The Figure of Feminism Since 2016
What has been the cost of fighting 'toxic masculinity'?
The figure of feminism has taken a different shape in the shadow of the 2016 presidential election. Does this figure embody a new impetus and hope, or express expedient measures that risk losing the gains the movement has already made? Much depends on who is sovereign, who is excluded from the movement, who is excluded from the decision-making processes, and who feels they are in the ascendency with social justice.
The First Wave of feminists were pious, married women entrusted as teachers, mothers, household managers, and the protector of a man’s name and reputation. They argued for the women’s right to vote on the basis of their potential to raise the “Saxon race into a higher noble life” (Stanton). Thus, denying working black, and working-class women access to the movement. In The Second Wave turned against The Cult of Domesticity and the cardinal values of piety, purity, domesticity and submission. Meanwhile the Jim Crow laws were not abolished until 1968, and Lesbians were vocally rejected by the National Order for Women until the 1970’s. The Third Wave aspired to greater inclusivity by addressing the concerns of different races, classes and gender identities. Practices that transferred relations of womanhood were challenged in academia by Crenshaw, Butler, and Collins. An underground Zine culture developed in the 90’s which was a precursor to the blogs that became ubiquitous in the early 2000’s.
Fourth Wave feminists emerged with the idea that information, wealth and power could be distributed equally across online networks. Social networking and media platforms grew exponentially- Myspace (2003), Facebook (2004), Twitter (2006). Now everyone could produce culture and participate in political movements. By 2011 between 30-40% of people in North America and Europe owned smart phones (see eMarketer). In that year, these platforms launched the protests of the Arab Spring, the Occupy Movements, the protests contra the reintroduction of student fees in England. With the failure of these protests in 2011, and the end of the bloody war in Iraq that should never have been, the Left were utterly demoralized. Up until this point, many feminists viewed their activism within the framework of Marxist Theory. Now these failures forced feminists to turn inward and against one another, and against traditional left values.
After 2011
During the decade that followed, neoliberalism made progress in co-opting feminism through commodity activism. Following editorial budget cuts after the recession, the blogging culture was transformed into the ‘first-person industrial complex’ (Laura Bennet). So between 2008-2015 short essays of ‘sensational disclosure’ were published everywhere, often without paying the author a penny. Where the second and third wave feminism defined itself, in part, in opposition to the beauty industry, the industry made an alliance with feminism. As Kathy Kenny argued:
Celebrity figures such as Bowie, Prince and Madonna had prompted fans, as well as cultural studies scholars to ask if fashion and make-up […] could be seen in terms of play, choice and experiments around gender and sexuality.
This alliance pulled feminism into neoliberal spaces of control and feedback loops. The personal had become political, which allowed the political to become marketed and commercialized, and the political become more about personality. Feminist texts become increasingly memoir based. The consumption of films and dramas became increasingly a means of expressing personal identity. Postfeminist theorists, such as Angela McRobbie and Michelle Lazer, criticized a faux feminism that was undoing the progress made in the 1970’s and 80’s. They challenged the way neoliberalism marketing repackaged traditional femininity. Feminism seemed to have reached a high point with popstars, film stars and writers using it to advance their branding. For postfeminist theorists though, it was hard to see how feminist themed consumption could end the oppression of women. The high fashion of feminism crashed down with a thump in 2016.
2016
Not only did Hilary Rodham Clinton fail to become the first female president, but she lost to a man who had a series of sexual assault claims against him. A man who had threatened Roe v Wade. What is worse, the fault seemed to fall squarely at feminism’s door: 53% of white women voted for Trump. More worrying still, many of these women considered themselves feminists. The reaction to this failure would define feminism henceforth. They were two camps. Some did think the fault was with mainstream feminism. There was a failure to build on its successes of second wave feminism and it’s agenda of radical reform had been abandoned. Feminism no longer challenged capitalism or the macho patriarchal structures that reward greed and power. The second understanding of the failure of Clinton was that the blame lies firmly in the entrenched misogyny of American voters.
