Cite this article as: Mayadenu, A. G. (2026). A critical discourse analysis of online harassment against women in professional settings in Nigeria. Sokoto Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies (SOJOLICS), 2(1), 217-230. https://doi.org/10.36349/sojolics.2026.v02i01.019
By
Abosede Grace Mayadenu
Department of English,
Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago
Iwoye, Nigeria.
abosede.mayadenu@oouagoiwoye.edu.ng
ORCID Id: 0009-0000-7994-970X
Abstract
Online harassment against women in
professional settings remains a pervasive form of technology-facilitated
gender-based violence. Although widely acknowledged as a social problem,
limited research has critically examined how language functions as a mechanism
through which such harassment is normalised and justified. This study therefore
investigated how online harassment directed at professional women was
linguistically and ideologically constructed in digital spaces. Guided by
Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis and Lazar’s Feminist Critical
Discourse Analysis, the study analysed one hundred (100) comments from ten
feminist-centred discussions across TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter. Purposive
sampling was employed to select comments that contained explicit or implicit
gendered expression, high engagement, and relevance to harassment. The analysis
was conducted at textual, discursive, and socio-ideological levels to explore
how linguistic choices reflected patriarchal power. Findings revealed four
dominant discursive patterns: economic and class-based exclusion, moral and
religious policing, sexual and marital control, and delegitimisation of
professional authority. Across these themes, harassment was frequently disguised
as humour, moral advice, or rational critique, enabling users to police women’s
autonomy while denying misogynistic intent. Women who challenged these
expectations particularly those occupying political or public leadership roles
were rhetorically silenced, mocked, or framed as incompetent. The study
concluded that online harassment operated as a systemic and ideological
practice that reinforced patriarchal hierarchies by restricting women’s digital
visibility and professional voice. It recommended enhanced platform for
governance, gender-responsive digital literacy initiatives, and institutional
support for women in public roles, and sustained feminist digital activism to
strengthen resistance against misogynistic discourse.
Keywords: Online harassment, Feminist discourse, Professional
women, Gendered power, social media
1. Introduction
The emergence of the digital era
has transformed human communication and reshaped social interaction in ways
that are both empowering and deeply troubling. Social media platforms, online
news spaces, and professional networking sites have enabled individuals to
participate in global conversations, share knowledge, and challenge established
hierarchies. Yet these same platforms have also become spaces where inequality,
hostility, and exclusion persist, particularly for women occupying visible
professional roles. Scholars such as Watson (2023) have argued that online
abuse directed at women is a continuation of the broader social structures that
normalise misogyny and gender-based violence. The digital space has therefore
become an extension of the offline world, reflecting how power and ideology are
exercised through language and representation. Online harassment of women takes
many forms, including verbal abuse, derogatory comments, threats,
cyberstalking, and humiliation through images or text. It often targets women
whose visibility challenges male-dominated spheres, such as journalists,
academics, politicians, and corporate leaders. The study conducted by Watson
(2023) demonstrated that such abuse is not random or isolated but rather part
of a structural pattern that sustains gender inequality. Similarly, Nada (2024)
found that media discourse contributes to this pattern by framing women through
stereotypes that justify or minimise acts of harassment. These discourses not
only silence women but also reinforce a perception of female vulnerability and
male authority.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
provides a relevant and rigorous framework for examining these dynamics.
Language, as Fairclough (1995) and Foucault (1981) both explain, is never
neutral; it embodies relations of power, knowledge, and ideology. CDA therefore
makes it possible to uncover how online texts construct gendered meanings and
how those meanings sustain systemic inequality. Kramer (2019) argues that
discourse is both a product and a mechanism of power, shaping what can be said
and who is authorised to speak. By examining online comments, posts, and news
language, CDA can reveal how misogynistic discourse becomes naturalised and
accepted as part of everyday communication.
