That's a pretty broad question, but I think you'll see what's at stake most starkly if you look at the consonances and dissonances between conservative and liberal critique of feminist (female) celebrities and of antifeminist (female) celebrities. For example, conservatives will critique feminist celebs for leaving the domestic sphere, and for violating gender norms, but studiously ignore the fact that antifeminist celebrities do the same thing. And both liberals and conservatives will use gendered critiques of both feminists and antifeminist female celebrities. Who promotes (or denigrates) which version of celebrity has everything to do with the relationship between the critic and the celeb. The gender roles at stake are defined each time a critique is offered, and the body/words/performance of the female celebrity becomes a contested space -- a "traumatic floating signifier" that different stakeholders are trying to fix/define for a larger political/cultural purpose.
Do politicians count as celebrities? I know an interesting study from the US comparing perceptions on Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin takes on a leadership role (contradicting the female gender role), but on the other hand presents herself as a typical "hockey mum" (confirming her gernder role) and conservative voters seem to like that she's acting in congruency with her gender role.
Also the study draws on the theory of ambivalent sexism. The theory states that women can be rewarded for acting gender role congruently (as a mother, housewife, sexy girl) or they can be punished for acting against it (career women, feminists, athletes).
Does that help?
Gervais, S. J., & Hillard, A. L. (2011). A role congruity perspective on prejudice toward Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy (ASAP), 11(1), 221-240.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Bioecology
- Systems Ecology
- Landscape Ecology
- Connectivity