This second argument became mainstream despite not standing up to scrutiny. A month after Clinton declared her candidacy, an overwhelming majority of voters polled by the Economist/YouGov were ready for a woman President. It is often overlooked that Clinton also won the popular vote. Not only is the argument for entrenched misogyny weak, but it is offensive to the 53% of white women who voted for Trump. Even at the candidate stage, young women who supported Bernie Sanders’ radical agenda for social reform were accused by Gloria Steinem, among many others, of being bad women.
Mainstream feminism has underestimated the struggles most women face daily and their ability to evaluate competing interests. The sophisticated middle-class women in the city were living in a bubble, projecting their own mediagenic image of self-empowerment. Hilary Rodham Clinton was very much part of the establishment that Second Wave Feminists set out to challenge. The failure of feminism was not addressing the struggles of poor women, rural women, working women. Demanding allegiance to their faux feminist candidate, while directing personal critiques at Trump, cut to close to the bone for women who were used to being looked down on.
In the aftermath of 2016, feminism did not reassess its goals. They did not try to unite women poor and wealthy, urban and rural, young and old, behind a programme to challenge the patriarchy and neoliberalism. Instead, feminism doubled down on the politics of personality, sexuality, and identity. It is easier to unite people against a common collective enemy, than provide a programme for change, or a set of policies to inspire people. If people were reacting to personalities, and what these personalities reveal about themselves, they did not evaluate their interests in relation to structural forces and social class. Borrowing from Republican playbook, feminists claimed to be anti-establishment without challenging the establishment. They did so by demonizing their opponents. Trump’s personality was to become symbolic of a collective personality. A collective personality that betrayed a physio-moral sickness that threatened America and moral decency- toxic masculinity.
Toxic Masculinity
The concept of toxic masculinity was introduced by a psychiatrist in 2004 to describe how prison dynamics effect therapy treatments for men. The term was coined for “socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, and the devaluation of women, homophobia, and wanton violence” (p714). It is highly questionable whether the unique environment and social dynamic of the prison allows for an analogy with men generally, as “an exaggeration of the unspoken man code on the outside”. The British Psychological Society Practice Briefing from 2022 suggest the term could lead to a misdiagnosis even within the context of prison, let alone beyond it’s confines. They point to evidence that shows “men’s problematic behaviour” is “often related to unresolved traumatic experience”. More generally, the British Psychologic Society advocates dropping the terms altogether because they “almost inevitably imply that all men are dysfunctional in some way” p4).
It was over a decade after Kuper’s findings that ‘toxic masculinity’ began to appear in political discourse. The first appearance was on April 14, 2016: “How Trump’s “Toxic Masculinity” Is Bad for Other Men”. Soon the term explained a whole demographic of Trump voters: “The men America left behind” (Feb, 2017). It seemed to be lurking in every dark corner of the web: “Alphas, betas, Incels: theorizing the masculinity of the manosphere” (May, 2017). It then became a problem with American contemporary culture: “Masculinity in American contemporary culture: An intersectional approach to the complexities an challenges of male identity” (2017). Some people were at pains to point out, with patronising lessons in grammar, that it was not all masculinity that was toxic: “What is toxic masculinity?” (Dec 2017). Very soon however feminists would argue that “All Masculinity Is Toxic” (July 26th, 2018).
Gradually, more symptoms of toxic behaviour were detailed on a spectrum of toxicity, with rape at the extreme end. While not every man was toxic, minor infractions would place one on the spectrum. Sitting with legs to far apart on the underground, or old men expecting women to laugh at silly jokes, would place a man on the spectrum that ends in rape. All such behaviours were seen as fostering rape culture, if they were not a direct precursor to rape: “Sexism is part of a continuum of violence and when any individual is dehumanised, they become vulnerable to violence.” (Guardian, Oct 29,, 2021). As more clues to the real personality/sexuality were codified, more of society was construed as rape culture. The polarization of politics, that became acerbic with uptake of social media, was co-opted by feminism with a politics of personality and sexuality. Donald Trump’s personality became the symbol of a collective identity that all Americans could oppose as disgusting, filthy and dangerous. If, that is, they were not disgusting, filthy and dangerous themselves.