The interplay between language,
media, and gendered power has long been a focus of feminist scholarship. Lazar
(2005) introduced Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA) to highlight how
gender asymmetry is reproduced through linguistic practices. FCDA seeks not
only to expose sexism but also to emphasise resistance, focusing on how women
challenge dominant narratives and claim discursive space. This study draws on
such perspectives to analyse how online harassment in professional settings is
shaped by discourse and ideology. It argues that harassment is not simply the
product of individual prejudice but rather a manifestation of deeper cultural
scripts about authority, respectability, and gendered identity. Mediaand
communication scholars have also noted that online harassment reflects a
broader crisis of professional legitimacy. As women increasingly enter fields
historically reserved for men, their professional visibility becomes a site of
contestation. The digital sphere has therefore become a stage where gendered
power relations are reproduced through discourse. The persistence of this
digital hostility has far-reaching consequences. It discourages women from
engaging in public debate, limits career opportunities, and shapes how
professionalism itself is linguistically defined. When derogatory comments and
subtle mockery become common, they influence both perception and policy. As
Watson (2023) observes, combating online abuse requires interventions at
multiple levels personal, organisational, and societal because it reflects the
cultural and ideological structures of gendered power. This research therefore
situates online harassment within the broader discourse of inequality and seeks
to examine it through the analytical lens of CDA, linking micro-level
linguistic patterns with macro-level social practices.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
The problem addressed in this study
is the continued normalisation of online harassment against women in
professional contexts and the lack of critical linguistic inquiry into how this
harassment is constructed through discourse. Despite numerous global campaigns
promoting gender equality, digital communication has exposed new forms of
violence that are subtle, pervasive, and deeply linguistic. While some studies
have focused on the psychological or sociological aspects of online harassment,
relatively few have analysed how language itself functions as a tool of
oppression. As Fairclough (1995) emphasises, discourse both reflects and
sustains social power; therefore, understanding the linguistic mechanisms of
harassment is essential to challenging its legitimacy. Watson’s (2023)
interdisciplinary review revealed that most online abuse is directed not at
women’s ideas but at their gender identity. This insight aligns with van Dijk’s
(1998) socio-cognitive model, which explains how shared social beliefs shape the
production and interpretation of discourse. When online users describe women as
“unfit,” “emotional,” or “attention-seeking,” these words reproduce cognitive
structures that associate femininity with weakness and irrationality. The
repetition of such expressions across media platforms reinforces gender
stereotypes and sustains the broader ideological system of patriarchy.
Kramer (2019) demonstrated that
discourse functions as an instrument of power by defining what counts as truth
and who can occupy positions of credibility. In online professional
environments, women’s statements are often subjected to heightened scrutiny and
ridicule, reflecting an underlying struggle over symbolic authority. Nada
(2024) identified similar discursive strategies in news reporting, where female
subjects were framed through themes of victim-blaming and sexualisation. Such
framing not only discredits women but also legitimises their marginalisation.
In professional digital spaces like LinkedIn or Twitter, the same linguistic
strategies persist, though often in more coded or ironic forms that appear
socially acceptable while perpetuating inequality.
The issue is further complicated by
the algorithmic and participatory nature of digital platforms. According to the
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (2019), online violence against
women is a deliberate strategy to silence women’s participation in public and
professional life. The report describes this as a form of
technology-facilitated gender-based violence that aims to intimidate women and
restrict their access to digital spaces. As IFES (2019) observed, the anonymity
and scale of online communication amplify gendered violence and reduce
institutional accountability. The language of harassment circulates rapidly,
crossing national and professional boundaries. This global spread transforms
online misogyny into a transnational discourse, linking individual expressions
to systemic ideologies of gender and power. Feminist researchers such as Lazar
(2005) argue that such discourses must be interrogated not only for what they
say but also for what they silence the erasure of women’s authority and expertise
from public dialogue. This study therefore seeks to investigate how online
harassment against women in professional settings is linguistically and
ideologically constructed.
1.2 Research Questions
a. What linguistic and rhetorical strategies are
used in online discourse to construct harassment against women in professional
settings in Nigeria?
b. How do these discourses reflect and reinforce
gendered power relations and ideological domination in digital professional
spaces?
c. In what ways does critical discourse analysis
reveal the intersection between language, power, and gender inequality in
online harassment?
