Final version

1
University of Iowa
Pretty in Politics
Feminine Style; Then and Now
Megan Lehman
Honors Thesis
Professor Isaac West
Thesis due May 13th by 5pm

2
Megan Lehman
02/28/15
Honors Thesis Project
Pretty in Politics
The feminine style is a form of political rhetoric in which political contenders
utilizes characteristics of communication that are typically considered feminine.
Through the use of humor, personal anecdotes, and references to one’s womanhood
and motherhood, the political hopeful is able to make connections and bonds with the
voters, in whom their political futures rest. The traditional form of this style, in which
it is thought of purely communally, has long gone and in its place is a hybrid version of
this common communicative strategy. As we examine the use of the feminine style in
former Texas governor and liberal, Ann Richards, and compare it to that of
conservative politicians, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Joni Ernst, this evolution
in style becomes quite clear.
The rhetoric of our political candidates, including previous and current elected
officials, have been highly studied and analyzed many different times throughout the
years. Theses studies have focused on various aspects of the political rhetoric, including
differences between Democrats and Republicans and how their beliefs and stances affect
their rhetorical styles. Use of the feminine style, for example, has been one of these
highly discussed topics of interest. The feminine style is a rhetorical form that has been
put into use by both men and women over time. Despite this statement, most research
concerning the feminine style has been done in reference to female political candidates.
This style of oratory reflects the communal qualities within the speech of a political
contender and how those qualities affect the candidacy. One area of this style that has yet
to be discussed is how the feminine style translates over party lines, from liberals to
conservatives. Through an analysis of former research performed, as well as the rhetoric

3
of Ann Richards, former liberal governor of Texas, and Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann,
and Joni Ernst, three conservative female politicians, this study will demonstrate how the
feminine style has developed and evolved.
Throughout the years, there have been many different definitions of the feminine
style. Communications scholar and University of Minnesota professor, Karlyn Campbell
has developed her definition of the feminine style “through the analysis of historical and
contemporary feminist rhetors and their distinctive audiences” (Dow and Tonn 286).
This definition of feminine style has been greatly influenced by the social role
theory. Psych It, an online source that depicts and describes many of the topics of interest
for the field of psychology, states that “social role theory recognizes the historical
division between women, who often assumed responsibilities at home, and men, who
often assumed responsibilities outside the home” (1). Because of this tradition of
expectations of differences in social roles, our society developed specific stereotypes and
gender roles that persist to this day. Social role theory states that, in order to conform to
these expectations, men developed qualities that demonstrate agency and women
developed qualities that demonstrate communal traits.
This theory does express that there are true differences between the genders, but it
does allow for the explanation of flexibility between the gender lines because “they are
dependent on the immediate social role of individuals.” This means that despite our
gendered role and expectations of such roles, we can occasionally take on responsibilities
that force one gender to step into roles that would more likely be assumed by the opposite
gender. These roles, or behaviors, include activities such as work, where a woman may
demonstrate ambition, control, and aggressiveness; qualities typically associated with

4
male gender roles. Another example would be a man working as a nurse, a career
typically seen as feminine due to its caring and nurturing nature. Both these examples
demonstrate how simple it is for gender lines to be crossed and bent (Psych – It, 1).
Despite this line crossing ability, the social role theory also creates a world of
boundaries. While one is able to cross the gender lines, breaking them is not nearly as
easy. Societies gendered expectations have created limitations on what we see as
accomplishable or achievable on occasion.
Social role theory also explains that men and women demonstrate different styles
of leadership. These differences are also visible in those who do not necessarily
prescribe to a specific leadership role, but report their perspective leadership styles.
However, in an organizational context, this difference slowly starts to disappear (Psych-
It, 3). These differences begin to decline in ethical decision making even more as work
experience is increased.
As the years and politicians have changed and evolved, so has the definition of
feminine style. A more realistic way to define this form of rhetorical style is as a hybrid
between what it was and what it currently is; a mixture between feminine and masculine
forms of speech. This definition may appear as something like this: the act of taking the
characteristics and traits, typically viewed as feminine, and putting them into action
through one’s speech in an agentic manner that can either have a positive or negative
effect on the rhetor.
In previous research, the idea of feminine style in relation to political rhetoric has
been associated with predominately liberal politicians. In their article, “Feminine Style”
and Political Judgment in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards”, Bonnie Dow and Mari Boor

5
Tonn dive deep into an analysis of the rhetoric of female politicians during the feminist
movement, also known as the women’s liberation movement. Overall, the previous work
done on these studies has been to dissect “the rhetorical strategies used by feminist
rhetors to gain access to traditional modes of political power, primarily suffrage” (286).
This resulted in the representation of a liberal feminist direction or intended goal. From
here, objectives were created that allowed for the expansion and development of the
female interpretation.
In her continuous research on female rhetoric, Karlyn Campbell developed her
version of the feminine style. By her definition, the feminine style is “an alternative
critical orientation with which to understand the source, form, and function of female
communicative strategies and their effectiveness in feminist movements” (286). Dow
and Tonn, however, believe that her research is limited in two major ways: firstly, little
effort has been made to develop the research outside of the realm of the feminist social
reform and secondly, “feminine style primarily has been viewed as simply another, albeit
unique and innovative, strategy that serves to empower [female] audiences for the
traditional purpose of gaining access to the existing political system” (286). While
Campbell has created a strong connection to what the essence of the feminine style is, she
neglects to state how the style fluctuations between political positions and beliefs, such as
the liberals and conservatives.
There are many aspects of a speech or appearance that a communications scholar
may analyze when discussing the feminine style qualities that a rhetor is using. These
characteristics include but are not limited to stylization, humor, caring or nurturing
qualities, and references to family, tradition, personal anecdotes, children and

