlast semester. It was not Gender Gommunication it was Sociol-ogy of Gender. My professor gave me a lot negative views ingeneral about the entire topic, a lot came from that semester. Thisis just an example, a woman who feels, and we had to do this as

Loreen N. Olson 123

an assignment, and her point was that you have to get a chil-dren's book, read it and write a paper on it. A children's book thatuses he and not she should not be sold. I mean she is thatextreme. It is teaching children at a young age that men aresuperior to women. This is someone that thinks this. She put I

• mean this woman drove me crazy, honest to God. I mean she wasso extreme, and she told me that I was honestly degrading andthat I deserved.

Bonny: I would have failed that class.Laurie: She said to me you deserve to get rejected for a jobbecause you are not willing to stand up for yourself. She said thisto me in class.Bonny: Oh my God.Jenny: See, she must be a feminist.Bonny: I think that I would have a problem with that.Laurie: She would probably be the same woman that I couldwalk into class and she would be the same woman that honestlyI don't think that she ever said this, but I would stereotype andit's wrong and I assume because she gave me this feedback sofar. If I walked into class with low rider jeans and a shirt on, "youare just asking to get raped because you have that on." That is theimpression that she gave me. She is one of these extreme, justwhoa. I mean that is where I get where everyone is extreme.

Shortly thereafter, the conversation refocused on Laurie's teacher:

Laurie: And it kind of made my views distorted, and that is notfair, but she did completely distort my views.Bonny: Is she married?Laurie: No, divorced of course.Bonny: Poor guy, I hope that he is married with kids somewhereelse. He probably deserves a good life. (4: 997-1066)

Surprisingly, the female participants rallied to support Laurie and herdisdain for her teacher's feminist views. Further, they made hasty gener-alizations and transcended the teacher's views to her abilities as a wife andmother. Because the teacher had feminist beliefs, the young participantsfelt the teacher's children and husband were better off without suchinfluences in their lives. Ironically, the participants appeared to attribute


victim blaming to a feminist when feminists, historically, have been theones who have fought for victims' rights. As distasteful as this conversa-tion was to the facilitator at the time (who, again, chose not to intervene)and likely so for many now reading it, the talk demonstrates the attitudessome young adults have toward feminists. For many of these individuals,the identity, ideals, and label feminist are so wrought with negativeimagery that feminists border on being villainous.

In addition, as illustrated in the following conversation, some of theresisting language appeared to result from a belief that the feministmovement had completed its mission. In other words, there was no longera need to fight for women's rights:

Facilitator: Do you think that in the United States we still needto fight for women's rights?Leo: No.F^acilitator: And why not?Leo: Because we are equals. Everybody is equal; it is in theconstitution. It is in black and white, and I do not think that weneed to do anything that has not already been done.F'acilitator: Should women be able to vote?iieo: Sure, why not?

Facilitator: Two hundred years ago people thought that theyshouldn't vote because they were not wise enough.L,eo: Well, that was debatable whether they were wise enough ornot. I think that was, that was, more stems from the fact that wasjust the way things were back then. I don't think that is wasnecessarily a conspiracy against women. That's the problem thatI'have with the way that things are taught in upper education.Because right now there is a prevailing attitude that anythingEuropean, and anything for the most part, anything American, isbad because we have conspired [against] women, we have con-spired against blacks, we have conspired against these guys, weconspired against those guys and that is just the way things wereback then. That is not necessarily because they wanted it to bethat way, that is just how it was. I mean they change . . . they gotthe right to vote in 1920, and there was no problem with it. Itdidn't take an overwhelming amount of pressure, there was somepressure to do it, but they realized that they were wrong. Just likethey realized that slavery was wrong and a lot of other things in

Loreen N. Olson 125

the past were wrong, but I do not think that there needs to beanything more done that has already been done.Facilitator: So we have achieved equal rights to a sufficient ex-tent?Leo: I believe so. (1: 490-523)

Once again, some may find Leo's view of the world disheartening, asdo we, as the researchers involved in the project. Yet, we cannot deny suchviewpoints exist, as incorrect and biased as they may be. They certainlyshed light on why some young adults feel the way they do about genderequality. As illustrated in these two excerpts, resisting discourse revealeda strong, active resistance toward any alignment with a feminist belief,label, and identity. Furthermore, there was even a strong sentiment ofdisdain for feminists in this language. Much of this sentiment wasgrounded in a belief that the world was just in its current state, therebymaking the fight for gender equality null and void.