2. Literature review
Online harassment directed at women
in professional environments has become one of the most persistent forms of
digital gender-based violence in the twenty-first century. The phenomenon
involves deliberate and repeated acts of intimidation, insult, and humiliation
targeted at women who occupy positions of responsibility, visibility, or
influence. Watson (2023) describes online harassment as sustained, hostile
communication that seeks to silence women’s participation, undermine their
professional credibility, and reinforce patriarchal hierarchies. The behaviour
includes verbal aggression, defamation, sexualised ridicule, and threats of
physical harm. Such abuse does not remain confined to digital platforms; it
penetrates psychological wellbeing, professional relationships, and
opportunities for advancement.
The International Foundation for
Electoral Systems (2019) defines this form of abuse as a manifestation of
technology-facilitated gender-based violence that limits women’s ability to
exercise professional or civic agency. Its typology of Violence Against Women
in Elections Online identifies forms of aggression ranging from sexist speech
and hate campaigns to the non-consensual circulation of images. These
linguistic and visual strategies serve the same ideological function: they
restrict women’s access to authority and decision-making spaces. Nada (2024)
observes that online media channels often normalise such hostility through
humour, satire, and public commentary, creating an environment where gendered
abuse appears permissible rather than condemnable. This subtle legitimisation
ensures that online aggression remains a social problem hidden beneath digital
entertainment and free speech narratives. Research in digital sociology and
communication studies demonstrates that online harassment reproduces the same
structures of inequality that have historically defined offline gender
relations. Citron (2014) and Powell and Henry (2017) explain that digital
hostility towards women operates as a form of social control intended to drive
them away from professional visibility. Jane (2017) employs the term “e-bile”
to describe extreme online misogyny that uses violent and sexualised language
to discipline women’s speech. The recurrence of such language reinforces
existing stereotypes that associate masculinity with rationality and femininity
with emotional instability or incompetence. Each repetition strengthens the
illusion that disparaging women’s professionalism is an ordinary part of public
debate.
The linguistic dimension of this
violence is central to its power. Fairclough (1995) asserts that language does
not merely reflect social reality but constructs it, giving linguistic form to
social hierarchies and ideological beliefs. Van Dijk (1998) elaborates that
discourse transmits shared mental models which allow audiences to accept
inequality as natural. When digital users employ gendered slurs or ridicule
women’s achievements, the act performs a dual function: it insults the target
and reproduces a collective worldview that legitimises male dominance. Kramer
(2019) argues that discourse acts as both an instrument and a consequence of
power, shaping what is accepted as truth within a social order. The circulation
of misogynistic discourse across digital platforms therefore sustains
patriarchal ideology through repetition and public reinforcement.
The emotional and social
consequences of online harassment are severe. Watson (2023) reports that women
exposed to long-term digital abuse experience heightened anxiety, fear of
participation, and professional withdrawal. The combination of anonymity and
virality magnifies harm while diminishing accountability. Foucault (1981)
describes this as the disciplinary function of discourse, a system of
surveillance and control that operates through language itself. Kramer (2019)
supports this interpretation, noting that digital platforms reward aggressive
communication through attention and visibility, making linguistic violence both
performative and profitable. Gill (2007) and Megarry (2014) link such
aggression to postfeminist backlash, where achievements of gender equality are
undermined through irony and the ridicule of feminism. The rhetorical move from
explicit hostility to ironic sexism disguises violence under a veneer of
humour, allowing misogyny to flourish unchallenged in professional communication.
Feminist discourse scholars have shown that the persistence of online
harassment lies in its normalisation through everyday language. Mills (2008)
and Lazar (2005) explain that the repetition of gendered stereotypes converts
ideology into routine expression. In professional interactions, insults such as
“too emotional,” “incompetent,” or “unfit to lead” encode hierarchical
assumptions about authority and gender. The process converts prejudice into
linguistic habit, erasing its visibility and perpetuating systemic inequality.
Nada (2024) finds that online news comments use such labels to question women’s
professionalism, turning language into an ideological weapon. The cumulative
research indicates that online harassment functions as both a communicative act
and a social practice aimed at maintaining male privilege.
2.1 Feminist Perspectives
and Digital Spaces
Feminist theory has long
established that gender inequality is reproduced through everyday social
practices, with language operating as one of its most powerful instruments. The
digital age has introduced new spaces for expression and participation, yet it
has also extended the reach of patriarchal discourse into the online sphere.