6
motherhood. This study will attempt to analyze the humor, use of anecdotes or personal
story telling, and references to woman and motherhood.
The rhetoric of Ann Richards, former governor of Texas and liberal female
politician, is quite easily the spitting image of the original definition of the feminine style.
In her 1988 Keynote Address to the Democratic Convention in Atlanta, Georgia,
Richards gave a moving speech to shed light on the distance women still have to run
before equality could be reached, without offending the primarily male audience. She did
this through her witty use of humor. After she gave the appropriate thank yous to those
who had invited her to speak, Richards continued on by saying, “I’m delighted to be here
with you this evening, because after listening to George [H.] Bush all these years, I
figured you needed to know what a real Texas accent sounds like.” After making this
statement, Richards laughs along with the audience. This act of laughter showed that
Richards was not taking herself too seriously nor attacking the President. She was simply
finding a way to identify with her audience, who all clearly have gathered in support of
the current president’s opponent. With the ice freshly broken, the crowd was prepared to
take in Richards’ rhetoric.
Richards wove her way through her speech, mentioning the only other woman in
history to give the Keynote Address twelve years prior, Barbara Jordan stating, “Twelve
years ago Barbara Jordan, another Texas woman, Barbara made the keynote address to
this convention, and two women in a hundred and sixty years is about par for the course.”
Making this reference allowed Richards to ease the crowd into a subject that been of
continuous debate: equal rights for women. In a successful attempt to use her humor to
soften what is considered a highly controversial topic, Richards introduced Ginger

7
Rogers into the conversation saying, “But if you give us [women] a chance, we can
perform. After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it
backwards and in high heels.” This humor continued throughout the speech. It was used,
not to upset certain members of the audience, but to gently remind everyone listening that
there is still work to be done. Serving the purpose well, this humor allowed the audience
to feel invited in, kept them entertained, and kept them listening.
Richards also uses personal anecdotes, such as stories of her childhood to
demonstrate her good-natured humor and as a way to connect with her audience. Her
first story allowed the audience to reminisce with her as she described one night during
an 8th grade basketball game. “I thought I looked real cute in my uniform. And then I
heard a boy yell from the bleachers, ‘Make that basket, bird legs.’ And my greatest fear is
that same guy is somewhere out there in the audience tonight, and he's going to cut me
down to size.” Though not everyone sitting in the audience that night could make an
exact connection with the experience, it gave them the opportunity to try, to see this
elected official as someone just like them.
The true challenge in using anecdotes, like Richards did, is finding points of
identification for those listening. During the previous presidential election between
President Barack Obama and Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, Romney
attempted to make himself more relatable to the people by publicly airing that, despite his
millions upon millions, he is actually very cheap and almost refuses to change a light
bulb once it burns out. Because the public is fully aware of just how much money the
former governor has, this was a completely failed attempt at being relatable and making
that much needed connection to the citizens of the United States. This failure at

8
connecting with the voters may have actually done the exact opposite of its intended
purpose. Instead of drawing the voters closer, it pushed them father away, creating doubt
between how this multi-millionaire could hardly relate to their struggles through his
insistence to leave a burnt light bulb in its socket for as long as possible.
As her address continued, Richards employed more humor and personal
anecdotes. She infused her speech with references to woman and motherhood, especially
when she referenced a letter sent to her by a young mother from Lorena, Texas. This
mother divulged to Richards through the letter that she worried about money, keeping her
children clothed, and giving them a bright future. Richards used this letter as a jumping
off point when she began discussing the error of the Republican administration’s ways,
stating that they blamed working mothers for needing to leave the home and work to
contribute to the household in more ways than just cooking, cleaning, and laundry.
Through her humor, use of anecdotes or personal storytelling, and references to
woman and motherhood, former governor Ann Richards was the exact embodiment of
what the world believed feminine style to be. This definition of the feminine style,
however, has been “primarily focused on rhetorical criticism of female rhetors in the
feminist movement” (Dow and Tonn, 286). To base the definition and explanation of this
form of rhetorical speech would be to neglect or ignore a portion of the female politicians
who would not categorize themselves as typical feminists.
Ann Richards, former liberal governor of Texas, embodied what was once the
definition of the feminine style. It is clear that the feminine style has evolved past how it
was originally defined and is very much differentiated between political stances and
sides. Through an analysis of Palin, and the introduction of Michele Bachmann, former