Extended Narrative of Multiple Types of Language

In addition to revealing how various forms of discourse representedindividuals' socially constructed meaning of the word feminist, our anal-ysis also underscored how these forms of discourse can all be present inone conversation, highlighting the multivocal nature of socially con-structed realities. The following excerpt is an extended narrative from amale-only focus group, illustrating the interactions among embracing,denouncing, reframing, and resisting language as each statement buildsupon the previous remark.

Facilitator: Does anybody here think that he is a feminist?Ghris: I think so. [embracing]Vince: You have to apply your own definition to that. You, you,you, if you have no problem with women and men getting thesame raises, not only the same raise, but also the same goldenopportunities, then you could say yes. [embracing]Ghris: What would be the definition we would put on that?Jeff: I think it's really just about equal-I mean what you'resaying about, just like equal rights, I mean, that's the base of it.[denouncing] But it just kind of gets muddy and twisted andeverything because so many people, er well, certain people take


it to the extreme, and, they're like, you do have those men haters

that, that sway the stereotype of feminism.Facilitator: Uh huh.

Jeff: So, and like, I was affected by that, like I'm affected by that,because like growing up in an all father household, you know,

and, and then my, my experiences with relationships and shit like

that just kind of . . .

Tim: The whole feminazi thing? [resisting][Multiple voices in the group respond at once combinedwith laughter]

Tim: I think that if you are asking like what is our definition, like,

I think that Jeff's right. I think you just attach your own.

[reframing] You know, it depends on what you wanna, I just, I

really don't think. That's why, when I, when I signed up for this

focus group I'm like, 'Oh, God, we're gonna talk about this word

that has no real definition.' To me at least, there are so manypossible definitions and I think that you, I beheve what Jeff said.People should have the same opportunities to succeed and shouldnot be oppressed in any way. And I think that by my definitionmakes you somewhat of a feminist [embracing] wish it wasn'tnecessary, [denouncing]Chris: You have to be against it to be for [it].Tim: Yeah, I wish that was the normal way of thinking and youwould not have to attach a word to it. [denouncing] (2: 258-289)

This extended narrative further demonstrates the power of social con-structionism as participants share and make sense of their own and others'views. During the conversations, participants were able to clarify theirunderstanding of the feminist movement and, once established, could thenproceed within the group to discuss the acceptance or rejection of apersonal identity and label. Ghris's sentiment of "you have to be against itto be for it" may best capture this group's sense-making of the wordfeminist and corresponding identity and ideals. While we cannot knowprecisely his meaning, it appears he is attempting to say that, because ofthe baggage associated with the label, one cannot publicly endorse afeminist ideology. So, the only way to support a feminist agenda is to doso privately; however, this support cannot be communicated publicly.

Loreen N. Olson 127

DiscussionThe primary goal guiding this investigation was to determine the degree

to which young adults who are situated within the chronological era of thethird wave of feminism identified with the label feminist and correspond-ing identity. Social constructionism and Rakow and Wackwitz's feministcommunication theory provided useful frameworks for understandingdiscursive ways young adults express an identification with and an adher-ence to the label feminist. A Discursive Identity Processing model wascreated based on the degree to which individuals accepted/rejected thelabel feminist, identity, and ideals. This framework yielded the develop-ment of four types of language used by the young adults in the study:embracing, denouncing, reframing, and resisting.

Embracing language grasps feminist ideals and the identity and refiectsa desire to use the label feminist. Denouncing language illustrates belief inwomen's rights and a desire to perform a feminist identity, but a rejectionof the label to name the identity. Those who use denouncing languagewant to strip the label feminist from their identity, but still support thestruggle for gender equality and live feminist lives. This language issimilar to self-identified African American male feminists who supportdenouncing language by asking to be called profeminist or antisexist(White, 2006). Similar to denouncing lahguage, reframing language dem-onstrates acceptance of feminist beliefs, but rejection of a feminist identityand corresponding label. Finally, resisting language shows beliefs aboutthe arrival of full equality for women. As such the need for feminism hasexpired. While those who use resisting language appear to benefit from therights secured by previous feminist movements, they fail to recognize anyneed for continued efforts at maintaining or achieving equality. As such,they resist all aspects of feminism and a feminist identity.

Before noting the theoretical and practical implications of these find-ings, we must acknowledge the limitations inherent within them. First, thegeographic location and student body of the current sample set limits onthe findings' applications to other people and settings. Additional studiesare needed to assess transferability of the findings to these other contexts.For example, future research that includes more voices from participantsof multiple races/ethnicities and social economic status is needed in orderto broaden our understanding of what feminist means to people of diversebackgrounds. We are still left wondering what other young adults who arenot able to go to college and who are from a disadvantaged economic


position think of the term feminist. Gonversely, we also question howyoung adults who are economically privileged identify with the labelfeminist. These questions are complicated even further when you seek toexplore how the intersectionality of race, class, and sexual orientationinfluences the degree to which individuals identify with the label feminist.Undoubtedly, our study's findings are limited in their ability to answeradditional questions such as these. Much more research specifically de-signed to address these broader issues is sorely needed.