Lazar (2005) explains that Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA) was
developed to expose how gendered power relations are enacted through discourse
that appears neutral. Her framework encourages scholars to examine how
communication constructs dominance and to foreground women’s resistance within
systems of linguistic inequality. In later work, Lazar (2018) asserts that
discourse in digital and professional arenas must be studied as an evolving
site of ideological struggle where women continually negotiate authority and
visibility within patriarchal structures.
Feminist linguists such as Mills
(2008) and Cameron (1997) emphasise that gender is not a biological given but a
product of discursive construction. Their research illustrates that norms of
politeness, emotional expression, and conversational style are culturally
encoded to privilege masculine authority while marginalising women’s speech.
These insights resonate strongly in digital interaction where power and
visibility are measured through engagement, attention, and network reach.
Sunderland (2006) adds that the discursive framing of gender relies on binary
representations that assign rationality, control, and expertise to men, while
associating women with subjectivity and emotion. Such distinctions remain
visible in online professional communication where women are often described as
“too emotional” or “unfit to lead,” phrases that encode the persistence of
gendered stereotypes through everyday language. Herring (2004) observes that
online interaction reproduces offline hierarchies of gender through differential
participation, framing, and hostility. Her early studies of email communication
revealed that men dominate digital conversations through verbosity,
confrontation, and dismissive tone, while women’s contributions are more
frequently ignored or trivialised. These findings foreshadow contemporary
research on online harassment, which demonstrates that women in leadership or
public positions remain targets of discursive aggression intended to regulate
their visibility (Watson, 2023; Nada, 2024).
Sidiq (2024) demonstrates how
gendered power operates through institutional discourse in her analysis of
workplace harassment in Bombshell. She shows that professional
environments reproduce patriarchal control through subtle linguistic mechanisms
that transform coercion into normal workplace behaviour. This aligns with
Butler’s (1990) theory of gender performativity, which posits that gender
identity is constructed through repeated acts that conform to social
expectations. Each repetition strengthens the appearance of natural differences
and legitimises asymmetry in authority. Butler’s insight provides a foundation
for understanding why digital aggression towards women persists: the repetition
of derogatory language performs and reaffirms gendered domination. Nada (2024)
highlights that online misogyny often disguises itself as humour or commentary,
which conceals aggression under the rhetoric of free speech. The phenomenon
reflects what Jane (2017) describes as the “toxic technoculture” of the
internet, where expressions of hostility towards women are normalised as
entertainment. Gill and Orgad (2018) argue that such discursive patterns exemplify
a new disciplinary regime that functions through self-surveillance and public
exposure. Women in professional and public roles are not only policed through
external harassment but also compelled to monitor their own digital presence to
avoid misinterpretation or attack. The result is a system of self-regulation
that restricts authentic expression and reinforces conformity to gendered
expectations. Existing studies consistently show that online harassment against
women operates as a linguistic and ideological practice that reinforces social
inequality. Foundational theorists such as Fairclough (1995), Van Dijk (1998),
and Foucault (1981) reveal that language functions as a social practice through
which power and ideology are exercised, positioning harassment as a discursive
tool of domination. Empirical research, including Watson (2023), Sidiq (2024),
and Nada (2024), demonstrates that digital abuse mirrors offline gender
hierarchies, using humour, professionalism, and irony to disguise coercion and
hostility.
3. Methodology
This study adopted a qualitative
research design guided by Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). The approach was
suitable for uncovering the subtle power relations and ideologies embedded in
social media discourse about professional women.
Data for the study were collected
from three major social media platforms: TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter (now
X). These platforms were selected because they serve as influential digital
environments where public conversations about women especially those in
professional and leadership roles are continuously shaped, challenged, and
amplified. Their diverse media formats and large-scale user interactions
enabled access to authentic, real-time discourse related to gender dynamics.
Ten topics were identified from posts made by popular feminist figures across
these social media platforms. These posts addressed issues concerning women’s
professional experiences, leadership visibility, workplace harassment, gender
discrimination, and public perception of women in authority.