9
Minnesota state representative, as well as new Congress member Joni Ernst of Iowa, the
previously stated differences will become clear, making way for a new hybrid version of
the feminine style.
In their speeches, Palin, Bachmann, and Ernst utilize the qualities that are
traditionally considered within the feminine style. But the way that it has developed in
these three conservative politicians, as compared to that of the liberal Richards, has
allowed these women to mold it beyond its traditional form into what can only be called a
hybrid version of the feminine style.
Sarah Palin
Humor
Humor, when used in a political mindset, is almost always very indirect. In this
aspect, politicians may use one subject to begin an attack on a different subject. As is
clear in the analysis of Sarah Palin’s campaign rhetoric, her use of humor can be very
similar to that of Ann Richards. These witty comments serve to demonstrate the spunk,
liveliness, and tenacity of the candidate, in this case, Sarah Palin. In her most famous and
most repeated joke in which she asks the country what the difference between a pit bull
and a hockey mom is, Palin is able to keep her humor positive, entertaining, and
enjoyable.
On occasion, however, Palin’s use of humor was not always in such good taste
and, on occasion, made little sense. For example, during her speech at the Values Voters
Summit, Sarah Palin, in an attempt to rile up the audience, began an attack on President

10
Obama and his administration in her best attempt at humor. Unlike her pit bull/hockey
mom joke, these quips are rather negative, leaving the audience hesitant in their applause.
Whilst discussing the downfalls of all that is the Obama administration, Palin began her
attempt at a humorous attack of his ability, accomplishments, and shortcomings. “So no
one’s ever held accountable, from the IRS corruption to you being spied on to, gosh,
Benghazi, to bailouts, to, oh, Bush’s war was bad, but Barack’s bombs? Oh, baby, those
red lines, the strategy there that was thought up on the back nine? Barack’s bombs? Oh,
they’re the bomb.” This joking comment was accompanied by slight, soft laughter from
her audience. Judging by the tentative applause and hesitant laughter, the malicious
comments in reference to our country’s president made the audience rather
uncomfortable.
Whether or not this crowd is entirely supportive of the Obama administration is
unclear. What is clear, however, is that this form of humor was not successful. The fact
that they are listening to Obama’s political opponent, however, allows one to infer that
they are not widely supportive of the president. Understanding this, one would expect all
negative jokes in reference to Obama to be met with loud and boisterous amounts of
applause. The fact that the crowd is as hesitant to clap as it was shows that, though they
may not see too many positives in the President’s repertoire, the untactful attempt at
humor was less than successful and caused a rather uncomfortable experience. This is
the difference between Palin’s use of humor and that of Richards. While Palin’s humor is
similar to that of Richard’s on occasion, her occasional transition to a darker side of
humor is what differentiates herself from that of the original, conservative feminine style.

11
Palin’s attempt at being a “cool mom,” using slang that not all the voters may understand
or appreciate, shows a clear lack of connection to her audience.
Personal Anecdotes
In her vice presidential nominee acceptance speech, Palin referenced stories from
her personal life to introduce herself and the Palin Family. After giving the audience an
introduction of her running mate, Palin began to introduce herself, how she joined the
political world, and how she ended up becoming the governor of Alaska.
As she states, Palin’s motivation for joining the Parent Teacher Association
(PTA) was to improve the public school educational system for her children. Through
this participation, Palin was able to meet the families from the school system and get to
know them on a personal level. This was very beneficial for her political career,
especially when she decided to run for city council. Unlike many candidates who seem
to have some sort of disconnect with the public, Palin knew who the public was, what
their needs were, and what she could do to make a difference. Once elected mayor, the
same principles applied. Through giving this concise, yet detailed, background about
herself, the voters were able to make a connection, find similarities, and picture Palin in
the position she was running for. This was one major benefit to using personal anecdotes
throughout her campaign.
These personal anecdotes also served to make a political point. Palin made
continuous points about her running mate, Senator John McCain, and the passion he has
for our armed forces. “He’s a man who wore the uniform of his country for 22 years, and

12
refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who now have brought victory within
sight.” Once she had provided the audience with the Senator McCain’s military
accolades, she expressed why it is that she took this fact so personally. “Our son, Track,
is 19. And on week from tomorrow --September 11th – he’ll deploy to Iraq with the Army
infantry in the service of his country.” By showing how Senator McCain’s life and
presidency would have a real affect on her own, Palin demonstrated an interest in
McCain’s success that was truly personal. Her life, as she claimed, would be affected for
the better by having McCain in the Oval Office. This demonstration of faith enabled the
country to put themselves in her shoes and examine how their lives would be affected if
McCain were elected to be the country’s president.
This expression of trust, opening up one’s private life to an entire country,
permitted the audience to find similarities and connections between their lives and that of
their politicians. In this way, both Palin and Richard appear to have the same goal for
their use of personal anecdotes; connection making. This shows that, while there are
many clear and distinct differences across party lines in references to goals, not all
aspects of the feminine style are used differently.
References to Motherhood and Womanhood
Giving her personal anecdotes throughout the speeches also created the
opportunity for Palin to make multiple references to her motherhood and womanhood.
As stated above, Palin made reference to being a mother by explaining how her son,

