The „you are/become a feminist‟ structure occurs 20 times. These occurrences are similar to „to be/being/become a feminist‟ in that they present the idea of requirements that must be met for the use of „feminist‟ to be applicable. Again, however, analysis of interrogatives and hypothesising shows how writers argue against perceptions about what „feminism‟ and „feminist‟ mean. The defeasing of rules is especially pertinent in the case of „you are/become a feminist‟, as this particular use of social deixis serves to involve the reader. By addressing the reader directly in this way, the writers are able to reassure them about what being a feminist does and does not entail.
Table 6.7 comprises the eight interrogative occurrences of „you are/become a feminist‟:
Publication Sentence
Express 09a So are you a feminist?
Express 09a […] when your girlfriends ask, “You‟re a feminist aren‟t you? What does it mean
and am I one?” we need to have a clear answer
Guardian 07a Can you be a feminist and go to a lap-dancing club?
Guardian 07a How did you become a feminist?
Independent 03a Can you only be a feminist if the people you put first - your children - are girls?
Independent 07a Surely the real question should be not „why are you a feminist?‟ but „why aren't you one?‟
Mail 03a Years ago a newspaper editor asked me: “you‟re not a feminist, you?” with such
distaste in his voice you‟d have thought he was accusing me of child abuse
Times 01a It bores me still to be on the receiving end of the pathetic question, „you're not really a feminist, are you?‟
Table 6.7: Interrogative occurrences of „you are/become a feminist‟
These interrogatives show how articles attempt to “define what feminism is and who can appropriate this label” (Mendes, 2011a, p. 132). Four of the eight (Mail 03a, Times 01a and the two examples from Express 09a) focus on the question of whether an individual is a feminist; three of these use tag questions to indicate that the askers have preconceptions about what a feminist is and whether particular individuals fit the definition. Independent 07a is a „why‟ question, suggesting that choosing whether or not to be a feminist is optional, while Guardian 07a asks a „how‟ question, presenting
169
feminism as something that a person has to attain in some way. This idea of rules or standards that are attached to being a feminist is also put across in Guardian 07a and Independent 03a, which use hypothesising in the form of the epistemically modal „can‟. The use of the interrogative to frame the coordination of “be a feminist” and “go to a lap-dancing club” in Guardian 07a leaves open the question of whether or not these elements are opposite to each other or share some sort of characteristic, while Independent 03a demonstrates uncertainty about what possibilities „feminist‟ allows through an „if… then‟ structure.
A total of eight of the „you are/become a feminist‟ structures feature hypothesising. These occurrences use modal forms to repudiate the idea that the label „feminist‟ precludes certain behaviours and preferences:
Publication Sentence
Express 09a [...] you are probably a feminist without realising it
Guardian 06a I think you can be a strong, sexy woman and still be a feminist
Guardian 07a But, yes, you can do it and still be a feminist
Independent 07a [...] you don‟t have to be a feminist to understand that King‟s definition is just
too blandly inclusive
Independent 09c What we need to get across is that you can be feminine and a feminist
Mail 09a Her attitude was that you could be a feminist and appear naked in Playboy
Mail 09a You could be a feminist and cook your man's every meal […] Times 08a Yes, you can wear lipstick and be a feminist
Table 6.8: Modalised occurrences of „you are/become a feminist‟
Independent 07a negates deontic modality in its discussion of Labour politician Oona King‟s definition of „feminism‟, assuring the reader that being a feminist does not provide insight that non-feminists do not have access to, while Express 09a uses the epistemically confident “probably” to assure the reader that they are likely to be a feminist, thereby presenting „feminist‟ as something that can apply to someone even if they are not aware of it.
The remaining six occurrences are all similar in that the meanings created by different textual- conceptual functions combine to assure readers that „feminist‟ can apply to those who enjoy seemingly incongruous activities. Each uses the second person pronoun to address the reader directly, with a relational intensive process attributing the quality of being „a feminist‟ to the reader.
170
Hypothesising is also evident in each, with the epistemic/deontic modal auxiliary verbs „can‟ and „could‟ assuring the reader that it is possible or allowable to be a feminist and to be or do something else. The coordination of two actions/states/events or qualities demonstrates how writers coordinate two elements that could be seen as contrasting (for example being feminine and being a feminist (Independent 09c)), but defease the possible opposition by representing actions/events/states in which the reader is able to be or do both. Through this combination of naming, hypothesising and representing actions/events/states, the writers incorporate words and ideas („feminine‟, posing for
Playboy) that might usually be seen as non-feminist into the meaning of „feminist‟.