Purposive sampling was employed to
ensure that the data collected were directly relevant to the research aim. From
the ten selected feminist posts, ten comments were gathered under each topic,
resulting in a total of one hundred (100) user comments. The comments were
selected based on their linguistic richness, particularly where gendered
expressions or ideological content were evident. They were also chosen due to
their engagement level, as indicated by likes and replies, to reflect
discourses that had generated wider public attention. Additionally, only
comments that clearly related to harassment, bias, stereotyping, or
delegitimisations of women in professional settings were included. All selected
comments were written in English to maintain linguistic consistency, and
identifying information such as usernames was anonymised to uphold privacy and
confidentiality. Posts or comments containing sensitive personal data were
excluded.
4. Theoretical Framework
The analysis followed Fairclough’s
three-dimensional models consisting of textual analysis, discursive practice,
and social practice. The textual stage examined vocabulary, grammar, modality,
and transitivity to reveal how linguistic features constructed social meanings.
The second stage investigated discursive practice, focusing on how texts were
produced, distributed, and interpreted across online platforms and newspapers.
The final stage connected these findings to wider social practices such as gender
ideology and professional culture. Lazar’s FCDA framework complemented
Fairclough’s model by centring gender as the organising principle of analysis.
Through integration of CDA and
FCDA, the study identified patterns of lexical choice, metaphor, evaluation,
and intertextuality that revealed ideological positioning. Discursive
strategies were categorised using Reisigl and Wodak’s typology of nomination,
predication, and argumentation alongside feminist categories of representation,
resistance, and silence (Lazar, 2018).
5. Data Presentation and
Analysis
This section presents a critical
discourse analysis of 100 user comments drawn from ten online discussions
across TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter (X) in Nigeria. The discussions were
initiated by prominent feminist figures and public personalities including
Adeife, Solomon Buchi, Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, Dami Odufuwa, and Saida
Boj. These figures were selected because of their active roles in shaping
public debates about women’s professional visibility, autonomy, and
empowerment. The analysis follows Fairclough’s (2010) three-dimensional model
textual analysis, discursive practice, and social practice complemented by
Lazar’s (2005, 2018) Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis (FCDA). It examines
how online users employ language to reproduce, contest, or subvert patriarchal
ideologies influencing women in professional and public life. Across platforms,
four dominant themes emerged: economic and class-based exclusion, moral
and religious policing, sexual and marital control, and delegitimisation of
women’s authority, with a cross-cutting theme of resistance and
redefinition of femininity.
5.1 Economic and
Class-Based Exclusion
The first TikTok discussion “You
can’t be a feminist if you’re broke!” generated strong reactions
exposing the intersection between capitalism and gender ideology. Phrases such
as “Money buys comfort, not equality” and “You can
even be a housewife and be a feminist” reveal an ideological struggle
between material empowerment and feminist consciousness. Textually, these
utterances employ contrastive structures (e.g., “not
equality,” “you can even”) to challenge the commodification of feminism. The
lexical repetition of “money” signifies how economic capital is linguistically
framed as a precondition for legitimacy, aligning with Fairclough’s (1995)
argument that discourse naturalises social hierarchies through everyday talk.
However, other comments like “Next
thing, eBook on how to be a rich feminist is linked in my bio” introduce sarcasm to
delegitimise feminist advocacy, implying that feminism functions as a
commercial brand rather than a movement. According to Lazar (2005), such
sarcasm exemplifies patriarchal backlash disguised as humour. It trivialises
activism by framing female expression as opportunistic, reinforcing gendered
assumptions that women’s empowerment is performative rather than political. At
the level of discursive practice, the discussion shows how feminist discourse
circulates as both empowerment and consumer culture. This aligns with Gill’s
(2007) concept of postfeminist sensibility, where empowerment
becomes entangled with self-branding. Socially, the debate illustrates a
class-based gatekeeping mechanism privileging wealthy women as “authentic
feminists” while silencing working-class experiences. The phrase “Money
buys comfort, not equality” reclaims the narrative, resisting
neoliberal feminism that commodifies liberation.
5.2 Moral and Religious
Policing
The second and third TikTok
discussions - Solomon Buchi’s “Modern-day feminism is demonic” and
his criticism of Toke Makinwa’s child reveal religion as a discursive weapon in
policing women’s autonomy. The word “demonic” invokes a metaphorical
moral frame that links female independence to evil, a strategy
Fairclough (2010) terms ideological labelling. By positioning
feminism as a “cult of witches,” the discourse revives historical associations
between women’s dissent and witchcraft, reflecting Lazar’s (2018) observation
that patriarchy persists through symbolic demonisation.