13
Track, would be shipping off to defend his country and how she had a personal interest in
McCain’s presidency.
As she moves on through her acceptance speech, Palin discusses her parents,
stating, “My Mom and Dad both worked at the elementary school in our small town. And
among the many things I owe them is a simple lesson that I’ve learned: that this is
America, and every woman can walk through the door of opportunity. And my parents
are here tonight. I am so proud to be the daughter of Chuck and Sally Heath.” As the first
woman to be the Republican Party’s vice presidential nominee, Palin became an
inspiration to women. A new frontier was being discovered. And as she used her version
of the feminine style to develop her position in the campaign, Palin became the face of
this new frontier. Similarly to the use of personal anecdotes, references to one’s mother
or womanhood show a softer side to the politician. In this, both the conservative Palin
and liberal Richards see the value in the use of references to woman and motherhood.
In comparison to the liberal Richards, Palin has many similarities, as has been
made clear throughout this analysis. What separates conservative Palin’s feminine style
from that of liberal Richards is her use of humor. One can find a negative quality in her
humor that does not always fall on the most receptive ears. Richards used her humor to
express her opinion on subjects and urge her constituents to take action. Palin’s humor
was also used to give her opinion, but in a way that did not encourage anything but more
negativity
Michelle Bachmann

14
The next conservative female politician that will be analyzed is Michelle
Bachmann, former state representative of the 6th congressional district in Minnesota, a
position she held from 2007-2014. Bachmann, like Palin and Richards, utilizes humor,
personal anecdotes, and references to womanhood in her political rhetoric. She does,
however, have a completely different presence in the media than both previously
mentioned politicians. Between interviews and speeches, Michele Bachmann set herself
apart from other female politicians while serving as a Representative in the House.
Whether that was in a positive or negative way has a definite affect on her feminine style.
Humor
Humor can be used in many ways in political rhetoric. The majority of the time,
however, it is to make a political point, bringing light to a subject that needs to be
continuously discussed. Humor is not, however, often present in the rhetoric of former
Minnesota representative, Michele Bachmann. When it is attempted, however, it
negatively depicts the subject of the joke without serving to shed light onto any particular
subject. In a summit speech depicting Bachmann’s value of the voters, she endeavors to
use humor in a different way. Unlike Richards, who used her humor light heartedly,
inviting people to join in on the conversation, Bachmann used her humor to belittle a
fellow politician, Bill Clinton, when discussing the highly controversial topic of the war
on women. “And I just want to say I think that it [the war on women] has about as much
reliability and truthfulness as Bill Clinton’s arithmetic.” Generally, the audience
listening to this speech would expect her use of humor at the expense of former President

15
Clinton to be a foreshadowing technique for a speech about this aforementioned war on
women. When she uses this joke as a jumping off point to begin speaking about the war
in the Middle East, she does bring light to a subject that many politicos are currently
discussing. She does not, however, invite the conversation to continue. In this case, her
humor did not serve the typical function of humor within the feminine style concept. By
using a topic for a joke that had little to nothing to do with the actual topic of the subject
at hand, Bachmann created a distraction for the audience as she began to make her overall
argument. This drew attention away from what the actual point of the speech was and
served to slightly confuse those listening as well.
She makes another attempt in this speech at humor by stating the following,
“Staggering unemployment. High gas prices. A struggling economy. You’d think Jimmy
Carter’s back in the White House again, wouldn’t you? Only what we see is we are again
desperate for another Ronald Reagan.” In both this and the previous example of
Bachmann’s attempt at humor, the audience responds in a positive way. This example,
unlike the first example, acts more clearly in the form of the feminine style. In the first
example, Bachmann attacked Clinton directly. In this example, Bachmann used the
attack on Jimmy Carter to make a statement, but the former president is not the joke’s
intended victim. The harshness of the joke is then reduced by the mention of Ronald
Reagan, creating a point of comparison. This is a perfect example of how the use of
humor in political rhetoric is commonly indirect. Bachmann continues the conversation
about what she meant by the joke, prodding the audience to think on the idea further.
And in this fact, the difference between the use of humor in the traditional feminine style

16
by conservatives and that of the hybrid feminine style being put into use by Bachmann is
visible.
Personal Anecdotes
When Bachmann visited Waterloo, Iowa in June of 2011 to announce her
candidacy for the presidency, Bachmann introduced herself as being an Iowa native.
Making this distinction in front of this specific audience of Iowans was a very wise
decision. “I know what it means to be from Iowa – what we value and what’s important.
Those are the values that helped make Iowa the breadbasket of the world and those are
the values, the best of all of us that we must recapture to secure the promise of the
future.” Bringing up this key fact about her personal life and past was a very wise
decision on Bachmann’s part. Labeling herself as a former Iowan gave the audience a
way to connect with this presidential hopeful from Minnesota.
Despite the fact that this Minnesota representative is no longer an Iowa girl, she
associated herself with her audience by describing herself, as well as the current Iowans,
in an extremely favorable light. Bachmann acknowledged that things were not the same
as they had been in Waterloo those five decades prior, but the people did not change.
“We work hard, we live within our means and we expect to pass on a better life to our
children.” The consistent use of the pronoun “we” showed that Bachmann connected
herself with Iowa, the people, and their values.
As her speech transitions, so does her focus. She began referring to herself and
the audience no longer as just Iowans, but as Americans. And it was only through her

