“Reinforcing Sexism and Misogyny: Social Media, Symbolic Violence and the

Construction of Feminity-as-Fail”:
● Notable Points:
○ “This paper demonstrates, through content analysis, how online audiences
can enforce gender-based violence (GBV) as a real threat in the online
space through verbally aggressive speech acts that function as symbolic
violence.”
○ Uses Caribbean women and specific situations to show how gender-based
violence manifests as symbolic violence, specifically through online
forums (mainstream news media).
○ Cites comments from the two cases in which verbal aggression is strongly
expressed through vulgar language and inappropriate remarks.
○ Ties in Bourdieu’s concept on symbolic violence to connect with rude
comments
○ Provides a pie chart to show the different kinds of speech acts(through
percentages) that were said in each case
○ Argues on femininity-as-failure that is proven by the comments made on
each case: “failure because she does not meet prescriptions of
respectability, responsibility and containment of her body and sexuality.”
● Symbolic Violence and Pierre Bourdieu:
○ “Type of non-physical violence manifested in the power differential
between social groups.”

Link for Barratt, S. A. (2018). Reinforcing sexism and misogyny: Social media, symbolic
violence and the construction of femininity-as-fail. Journal of International Women's Studies,
19(3), 16-31. Retrieved from https://tamiu.idm.oclc.org/login?
url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/reinforcing-sexism-misogyny-social-media-
symbolic/docview/2057939820/se-2?accountid=7081
Author’s Last Name, First Name. “Title of Article.” Name of Journal, Volume, Issue, Date,
DOI or URL.
Quote
“At the same time,
agency is still undermined by,
as Ellis (1986) warned,
factors, problems and
situations that
discriminate against women in
overt and subtle ways,
constantly challenging and
undercutting
their independence.”
“I use Pierre Bourdieu’s
(1998) symbolic violence, not
to distract from an
understanding of
gender-based violence as
corporeal, but to articulate
conceptually the location of
gender ideology
and its mechanisms of
asymmetry and power that
background that corporeal
violence that is
experienced.”
Page Number Ethos/Pathos/Logos Explanation
pg. 16 Pathos In this quote, author Sue Ann
Barratt ends her introductory
paragraph by listing the ways
in which women in the
Caribbean are persistently
being discriminated against.
The last few words
“constantly challenging and
undercutting their
independence” evoke feelings
of helplessness among
readers who realize that these
women are in a constant state
of mistreatment and cannot
do anything about it.
pg. 17 Ethos Barrat asserts her credibility
by directly stating that she
will be discussing the ideas of
Pierre Bourdieu, specifically
symbolic violence. She also
explains what exactly she will
be conveying with symbolic
violence
 Title Goes Here

Ethos- cites trustworthy sources to explain definitions of terms she will use later on in her

content analysis.

Logos- provides facts and statistics by stating the different amounts of types of comments that

were made on the two cases

Pathos- uses cases that entice the audience and place them in a position to develop their own

stance but are manipulated by her little comments that are sprinkled in.

The woman, as history has taught, is an uncontrollable force that endures the exhausting

states of merely existing and fighting among a world where certain individuals carry the absurd

notion that they can, in fact, command a woman. To control is to assert every aspect that

dominance owns, a power that no being is yet to acquire. Therefore, when control fails the

female-hating ego falls onto the action of influencing. Now, this is a technique that society has

mastered over time, in which the female cannot simply “be” without receiving criticism and thus

altering the opinions of others. Every glance, lift of the finger, and even breath will not continue

unless it is stripped apart and put under a microscope by someone who is determined to find a

flaw. Today, the best place one can take their critiques knowing that they will be heard is social

media, home of unnecessary comments. Sue Ann Barratt’s “Reinforcing Sexism and Misogyny:

Social Media, Symbolic Violence and the Construction of Femininity-as-Fail", demonstrates the

way verbally aggressive comments on two cases where private pictures of Caribbean women that

were exposed to the public can influence sexism and misogyny. She argues that these comments

are forms of symbolic violence that directly target the concept of femininity-as-fail within

Caribbean women. Barratt delivers an effective argument on the increase in sexism and

misogyny through social media by means of citing trustworthy sources to build her credibility,
presenting sensitive cases that appeal to the audience’s inner emotions, and providing charts and

quotes on the social media comments that were made on the cases.

It takes a reliable source to know a reliable source, a fact that Barratt shows throughout

her crediting of sources such as Pierre Bourdieu and Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham to establish

her own authority as the author. As Barratt dives into her argument, she begins to discuss some

terms and ideas that the average reader is unfamiliar with. For instance, symbolic violence and

respectability politics are two of the various phrases she introduces to her audience while

delivering her argument. It is in the audience’s nature to simply recognize the term as “difficult

words” and move on rather than to actually take the time to research them, but Barratt saves time

by mentioning who she obtained these terms from and explaining their meanings. To illustrate, “I

use Pierre Bourdieu’s symbolic violence...according to Bourdieu, [symbolic violence] operates

as a cognitive process, invisible but tangible and experienced in its effects, and thus I see it as a

most useful conceptualization of how online feedback forums manifest gender based violence”

(Barratt 17). Not only does she provide credit to her source and a definition of symbolic

violence, but Barratt also finds a way to tie it back to her initial argument, reminding readers

how this new piece of information remains relevant to the issue. As Barratt continues discussing

her argument, she brings up the values of feminine identity and worth that are often found in the

Caribbean. She writes, “These notions are steeped in a discourse of respectability politics, a

concept first discussed by Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham… (18). At the mention of this notable

name, readers are either able to observe how Barratt’s information is true or solely recognize that

Barratt cited a source that still establishes her credibility. Sue Ann Barratt solidifies her argument

and appeals to her own good character as she specifies the sources from which she got her

information and how they relate to her topic.