Comments like “I am the
head of the witch and you can’t burn the witch” represent linguistic
resistance reclaiming the term “witch” as empowerment. This aligns with
Butler’s (1990) notion of performativity, where women
subvert dominant meanings by rearticulating derogatory labels. Conversely, male
commentators such as “Wait so he agrees to patriarchy?” and “Shey
Solo na feminist before?” employ rhetorical questions to ridicule
feminist legitimacy, reinforcing a gendered hierarchy in digital participation.
The third discussion further
illustrates religious moralism through comments such
as “Hope he knows Mary was already pregnant before she married Joseph” and “Assistant
God has spoken.” These utterances use biblical
intertextuality and sarcasm to expose
contradictions in patriarchal religious discourse. By invoking Christian
narratives, commenters challenge the moral authority used to condemn unmarried
mothers. The mix of affirmation (“God gave her that child”) and
condemnation (“He did not lie”) reveals the ambivalence of religious
discourse in regulating women’s reproductive choices.
At the level of social practice,
these exchanges reflect the ongoing tension between Christianity and women’s
autonomy in Nigerian digital spaces. Religion serves as both an ideological
apparatus of control and a site of feminist reinterpretation, confirming
Wodak’s (2001) claim that discourse must be analysed within its historical and
cultural contexts.
5.3 Sexual and Marital
Control
The fourth TikTok thread on
the Eleganza couple’s marriage and the Instagram debate
where Saida Boj declared she would never become a housewife both
expose how femininity is constructed through marital status and sexuality. The
repeated questions “Husband or grandpa?” and “Tell
me you will love him without money” demonstrate presuppositional
framing, assuming that women marry for material gain. This reflects
Van Dijk’s (1998) view that ideologies are reproduced through shared mental
models, where women’s motives are pre-defined by patriarchal expectation.
Similarly, responses to Saida Boj’s
statement “You are still a young girl, once you get to 35 you will
change your mind” invoke temporal determinism,
suggesting that maturity equals submission to marriage. This linguistic pattern
constructs ageing as a moral decline for unmarried women. The comment “Receive
sense” operates as a directive speech act that delegitimises
autonomy, implying irrationality in rejecting domestic roles. Such phrases
embody what Mills (2008) describes as linguistic sexism the
use of everyday expressions to discipline women’s behaviour.
Discursively, both discussions
illustrate the normalisation of patriarchal marriage ideology.
Marriage functions as the benchmark of respectability, and women who deviate
are infantilised or pitied. The conversation thus mirrors what Lazar (2005)
calls benevolent sexism: a discursive strategy that disguises
control under the rhetoric of care (“marriage is beautiful,” “pray for us”).
Socially, the persistent focus on marriage and fertility indicates that women’s
professional identity remains subordinate to their relational roles. Even
admiration (“My husband is my backbone too”) reinforces dependency
narratives, presenting love and submission as virtues of ideal womanhood.
5.4 Professional Legitimacy
and Gendered Authority
Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s
appearance in two datasets her poetic celebration on Instagram and her
confrontation in the Senate on Xhighlights contrasting discursive
representations of women in power. On Instagram, commenters construct her as a symbol
of collective aspiration using metaphorical language: “A
woman can become a king,”“The Queen of the Senate,” “Icon of hope.” The
use of royal metaphors (“queen,” “king”) reconfigures political authority
through a feminist lens. According to Lazar (2018), such linguistic empowerment
disrupts gendered hierarchies by redefining leadership semantics.
Conversely, the X discussion
reveals a hostile discourse that questions her procedural legitimacy: “She
needs to understand the rules of the chamber,”“Instead of embarrassing herself
every time.” These statements employ modal verbs of
obligation (“needs to,” “should”) to enforce disciplinary
control. The ridicule functions as a gate keeping discourse linguistically
reasserting male dominance in political spaces. Fairclough’s (2010) concept
of discursive hegemony is evident here, as language is used
to uphold institutional power by framing assertive women as disruptive or
emotional.