17
successful campaign and candidacy that America would be able to regain its once
beautiful governmental state. “I want my candidacy for the presidency to stand for the
moment when ‘We, the People’ reclaimed our independence from a government that has
gotten too big, spends too much and has taken away too much of our liberty.”
Though her speech does make an excellent point of connecting with her key
audience of the moment, Bachmann’s use of personal anecdotes is different from that of
Palin, who uses her personal anecdotes as a way to introduce who she is currently to the
voters. Bachmann introduced who she used to be, as a current Minnesota representative,
a former Iowan. Yes, she used her past Iowan status as a way to show the voters who she
is and what her values are, but she never truly introduces herself to the people. Palin, for
instance, spoke of her husband, children, and private life in a way that welcomed the
audience. Doing so was extremely similar to the way in which personal anecdotes have
previously been used in forms of political rhetoric. By neglecting to include more about
herself in this rather important moment, however, Bachmann was unable to make a full
connection to the key audience: Iowa voters. This is quite the opposite of the traditional
feminine style. While many politicians may choose to keep their personal lives private,
those who open their lives and homes to their constituents demonstrate aspects of both
the traditional and hybrid form of the feminine style.
In this speech given in Waterloo, the only reference that Michele Bachmann made
in relation to being a woman was the slightest mention of her husband stating, “I hadn’t

18
planned on getting involved in politics. I loved the law and went to law school. I went on
to William and Mary to become a tax lawyer. Together with my husband we started a
successful small business.” From here, Bachmann states how she originally came to
work in politics: for the children. Much like Sarah Palin states, Bachmann began her
political career because of the problems and issues she saw forming as the federal
government’s interference began to develop. “I didn’t seek public office for fortune or
power, but simply to make life better in our community and education better for our
children.” Though not referring to her own children specifically, this reference to the
children that make up the community is an example of her use of references to
motherhood. These are the only two references that to mother and womanhood that
Bachmann makes in this speech in which she announces her candidacy for president of
the United States.
Most of the speeches given by Bachmann during her time as a political figure, she
kept her personal life out of the spotlight, mentioning very seldom her home life and
family. One exception to this statement, however, was an interview that Bachmann
participated in on the Hallmark Channel on the show, Home and Family, with hosts,
Mark Steines and Cristina Ferrare. This interview focused on Bachmann’s tireless effort
on behalf of foster children, more specifically, the 23 children she has opened her home
to over the years. In 2012, Bachmann sponsored a bill that was signed into law by
President Obama. This bill, now called the Uninterrupted Scholars Act, “helps ease
paperwork and protects foster youth as they transition from school to school” (Badash,
1). As she specified in her interview on Home and Family, children in the foster system
just want a forever family and someone who can give them attention.

19
In this interview, Bachmann shared one of her most personal anecdotes about her
childhood. The congresswoman goes on to detail how her family experienced a high
level of poverty, watching as her parents placed things for sale in the yard. This
experience urged her to dream about being a mother with a house full of happy children.
Her dedication to the children in the foster care system stems from this personal
experience. This is a reflection of both motherhood and womanhood, and the best
example that Bachmann gives of these two aspects of the feminine style throughout her
candidacy and time as a political figure.
Although Palin and Bachmann represent a hybrid form of the traditional feminine
style in two different ways, first congresswoman from Iowa, Joni Ernst, has her very own
take on this rhetorical form. This native Iowan is sparking conversation about her past
and, especially, her campaign ads. Like the two politicians before her, an analysis of her
use of humor, personal anecdotes, and references to mother and womanhood demonstrate
the similarities that are common in this crossbreed of the feminine style between the
conservative and liberal lines.
What differentiates Bachmann’s political style from that of the traditional
feminine style is her use of all three characteristics discussed: personal anecdotes, humor,
and references to motherhood and womanhood. It is clear that Bachmann prefers to keep
her life, both past and present, rather private, unlike Palin and Richards, who use their life
experiences to connect with their audience. Like Palin, Bachmann uses her humor in a
more negative way, not inspiring action, but inspiring more negativity. Like the use of
her personal anecdotes, Bachmann kept the use of her personal woman and motherhood
rather private, with the exception of her interview about her time taking in foster children.