In addition, while we believe the focus group technique had its advan-tages; we also recognize that there were certain limitations with thismethod as well. The most salient limitations include the need to haveconducted more of them to increase the total number of participants andto include more variety of individuals within each one. Further, it isimportant to acknowledge the possibility that the group setting may havemade' some of the individuals more hesitant about their disclosures. Withthat said, however, we still believe in the merit of the method as it gave usan opportunity to capture, in a systematic way, individiials' discussion oftheir feelings and thoughts. As demonstrated in the results section, theemergent nature of their ideas was clearly evidenced by their interactionswith one another, and we feel that this is a particular strength ofthe method.

One final limitation that we must acknowledge is our own positiohs asresearchers and how these undoubtedly influenced the entire process—from design to interpretation. Most of us are members ofthe Baby Boomergeneration (three would be considered older Gen Xers) and were an activepart of the second wave of feminism. Most (but not all) of us proudlyself-identify as feminist. In fact, a series of casual conversations abouthow the younger generation seemed to be resisting the label feministserved as the genesis for the study. So, yes, our perspectives are differentfrom t:hose of our participants, and we certainly bring our own biases tobear on the interpretation of the results. However, those assumptions aretempered by our training as researchers and by the youngest member ofour team who is less inclined to adopt the label feminist and who is lesscertain about her feminist identity (much like our participants) than therest of us. As a member of our analysis team, she has also helped us hearthe voices of our participants a little more clearly.

With these limitations in mind, we suggest that our findings maketheoretical contributions to the literature on third wave feminism as wellas the relationships among identity, social constructionism, and feminist

Loreen N. Olson 129

communication theory. Specifically, we now have an empirical under-standing of a group of young adults who, because of their age and livedexperiences, could be called third wave feminists—even though many ofthem do not accept the label and/or identity. Moreover, these resultsindicate that many of today's young adults are indeed polyvocal, andresearchers must begin to consider this plurality. While we have laid thegroundwork for a classification system, the degree to which the languageof young adults and third wavers can become a mechanism for capturingthe diversity of this group is a question for future research. We alsosuggest that the identity framework created from this study can become anheuristic device for use in future studies seeking to examine the pluralisticnature of today's young adults and third wavers. The framework's trans-ferability to other identity-based classification studies also warrants fur-ther examination.

The present findings also indicate the degree to which the constructionof identity is built through interactions that are embedded within socialand political environments, in general, (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Mead,1934) and specifically how the dominant, patriarchal culture has margin-alized fenfiinist identities (Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004). Given the degree ofbacklash surrounding feminist movements (Faludi, 1991), it comes as nosurprise that many young people resist aligning themselves with a nega-tively perceived identity. We believe our findings advance the work offeminist communication theory by following its explanatory property(Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004) and connecting the lived experiences of ourparticipants with the theoretical concepts of identity and social construc-tionism. Specifically, the results from the current study provide furthersupport for how a patriarchal culture can silence some individuals whochoose to challenge the prevailing ideologies and self-identify as feminist,and, even more disturbing, can reconfigure the identities of others bystigmatizing any feminist identity. Future research that examines howthese patriarchal social processes are influencing the third-wavers' iden-tification with the fight for women's rights would shed further light on thismethod of marginalization.

Practically, we hope that the findings can provide individuals involvedin the fight for women's rights with some much needed information onwho are the young adults situated within the third wave of feminism andhow they feel about feminist ideals, identities, and labels. Such knowledgemay help narrow the generational chasm between second and thirdwavers. We also hope that our findings can play a political role and


challenge the status quo (Rakow & Wackwitz, 2004) by suggesting that,while diversity among feminists is vitally important, it is not constructivefor young adults to believe that the fight for women's equality is unnec-essary. The question becomes, should we even retain the label feminist andrecast it into something more meaningful for today's young adults, orwork to maintain the label but transform its meaning into one that is moreinclusive while not losing sight of its core focus on women's equality?Answering this question appears to be one of the biggest linguisticchallenges facing today's feminists (regardless of generation). Youngadults, including third wave feminists, have been criticized by somesecond-wave feminists who want to see the feminist movement advancedusing|the same methods from the 1960s and 1970s. However, many youngadults adhere to different ways of promoting societal change. Dealing withthese differences and finding ways to advocate change together becomeimportant feminist agenda items for the future, for, in the words of SusanDouglas (1995):

