Full Text Available

Note: Clicking the button above will open the full text document at the original institutional repository in a new window.

Sexual harassment gender, power, ideology and time: A case study of the Hill-Thomas and Ford-Kavanaugh Senate Hearings

Sexual harassment is a social issue in the U.S. and around the world that is gaining more attention, especially with the popularity of social movements such as #MeToo and #Timesup. People usually attempt to frame their positions in sexual harassment narratives using a wide range of strategies, which...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Mohamed, Salah
Format: Thesis
Published: AUC Knowledge Fountain 2020
Subjects:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1867613413006376960
access_status_str Open Access
author Mohamed, Salah
author_browse Mohamed, Salah
author_facet Mohamed, Salah
author_sort Mohamed, Salah
collection Thesis
dc_rights_str_mv The author retains all rights with regard to copyright. The author certifies that written permission from the owner(s) of third-party copyrighted matter included in the thesis, dissertation, paper, or record of study has been obtained. The author further certifies that IRB approval has been obtained for this thesis, or that IRB approval is not necessary for this thesis. Insofar as this thesis, dissertation, paper, or record of study is an educational record as defined in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 USC 1232g), the author has granted consent to disclosure of it to anyone who requests a copy.
description Sexual harassment is a social issue in the U.S. and around the world that is gaining more attention, especially with the popularity of social movements such as #MeToo and #Timesup. People usually attempt to frame their positions in sexual harassment narratives using a wide range of strategies, which show insidious ideologies and power imbalances ingrained in the culture of a specific community. The current study investigates sexual harassment through data from the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for two nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. The two nominees were accused of sexual harassment by two professors: Anita Hill and Christine Ford, respectively. The purpose of this study is to tap into the discrepancy between arguments based on gender, how ideologies and power are reflected and how arguments may have changed over this period of time. Using the discourse-historical approach (DHA), the study critically examines the statements for argumentation strategies, references and predications. It also compares the discursive strategies employed by the two males and females and the impact of such strategies. The analysis reveals some similarities between the linguistic choices of both judges in the argumentation strategies represented in the use of some topoi and fallacies. In contrast, the arguments constructed by the two professors only contained topoi. Another difference in the statements is in the metaphoric use between the males and females. The study concludes that the similarities and differences between the two cases show that there is an evidence of subtle ideology and power imbalances that could be based on gender despite the time difference between the two incidents.
format Thesis
id oai:fount.aucegypt.edu:etds-1850
institution American University in Cairo (Egypt)
last_indexed 2026-06-10T12:35:44.926Z
license_str Other — see source repository
provenance_str_mv Harvested via OAI-PMH from AUC Knowledge Fountain — bepress
publishDate 2020
publishDateRange 2020
publishDateSort 2020
publisher AUC Knowledge Fountain
publisherStr AUC Knowledge Fountain
record_format dspace
source_str AUC Knowledge Fountain — bepress
spelling oai:fount.aucegypt.edu:etds-1850 Sexual harassment gender, power, ideology and time: A case study of the Hill-Thomas and Ford-Kavanaugh Senate Hearings Mohamed, Salah Sexual harassment is a social issue in the U.S. and around the world that is gaining more attention, especially with the popularity of social movements such as #MeToo and #Timesup. People usually attempt to frame their positions in sexual harassment narratives using a wide range of strategies, which show insidious ideologies and power imbalances ingrained in the culture of a specific community. The current study investigates sexual harassment through data from the U.S. Senate confirmation hearings for two nominees for the U.S. Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh. The two nominees were accused of sexual harassment by two professors: Anita Hill and Christine Ford, respectively. The purpose of this study is to tap into the discrepancy between arguments based on gender, how ideologies and power are reflected and how arguments may have changed over this period of time. Using the discourse-historical approach (DHA), the study critically examines the statements for argumentation strategies, references and predications. It also compares the discursive strategies employed by the two males and females and the impact of such strategies. The analysis reveals some similarities between the linguistic choices of both judges in the argumentation strategies represented in the use of some topoi and fallacies. In contrast, the arguments constructed by the two professors only contained topoi. Another difference in the statements is in the metaphoric use between the males and females. The study concludes that the similarities and differences between the two cases show that there is an evidence of subtle ideology and power imbalances that could be based on gender despite the time difference between the two incidents. 2020-02-01T08:00:00Z thesis application/pdf https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/851 https://fount.aucegypt.edu/context/etds/article/1850/viewcontent/Sexual_20Harassment_20Gender_2c_20Power_2c_20Ideology_20and_20Time_20A_20Case_20Study_20of_20the_20Hill_Thomas_20and_20Ford_Kavanaugh_20Senate_20Hearings.pdf The author retains all rights with regard to copyright. The author certifies that written permission from the owner(s) of third-party copyrighted matter included in the thesis, dissertation, paper, or record of study has been obtained. The author further certifies that IRB approval has been obtained for this thesis, or that IRB approval is not necessary for this thesis. Insofar as this thesis, dissertation, paper, or record of study is an educational record as defined in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (20 USC 1232g), the author has granted consent to disclosure of it to anyone who requests a copy. Theses and Dissertations AUC Knowledge Fountain Discourse-historical approach Sexual harassment U.S. Supreme Court NA NA
spellingShingle Discourse-historical approach
Sexual harassment
U.S. Supreme Court
NA
NA
Mohamed, Salah
Sexual harassment gender, power, ideology and time: A case study of the Hill-Thomas and Ford-Kavanaugh Senate Hearings
title Sexual harassment gender, power, ideology and time: A case study of the Hill-Thomas and Ford-Kavanaugh Senate Hearings
title_full Sexual harassment gender, power, ideology and time: A case study of the Hill-Thomas and Ford-Kavanaugh Senate Hearings
title_fullStr Sexual harassment gender, power, ideology and time: A case study of the Hill-Thomas and Ford-Kavanaugh Senate Hearings
title_full_unstemmed Sexual harassment gender, power, ideology and time: A case study of the Hill-Thomas and Ford-Kavanaugh Senate Hearings
title_short Sexual harassment gender, power, ideology and time: A case study of the Hill-Thomas and Ford-Kavanaugh Senate Hearings
title_sort sexual harassment gender power ideology and time a case study of the hill thomas and ford kavanaugh senate hearings
topic Discourse-historical approach
Sexual harassment
U.S. Supreme Court
NA
NA
url https://fount.aucegypt.edu/etds/851
https://fount.aucegypt.edu/context/etds/article/1850/viewcontent/Sexual_20Harassment_20Gender_2c_20Power_2c_20Ideology_20and_20Time_20A_20Case_20Study_20of_20the_20Hill_Thomas_20and_20Ford_Kavanaugh_20Senate_20Hearings.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT mohamedsalah sexualharassmentgenderpowerideologyandtimeacasestudyofthehillthomasandfordkavanaughsenatehearings