20
While she still uses a form of the feminine style, it is clearly quite different from that of
the conventional rhetoric form.
Joni Ernst
Humor
In one of her most talked about and viewed campaign ads, Congresswoman Ernst
depicted her time as a young girl on an Iowa farm. “I grew up castrating hogs on an Iowa
farm. So when I get to Washington, I’ll know how to cut the pork.” Why was this,
arguably, normal statement from an Iowan woman considered to be so comical? The
action of castrating pigs, believe it or not, normally is considered, if anything, not
feminine in the slightest. Using this specific fact about her life as a typical Iowan
woman, despite its lack of feminine qualities, helped to create a special connection
between the intended audience and the first time congressional seat seeker. Was this
statement used intentionally for humor purposes? Many may have interpreted this
depiction from Ernst’s childhood as her castrating of the liberal politicians in
Washington. Most likely, but it served a greater purpose than to just get a laugh: it
created a bridge to connect our famed politicians with the people and the communities
that they represent.
This connecting bridge is not something that did not, however, connect in her
more serious speeches, such as the GOP response, Weekly Republican Address, and her
first speech given on the floor of the Senate. These speeches have a strong tendency to

21
remain serious, using anecdotes and other personal stories in place of humor to keep the
audience interested and engaged. Her humor is most visible, as is clear from the first
example, in her campaign ads. Humor was used sparingly during different debates
against opponents, including Democratic candidate, Bruce Braley. Ernst however,
maintained a serious nature that while being formal, was also engaging and appealing.
By creating an atmosphere like this, Ernst differentiated herself from her political
colleagues. While she maintains the positive humor of Richard’s, Ernst also prefers to
keep her rhetoric on the professional end, appearing more like former representative
Bachmann. By upholding her middle ground, Ernst creates the image of someone the
public can connect with and sustain a professional persona.
Personal Anecdotes
“I’m Joni Ernst. As a mother, a soldier, and a newly elected senator from the great
state of Iowa, I am proud to speak with you tonight.” This introduction given by Ernst in
her GOP response has been a constant form of self-definition for the new
congresswoman. Ernst’s campaign took advantage of the benefits of using personal
anecdotes as she made her way through the great state of Iowa.
On July 12th of 2014, Senator Ernst gave the Weekly Republican Address. In this
address, Ernst recounted her reason for joining the military. While attending college at
Iowa State University, Ernst was a part of an agricultural exchange to the Soviet Union.
“And I saw with my own eyes,” Ernst stated, “what a nation without freedom looks like.
I saw what happens to people when they lose their liberty. When I came home, I decided

22
that it wasn’t enough for me to simply enjoy freedom and liberty. I had to do my part to
protect it” (The Iowa Republican, 2). Using her experience as a soldier was an excellent
way for Ernst to make a connection with a large part of the population; those who have or
are currently serving and those who believe liberty and freedom to be the utmost highest
priority.
As Ernst continued her personal statement, she described where her military
career has brought her. “Decades later, I am a Lt. Colonel and battalion commander in
the Iowa Army National Guard. In fact I am recording this message a few days early,
and by the time you hear this, I will be on active duty leading my troops for the next two
weeks.” This very clear statement of how Ernst is still an active part of the military,
while remaining an active part of our country’s political culture shows that she is
dedicated to the citizens and has been, and continues to be, a devout resident of the
United States (The Iowa Republican, 2).
Ernst does not shy away from the opportunity to mention her family, more
specifically, the fact that she is a mother and grandmother. This, like her constant
mention of her military service, has been a consistent form her self-definition. Not only
does Ernst maintain references to her own motherhood, she references her childhood and
the way she was raised constantly. In speeches ranging from her response to the GOP on
January 20th of 2015 and even her first speech given on the senate floor on March 23rd of

23
2015, Ernst frequently mentions how her upbringing and the impact her mother had on
her.
In her maiden speech on the senator floor, Ernst stated that, “growing up on a
farm in rural southwest Iowa, my parents instilled in my sister, my brother, and me the
importance of hard work, service, and sacrifice” (Sen. Joni Ernst et al., pg. 2).
In her GOP response speech given on January 20th of 2015, Ernst continued her
talk about her childhood, informing the audience of the lack of financial stability that her
family experienced. At the end of her Weekly Republican Address, Ernst recalled
moments that demonstrated this experience:
Growing up on that southwest Iowa farm, my family didn’t have much.
My mother canned our food and made our clothes – teaching us the
lessons of not spending what you don’t have. In our small town, we
relied on each other – our neighbors lent us a helping hand when we
need it and we would do the same in their time of need (The Iowa
Republican, 4).
To support this statement, Ernst talked about her time working the family field
and doing construction with her father, while punching the clock during the morning
breakfast rush at Hardees to save money for college (GOP Response et al,. 2). This
display of hard work and a life that most believe politicians have, very luckily, avoided
was a way for Ernst to connect with her primary audience; the citizens of Iowa. Unlike
Bachmann and Palin, Ernst shared a deeply personal story of her experience with
motherhood; showing she can open up and use her personal stories for strength as a
person and a politician.

