Patriarchal Rhetoric: Deconstructing Gender Misrepresentations in Politics by Malaysian Media

Malaysian political discourse has a crucial role in constructing gender misrepresentations by framing nonchalantly at times sexist political rhetoric and sensationalizing women's vulnerabilities via dejected speech with patriarchal flavour. This paper looks at gender misrepresentations in public discourse through patriarchal lenses, evident in parliamentary interactions and the reactions to it in the forms of media framing, which are yet to be given the focus it deserves. Applying an integrated analytical framework consisted of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), pragmatic implicatures, and Interactional Sociolinguistics to dissect these patterns by examining real-world examples, this qualitative study analyses news media articles in reaction to political discourse with gender misrepresentations. This contextual public discourse in Malaysia is being seen as reinforcing patriarchal ideologies via sexist language and framing, marginalizing women in politics while being bloated by the media. Findings reveal strategies like objectification and myths around gender inequality. Pragmatic implicatures and political rhetoric misrepresent women as emotional, often ridiculed objects unfit for power, embedding patriarchy via indirect insults and stereotyping. The findings also suggest emphasis on footing shifts and intonation signalling sexism as banter cue, and gender differences in interruptions, while illustrating how rhetoric sustains hegemony and power. These reinforcements on gender misrepresentations are constructed through sexist political rhetoric, reinforcing patriarchal norms, and thus, call for a long overdue media liberation and discourse reform in Malaysia.

(Political and Media Discourse, Critical Discourse Analysis, Gender Misrepresentation, power and hegemony)

1. Baxter, J. (2003). Positioning gender in discourse: A feminist methodology. Palgrave Macmillan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Billig, M. (2005). Laughter and ridicule: Towards a social critique of humour. SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed.; G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Brescoll, V. L. (2011). Who takes the floor and why: Gender, power, and volubility in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(4), 622–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839211420282 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970903234743 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Coates, J. (2013). Women, men and language (3rd ed.). Routledge. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Couldry, N. (2004). Theorising media as practice. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/1035033042000238295 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Couper-Kuhlen, E. (1998). Prosody in conversation. In A. L. K. Hirst & J. Di Cristo (Eds.), Intonation systems: A survey of twenty languages (pp. 291–310). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Dynel, M. (2009). Beyond a joke: Types of conversational humour. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(5), 1284–1299. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00148.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies, 7(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.798239 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Ford, T. E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). Social consequences of disparagement humor: A prejudice mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1578–1590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264280 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ging, D., & Siapera, E. (2018). Special issue on online misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 18(4), 515–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2018.1447349 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. University of Pennsylvania Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Gumperz, J. J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work: Constructing gender identity through workplace discourse. Blackwell. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Kahn, K. F. (1994). The political consequences of being a woman: Gender and political leadership. Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kuipers, G. (2006). Good humor, bad taste: A sociology of the joke. Mouton de Gruyter. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Lazar, M. M. (2007). Feminist critical discourse analysis: Articulating a feminist discourse praxis. Critical Discourse Studies, 4(2), 141–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900701464816 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Malay Mail. (2015, November 5). Sexism and bigotry in Parliament must be censured. Malay Mail. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Malay Mail. (2023, November 9). Criticised for sexual innuendo, Langkawi MP says sorry in Parliament for ‘wear nothing’ remark [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. McRobbie, A. (2009). The aftermath of feminism: Gender, culture and social change. SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Ross, K., & Carter, C. (2011). Women and news: A long and winding road. Media, Culture & Society, 33(8), 1149–1165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443711426394 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735. https://doi.org/10.2307/412243 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Shamsul, A. B. (2001). A history of an identity, an identity of a history: The idea and practice of Malayness in Malaysia reconsidered. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Tandoc, E. C., Jr., & Maitra, J. (2018). News organizations’ use of social media to increase engagement. Journalism Practice, 12(4), 432–447. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1307457 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide (2nd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. van Zoonen, L. (2005). Entertaining the citizen: When politics and popular culture converge. Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 63–94). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne & N. Henley (Eds.), Language and sex: Difference and dominance (pp. 105–129). Newbury House. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study