Feminism is an ongoing project, a process, undertaken on a dailybasis by millions of women of all ages, classes, ethnic and racialbackgrounds, and sexual preferences. Feminism is constantlybeing reinvented, and reinvented through determination andcompromise, so that women try, as best they can, to have loveand support as well as power and autonomy, (p. 273)

ReferencesAronson, P. (2003). Feminists or "postfeminists"? Young women's attitudes toward

feminism and gender relations. Gender and Society. 17. 903-922.Ashcraft, K. L. (1998). "I wouldn't say I'm ^feminist, but": Organizational microprac-

tice and gender identity. Management Communication Quarterly, II. 587-597.Barak, B., Mathur, A., Lee, K., & Zhang, Y. (2001). Perceptions of age-identity: A

cross-cultural inner-age exploration. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 1003-1029.Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2000). Manifesta: Young women, feminism, and the

future. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in

the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Burn, S. M., Aboud, R., & Moyles, C. (2000). The relationship between gender social

identity and support for feminism. Sex Roles, 42, 1081-1089.Cowan, G., Mestlin, M., & Masek, J. (1992). Predictors of feminist self-labeling. Sex

Roles, 27, 321-330.Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2"'' ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Donovan, J. (1990). Feminist theory: The intellectual traditions of American feminism.

New York: Frederick Ungar.

Loreen N. Olson 131

Douglas, S. (1995). Where the girls are: Growing up female with the mass media. NewYork: Random House.

Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. NewYork: Doubleday.

Findlen, B. (2001). Listen Up: Voices from the next feminist generation. Seattle, WA:Seal Press.

Freedman, E. (1979). Separatism as strategy: Female institution building and American' feminism, 1870-1930. Eeminist Studies, 5, 512-529.

Freedman, J. (2001). Feminism. Buckingham, England: Open University Press.Fuss, D. (1989). Essentially speaking: Feminism, nature, and difference. London:

Routledge.Gilmore, S. (2001). Looking back, thinking ahead: Third Wave Feminism in the United

States. Journal of Women's History, 12, 215-221.Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.Hall, S. (1992). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall & T. McGrew (Eds.).

Modernity and its futures (pp. 273-326). Cambridge: Polity Press.Harter, L. M., Berquist, C, Titsworth, B. S., Novak, D., & Brokaw, T. (2005). The

structuring of invisibility among the hidden homeless: The politics of space,stigma, and identity construction. Journal of Applied Communication Research,33, 305-327.

Hercus, C. (1999). Identity, emotion, and feminist collective action. Gender and Society,13, 34-55.

Hogeland, L. M. (2001). Against generational thinking, or, some things that "ThirdWave" feminism isn't. Women's Studies in Communication, 24, 107-121.

hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End Press.Kamen, P. (1991). Feminist fatale: Voices from the "Twentysomething" generation

explore the future of the "Women's Movement." New York: Donald 1. Fine.Lincoln, Y S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Orr, C. (1997). Charting the currents of the third wave. Hyatia, 12, 29-45.Rakow, L. F., & Wackwitz, L. A. (Eds.). (2004). Feminist communication theory:

Selections in context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Renzetti, C. M. (1987). New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women toward

feminism. Sex Roles, 16, 265-277.Schwandt, T. A. (1998). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In

N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research:Theories and issues (pp. 221-259). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seelye, H. N., & Wasilewski, J. H. (1996). Between cultures: Developing self-identity ina world of diversity. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing Group.

Shugart, H. A., Waggoner, C. E., & Hallstein, D. L. (2001). Mediating third-wavefeminism: Appropriation as postmodern media practice. Critical Studies in MediaCommunication, IS, 194-210.

Spongberg, M. (2002). Writing women's history since the Renaissance. Hampshire,England: Palgrave Macmillan.

Suter, E. A., & Toller, P. W. (2006). Gender role and feminism revisited: A follow-upstudy. Sex Roles, 55, 135-146.

White, A. M. (2006). 'You've got a friend': African American men's cross-sex feministfriendships and their influence on perceptions of masculinity and women. Journalof Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 523-542.


Wolf, N. (1993). Fire with fire: The new female power and how it wilt change the 21"century. New York: Random House.

Zucker, A. N. (2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say,"I'm not a feminist, but." Psychology of Women Quarterly. 28. 423-435.

Note

'The numeric sequence here represents the focus group number (8) and the linenumber in the transcript from which the quote was taken (487-494). All additionalquotes follow the same order.

I'm all for equal rights, but don't call me a feminist”: Identity Dilemmas in Young Adults'...

Documents

Transcript of I'm all for equal rights, but don't call me a feminist”: Identity Dilemmas in Young Adults'...