24
Creating her own path in Washington, Ernst is also creating her own version of
the feminine style. Where we can truly see the difference between the traditional style
and Ernst’s personal feminine style is how much she uses the three characteristics that the
analysis primarily focuses on. Ernst does utilize all three characteristics in her speech,
but she appears to use them less than her fellow politicians. The humor of Ernst is quite
visible, especially in her campaign ads. This humor, however, is not utilized much more
than that, demonstrating a more serious side of the politician. In her use of reference to
her mother and womanhood, Ernst takes advantage of her unique status as mother and
soldier to stand out by repeating the facts in nearly every campaign ad. The use of these
references blend into her use of personal anecdotes, especially when she references how
she made the decision to become a United States soldier. While she applies these three
different characteristics throughout her speech, she is very mindful of how much she uses
throughout her rhetoric. In this way, Ernst maintains a clear stance on the issues that are
most important to her campaign and political career.
Feminine Style: Then and Now
In their book, Woman President, Sheeler and Anderson tackle a very relevant
topic when it comes to today’s female politicians: the two faces of feminism. By
comparing and contrasting two very different politicians, Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin,
we are able to see these two different versions of feminism.
For many, Hilary Clinton’s campaign represented “the liberal feminist’s promise
of women’s political equality,” while the campaign of Sarah Palin demonstrated the

25
“persistence of patriarchy in postfeminist political culture” (Sheeler and Anderson, 89).
The judgments for these campaigns were based completely on the way in which the
candidates introduced themselves to the voters. For any female candidate, however,
getting past the innately masculine nature that is seen as the presidency can be an
overwhelming challenge to tackle.
As Sheeler and Anderson argue, the presidency is seen, almost naturally, as a
hegemonic masculine superpower. Presidential hopefuls have even been known to
feminize their opponent with the goal of demonstrating their inability to maintain and be
successful in office. Male candidates take advantage of the distinct difference in
personas between themselves, their wives, and their female constituents as they focus
their campaign around a predominately masculine platform (Sheeler and Anderson, 90).
Especially now, in our post 9/11 world, masculinity seems to be an insurmountable
quality that the country is seeking in all elected officials. The country wants to see the
president as someone in control, someone who can protect, and someone who can be
forceful. These are not qualities necessarily associated with femininity itself, let alone
female candidates (Sheeler and Anderson, 92).
Sheeler and Anderson reference the work of communications scholar, Karlyn
Kohrs Campbell, who states, “no matter how traditional its argumentation, how
justificatory its form, how social reality, the most fundamental values, of the cultural
context in which it occurs.” This statement is completely relatable to the oratory of
Clinton, as she attempted to “break the highest, glass ceiling” that women have faced yet
(Sheeler and Anderson, 93).

26
Hilary Clinton made her plans to run for president known on January 20th, 2007,
just a few days before President George W. Bush was to give his State of the Union
Address. This was also the date that, in just two years, the next elected president
inaugurated and taking his or her place as leader of the free world. The timing of this
announcement was the only thing that linked Clinton’s announcement to the
traditionalism of the presidency. In her announcement, Clinton was seated in her living
room, surrounded by a few select individuals. The only symbol of power was her red
jacket, which was softened by its feminine tailoring.
Clinton took advantage of the same tactic used by Ronald Reagan, the combining
of modern technology with an intimate, personal rhetoric. She then stated that she would
be hosting live web chats throughout the week and invited the country’s input by stating,
“Let’s talk. Let’s chat. Let’s start a dialogue about your ideas and mine” (Sheeler and
Anderson, 94). Clinton employed the use of the feminine style completely throughout
her campaign, her address, and the questions she offered to the country. Many criticized
her feminine speech, stating that is showed weakness or powerlessness. Clinton,
however, demonstrated that she was familiar with the double bind between femininity
and competence. “Clinton exhibited a new style of presidential leadership premised on
the feminist value of collaboration” (Sheeler and Anderson, 95.)
In contrast, Sarah Palin, during the 2008 election, brought back the normative
expectations of masculinity in the presidency. Sheeler and Anderson reference, Denise
M. Bostdorff, communications scholar from the College of Wooster as she states,
“Although vice presidents must seem to have enough strong ‘masculine’ traits to ensure
their competence during national emergencies, they must submerge their independence

27
and individualism to perform their day to day duties which consist mainly of abject
‘feminine servility,’” (Sheeler and Anderson, 98). In other words, the vice president
needs to be able to think like a man and act like a lady.
Bostdorff even goes so far as to say that, “the contemporary vice presidency is, in
effect, a traditional female role.” This is a role that some may even compare with that of
the first lady. The difference, however, between the role of vice president it that the vice
president may have find themselves more and more absorbed into the persona that is the
president, losing their individualism. The first lady, though clearly not a major political
player, can differentiate herself through the creation and completion of her own projects,
such as Michele Obama and her push towards healthy lifestyles.
Through an analysis of her oratory throughout the campaign, Palin set the norms
of the masculine presidentially in stone, but also positioned those typical norms within a
postfeminist political culture (Sheeler and Anderson, 99), the exact opposite of what
Clinton stood for. When announcing his choice for his running mate, Senator John
McCain avoided using gendered pronouns and made great strides to show “that his
decision was a dramatic departure from the norms of presidential politics” (Sheeler and
Anderson, pg. 99). Little did McCain know that selecting a woman to the innately
feminine position that is the vice presidency, he was not taking such a large step away
from the norms of the presidency.
At the time of the announcement, however, it truly seemed like McCain had some
sort of rhetorical genius at play. “Palin seemed to both challenge and reinforce the norms
of presidentiality” (Sheeler and Anderson, 99). The face value of the situation was that
having Palin on the ticket strengthened the post-feminism conversation. This showed