At the social-practice level, this
double discourse reflects the ambivalence of public reception toward female
authority in Nigeria. Online, women leaders are simultaneously celebrated and
disciplined. The contrasting tones across platforms illustrate how digital
spaces reproduce institutional patriarchy while offering limited spaces of
resistance.
5.5 Body, Fertility, and
Ageing
The final X discussion on Ini Edo’s
surrogacy reveals how online discourse constructs the female body as a site of
moral and biological scrutiny. Comments such as “They play with their
prime, get old, then struggle with infertility” and “No
woman was born infertile, you made yourself one” exemplify victim-blaming
rhetoric. Through lexical choices (“play,” “made yourself”), users
attribute infertility to moral failure, reinforcing the cultural ideology that
women’s worth depends on reproductive success.
Other comments such as “Most
times life happens, you may marry a virgin and still have fertility issues” challenge
this narrative, introducing empathy and realism. This discursive tension
reflects Butler’s (1990) view that gendered norms are sustained through
repetitive speech acts but are also open to disruption. The supportive
comment “Ini Edo is actually a very strong and confident woman” employs evaluative
adjectives (“strong,” “confident”) to reconstruct agency and
dignity, opposing earlier denigrating statements.
At the level of discursive
practice, X functions as a space of public moral debate where personal
decisions are politicised. Ideologically, the discussion demonstrates how
reproductive control remains a linguistic tool of patriarchy, linking moral
virtue to biological productivity. Wodak and Meyer (2016) argue that such
discourses perform ideological work by defining “good” and “bad” womanhood,
shaping public consciousness beyond the individual case.
5.6 Representation of
Empowerment and Resistance
While harassment and bias dominate,
the dataset also reveals threads of linguistic resistance. Across multiple
platforms, women reclaim agency through humour, solidarity, and redefinition.
Statements such as “I am the head of the witch,”“A woman can become a
king,” and “Money buys comfort, not equality” illustrate
the reversal of patriarchal
tropes. These utterances employ recontextualisation (Wodak,
2001), transforming derogatory symbols into affirmations of strength.
Furthermore, supportive discourse
around female professionals “She is not your regular tech bro,”“More
wins to come,”“You are a blessing” reflects new digital expressions
of collective empowerment. These comments illustrate Gill and Orgad’s (2018)
notion of feminist solidarity online, where users counterbalance
hostility through celebratory and inspirational language. The frequent use of
plural pronouns (“we,” “our”) in such comments constructs communal identity,
transforming individual success into shared representation.
However, FCDA also warns that
resistance discourse often coexists with normative structures. The same
commenters who praise female achievement occasionally reinforce conventional
femininity through emotional language (“thank God for you,” “you are blessed”),
reproducing religious and moral frameworks that subtly limit feminist
expression. Thus, digital resistance remains ambivalent empowering yet
constrained by cultural ideology.
6. Discussion of Findings
The linguistic and ideological
patterns identified reveal that online harassment is not a collection of random
insults but a structured discourse that sustains patriarchy. Through sarcasm,
moral labelling, and presuppositions, users perpetuate norms defining
femininity in economic, sexual, and moral terms. The ideological work of these
discourses lies in their normalisation expressed as humour, advice, or “common
sense.” Fairclough (1995) notes that ideology is most effective when disguised
as everyday talk, and the data clearly reflects this mechanism. Nevertheless,
the presence of counter-discourses particularly from feminist commentators and
supportive users shows that digital spaces also enable the negotiation of
meaning. Language becomes a tool not only of domination but also of resistance.
As Lazar (2018) argues, feminist CDA must account for both oppression and
agency, recognising that women continually reconstitute power relations through
discourse.
The findings show that harassment
is embedded in everyday communication, often disguised through humour, sarcasm,
moral judgement, and seemingly rational critique. These strategies both reflect
and reinforce patriarchal norms that seek to regulate women’s authority, public
visibility and behavioural autonomy.
Four central discursive patterns
emerged. First, economic and
class-based exclusion constructs financial prosperity as a
requirement for feminist legitimacy and professional respectability. Women who
do not meet capitalist expectations are positioned as inferior or undeserving
of empowerment. Second, moral and
religious policing regulates femininity through
Christianity-based ideology, framing independence as sinful or deviant. This
disciplinary rhetoric normalises surveillance and restricts women’s
decision-making power in matters such as motherhood and public expression.