 In addition, Sue Ann Barratt gets in touch with her audience’s personal feelings and

emotions as she details the events of the two controversial cases that took over the Caribbean by

placing her readers in a situation that requires them to develop individual opinions. The first case

that is brought up is taken from newspaper and television coverage, once again adding to her

ethos appeals, where she explains the affairs of Therese Ho and her former boyfriend who

nonconsensually spread private images of her. “Their relationship was branded an affair, with

heated debate, especially in the online feedback forum, focused on who was the bigger

wrongdoer in their shared infidelity,” is one of the sentences Barratt writes, engaging her

audience in a case they are not even involved in (20). The words “affair”, “heated”, and

“infidelity” evoke feelings of scandal and mystery that push the reader towards the cliffs of

curiosity where diving into unknown matters becomes the most tempting option. As readers latch

on to the riveting details of the case, Barratt continues by presenting the following case where a

similar situation occurred but at a much different magnitude. The author writes, “The details of

the case were that hundreds of photos containing images of young women and girls nude or

partially clothed and, in some cases, engaged in intimate acts, were leaked by employees of a

cyber café,” taking a more careful approach to a more careful situation (Barratt 20). Barratt once

again works with the dehumanizing nature of the case to entice readers and by way of her own

subtle comments, she nudges the audience towards her argument’s direction once she gets into

the social media commentary made on the cases. The intensity of these cases that took place in

the Caribbean sears through the words on the article and onto the sentiments of the readers that

Sue Ann Barrat was intricate in accomplishing.

The beauty of gossiping often lies in the particular feature that is its secrecy; however,

when it is willingly plastered onto the social media forums of news coverage, that concept of
confidentiality is traded with the intent to wound. In Barratt’s argument, she claims that the

comments the public made under the two cases where Caribbean women were involuntarily put

on display, strongly influence the prejudice and discrimination against women. As if the verbal

aggression could not get any more brutal, upon collecting the comments there began to be some

variation in the type of insults. About eleven kinds of speech acts were made in these news

forums ranging from comments that blame the victim to critiquing other commenters. Each case

held its set of comments that were then categorized into pie charts that illustrated the different

percentages of each type of comment. In the first case, there were seven different types of

comments where the pie chart demonstrated that the majority was 61% of comments that were

blaming the victim and the minority were 1% requesting access to the photos (Barratt 21). For

the second case, there were eleven different kinds of comments that were also divided into a pie-

chart where the majority of comments were 31% on blaming the victim and the minority was a

tie of 3% between irrelevant comments and comments that were critiquing the media’s focus

(Barratt 22). These statistics serve as clear evidence to the audience that when it comes to cases

revolving around women being disrespected, they are not met with sympathy. Barratt displays

that the already existing problems of misogyny and sexism feed off of these types of comments

that take over the internet. Still, Barratt takes an extra step by providing some of the actual

comments that were made on each case. One of the comments on the first case reads, “Her last

name says it all,” followed by the types of speech acts and verbal aggression that the comment

falls under (Barratt 24). Labeled as prejudicial chastising and a character attack, a comment on

the second case says, “Like you said, they’re so stupid have no morals value whatsoever and

expect to get respect” (Barrat 25). These quotes are used as direct proof of the demeaning

remarks individuals make on the cases of Caribbean women who were not at fault. Through the
illustrations of pie charts that revealed the different types of comments made on the cases and the

quotations of the actual comments, Barratt successfully promotes the idea that symbolic violence

is heavily reflected and thus reinforcing misogyny and sexism in society.

All in all, Sue Ann Barrat effectively argues her claim on the strengthening of misogyny

and sexism through the citing of credible sources, presenting emotional cases, and providing

evidence of comments on the cases to appeal to her audience's beliefs and sentiments. In

“Reinforcing Sexism and Misogyny: Social Media, Symbolic Violence and the Construction of

Femininity-as-Fail", Barratt discusses the issues of discrimination and prejudice towards women

by explaining the concepts of symbolic violence and feminity-as-fail, and how they apply to

cases of Caribbean women who were intimately exposed to the public. Social media is used as a

forum to publish comments on such matters that then go on to have an everlasting impact on the

life of a woman. It is one thing to bash a woman in person but to take it online where millions of

people can see and be influenced by similar statements is a cruel tactic that only causes harm.

The day in which a female is supported instead of blamed when placed in a certain situation is a

day that seems far ahead when one takes into consideration the events at hand. For now, the best

is to assert that the woman is real and the woman is human, exactly like a man.