28
that a woman could be seen as a presidential candidate, despite the conservative political
party. Palin compromised the pioneer persona, functioning belittling the opportunity as
being purely symbolic. She focused on introducing America to her husband and
children, before diving in to a few of her political beliefs and goals. Her expertise on the
issues that she addressed in her Republican National Convention vice presidential
acceptance speech was “articulated via a colloquialism that came to define her political
ethos: take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska” (Sheeler and Anderson,
100).
Despite their differences in political stance, this pioneer persona worked for Ann
Richards as well as Palin. Both Palin and Richards also took on the persona of “unruly
woman.” Palin used the joke that then became the most frequently quoted line from her
2008 vice presidential campaign: “You know [what] they say the difference between a
hockey mom and a pitbull [is]: lipstick” (Sheeler and Anderson, 100). This joke
embodied the intensity of a pitbull but softened it with the reference of motherhood.
During the campaign and all the interviews and other public appearances that Palin
participated in, her oratory reinforced and reflected the masculinity of the presidential
office (Sheeler and Anderson, pg. 101).
The feminine style is a rhetorical form that is taken advantage of by both
conservative and liberal politicians. However, the manner in which this oratorical
strategy is used between the political lines, including both past and present political
leaders, is what separates the two parties. While this study examined the ways in which
humor, personal anecdotes, and references to both woman and motherhood have evolved
from that of conservatives to the current liberals, the feminine style encompasses many

29
more characteristics. These three and all other characteristics will continue to develop as
time goes on, just as the politicians putting the style into action will continue to change.
The hybrid version of the feminine style will continue to take on a life of its own, as will
the politicians absorbing its benefits.
Works Cited
"Bachmann Talks Foster Care on "Home & Family" (Part 2)." YouTube. YouTube, 19
May
2014. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.
Dow, Bonnie J., and Mari B. Tonn. ""Feminine Style" and Political Judgement in the
Rhetoric of Ann Richards." Quarterly Journal of Speech 79 (1993): 286-302.
Web. 13 Feb. 2015.
Geddes, Linda. "How We Choose Leaders in times of War and Peace." New Scientist
202.2705 (2009): 10. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.
"GOP Response Transcript: Joni Ernst GOP Response (text, Video)." POLITICO. N.p.,
20 Jan. 2015. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.

30
Horn Sheeler, Kristina, and Karrin Vasby Anderson. "Gender, Rhetoric, and International
Political Systems: Angela Merkel's Rhetorical Negotiation of Proportional
Representation and Party Politics." Communication Quarterly 62.4 (2014):
474-95. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.
Jacobs, Jennifer. "Transcript of Michele Bachmann’s Speech as Prepared." Iowa
Caucuses. Des Moines Register, 27 June 2011. Web. 07 Apr. 2015.
Johnston, A., and A. B. White. "Communication Styles and Female Candidates: A Study
of the Political Advertising during the 1986 Senate Elections." Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly 71.2 (1994): 321-29. Web.
"Joni Ernst for Senate, "Squeal"" Political Advertising Resource Center. N.p., 11 Oct.
2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.
Michele Bachmann Values Voter Summit speech transcript (full text) - Politico Staff
(POLITICO)
"Sarah Palin – Sarah Palin's Speech at the 2014 Value Voters Summit." Genius. N.p., n.d.
Web. 06 Apr. 2015.
Sheeler, Kristina Horn, and Karrin Vasby Anderson. Woman President Confronting
Postfeminist Political Culture. College Station: Texas A & M UP, 2013. Print.
"Sen. Joni Ernst Delivers First Speech on Senate Floor." Sen. Joni Ernst Delivers First
Speech on Senate Floor. N.p., 23 Mar. 2015. Web. 06 Apr. 2015.
"Social Role Theory." - Psychlopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
"U.S. Senate Candidate Joni Ernst Delivers Weekly Republican Address | The Iowa
Republican." The Iowa Republican. The Iowa Republican, 12 July 2014. Web.
06 Apr. 2015.

31
Used in Researching
Eagly, Alice H., and Mary C. Johannesen-Schmidt. "The Leadership Styles of Women
and Men." Journal of Social Issues 57.4 (2001): 781-97. Web.
Vigil, Tammy R. "Feminine Views in the Feminine Style: Convention Speeches by
Presidential Nominees' Spouses." Southern Communication Journal 79.4
(2014): 327-46. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.
Parry Giles, Shawn J., and Trevor Parry‐ Giles. "Gendered Politics and Presidential
Image Construction: A Reassessment of the “feminine Style”." Communication
Monographs 63.4 (1996): 337-53. Web.
Vigil, Tammy R. "Feminine Views in the Feminine Style: Convention Speeches by
Presidential Nominees' Spouses." Southern Communication Journal 79.4
(2014): 327-46. Web. 13 Feb. 2015.

Final version

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Final version

Similar to Final version (20)

Final version