Third, sexual and marital control constructs
a narrow definition of womanhood, wherein professional success is insufficient
unless accompanied by marriage, fertility, and sexual conformity. Women who
reject these roles are infantilised or ridiculed. Fourth, delegitimisation of women’s authority is
enacted through rhetorical questioning of competence, emotional ridicule and
institutional gatekeeping, particularly toward women in politics or public
advocacy.
Despite these oppressive
tendencies, the analysis also identified discourses of resistance and empowerment, where
women and allies reclaimed meaning, subverted insults, and expressed
solidarity. This demonstrates that digital platforms remain contested spaces,
enabling both patriarchal reinforcement and feminist counter-hegemonic
engagement. The findings confirm that online harassment is a systematic and ideological practice,
not an isolated behavioural deviation. It functions to protect male dominance
within public and professional spheres by linguistically policing who is
permitted authority and voice. CDA reveals that such discourse becomes powerful
precisely because it appears normal, humorous or morally justified.
7. Conclusion
This study concludes that digital
communication plays a critical role in shaping gender inequality. Online
harassment delegitimises women’s professional identities, restricts
participation in public discourse and reinforces stereotypes that sustain patriarchal
power structures. However, resistant discourse emerging from feminist
communities indicates a growing challenge to these structures.
References
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble:
Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
Cameron, D. (1997). Performing gender identity:
Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In S.
Johnson & U. Meinhof (Eds.), Language and masculinity (pp.
47–64). Blackwell.
Citron, D. (2014). Hate crimes in
cyberspace. Harvard University Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins:
Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of
colour. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical
discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical
discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd
ed.). Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1981). The order of discourse. In
R. Young (Ed.), Untying the text: A post-structuralist reader (pp.
48-78). Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2011). An introduction to
discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Gill, R. (2007). Gender and the media. Polity
Press.
Gill, R., & Orgad, S. (2018). The shifting
terrain of sex and power: From the “sexualisation of culture” to #MeToo. Sexualities,
21(8), 1313-1324.
Herring, S. (2004). Computer-mediated
communication and gender difference. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 23(4), 389-408.
International Foundation for Electoral Systems
(IFES). (2019). Violence against women in elections online: A social
media analysis tool.IFES Publications.
Jane, E. A. (2017). Misogyny online: A
short (and brutish) history. Sage.
Kramer, B. (2019). The power of
critical discourse analysis. Routledge.
Lazar, M. M. (2005). Feminist critical
discourse analysis: Gender, power and ideology in discourse. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Lazar, M. M. (2018). Feminist critical discourse
analysis revisited: Power, resistance and critique. Discourse &
Society, 29(6), 766-780.
Megarry, J. (2014). Online incivility or sexual
harassment? Feminist Media Studies, 14(2), 530-534.
Mills, S. (2008). Language and sexism. Cambridge
University Press.
Nada, N. (2024). Cybermisogyny on TMZ Webnews: A
critical discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Gender Studies,
18(3), 41-59.
Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2017). Sexual
violence in a digital age. Palgrave Macmillan.
Reisigl, M., &Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse
and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. Routledge.
Rogers, R. (2011). An introduction to
critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Sidiq, S. H. (2024). A feminist
critical discourse analysis: Workplace sexual harassment and complexity of
gender and power relations in Bombshell. Universitas Islam Negeri
Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta.
Sunderland, J. (2006). Language and
gender: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A
multidisciplinary approach. Sage.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2001). Critical discourse
analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The
handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). Blackwell.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and
manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359-383.
Watson, H. (2023). Online abuse of women: An
interdisciplinary scoping review of the literature. Journal of Gender
and Media Studies, 12(4), 221-245.
Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical
approach. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical
discourse analysis (pp. 63-94). Sage.
Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. (Eds.).
(2005). A new agenda in critical discourse analysis: Theory,
methodology and interdisciplinarity. John Benjamins.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Methods
of critical discourse analysis (3rd ed.). Sage.
0 Comments