After #Metoo
The #MeToo movement propelled feminism’s course in reaction to Trump. It is important to see this in a broader context of civil unrest and protest as people campaigned to end police racial violence across the US. This unrest was seized upon by detractors of #BlackLivesMatter to claim that lawless looting would go punished. As Donald Trump announced himself as a candidate to lead the Republicans in June 2015, there seemed an increasing risk of a racist driven backlash.
The same year, US college campuses seen uprisings, shutdowns, and lockdowns. These campaigns against hate and discrimination ushered in a new free-speech debate on campus. While black protesters were being shot at on the streets, students of Ivy League universities were claiming that they did not feel safe on campus because of the opinions expressed there. The debates at prestigious schools became focused on “microaggressions”, “trigger warnings”, and “safe spaces”. Many of the same students were willing to intimidate and physically attack speakers and professors to prevent lectures taken place. Feminists were now being targeted as feminists, by feminists, for defending the concept of ‘woman’ from erasure. Other feminists interpreted this opposition as another shameful moment in the long history of excluding women of different classes, races and sexualities from feminism. In fact, they were accused of being disgusting, hateful and committing acts of genocide in their discourse.
The #Metoo movement exposed the abuses of male privilege in an echo of the police brutality exposed during the #BLM movement. During the ongoing investigation into Harvey Weinstein which started in 2017, the international twitter campaign demonstrated that sexually harassment and assault was not uncommon. There was thus legal due process and the hope for conviction of abusers on the one hand, and a public awareness campaign on the other. Initially, the quantity of claims on social media were distinguished from the qualities of justice. Nevertheless, the sheer quantity of testimony was condemning of the formal processes that ought to protect women. Many had become exasperated with those failures and were developing new strategies such as Whisper Networks. In certain networks there was already a demand for retribution without the qualities of justice.
The Weaponization of Whisper Networks
Whisper networks are informal chains of gossip about people in a community (frequently a professional community) alleged of being harassers or abusers. The networks were popularized during the #MeToo movement after some lists were published outside of private networks. There are two main reasons for their proliferation. Studies since the #MeToo have shown that more than 1 in 3 US women say they have experienced unwanted and inappropriate sexual advances from male coworkers. In most of these environments women do not trust formal systems for reporting sexual harassment. Women were thus left to their own devices and these networks were set up to protect women from traumatic encounters.
The original networks were criticized as a ‘a crude gossip mill’ that can destroy the reputations of innocent men. While some held a vague hope that these networks could be formalized to prevent injustice, the question remained as to how accusations could be verified. Another problem was that a study showed that half of the women in whisper networks were between 35-44. Most were white, highly educated and either married or in domestic partnerships, and in full time employment. The figure of mainstream feminism 2017 had not changed since the 1970’s. Making the private the political only served a select few in society who empowered themselves.
In the shadow of #BLM, white women were caught appealing to authorities with blatantly false accusations about black men. Most famously, in 2020 a woman called the police when a black man asked her to put her dog on a leash in Central Park. The man filmed her on his mobile as she told the police that she was being attacked in the park by a black man. More videos went viral of other women appealing to an authority (police, manager, building control) to harass innocent black men. This phenomenon gave birth to the ‘the Karen meme’. The online shaming of the Karen’s in the world was an opportunity for women to reassess their moral superiority in the face of racism and sexism. It was impossible to acknowledge the subtle forms of institutional racism without also acknowledging that women wield these powers and privileges over men. It was exactly these power and privileges that feminism would wield against toxic masculinity.
Whisper networks soon transitioned from giving women a warning about potentially abusive men, or transgressive men (sometimes just reporting ‘a vibe’), to taking retributive justice on men. The retributive justice includes acts of harassment, coercion, sexual harassment, spiking, robbing, and even rarely sexual assault. Bar tenders and baristas are on a group chat that identify the target, and these men are spiked across a whole town or city. Whisper networks no longer foster workspaces in which women are in solidarity and share concerns about certain individuals. Rather, men in general are being denied a fair trial and due process. Men are a set of symptoms to be decoded quickly to facilitate the expedient measures against toxic masculinity. It is not just men accused of sexual assault that are targeted, but men accused of cheating on a girlfriend or refusing to spike men for the feminist networks.
The weaponization of whisper networks is propped up by a cynical interpretation of the slogan ‘Believe Women’, and the belief, of the group chat administrators at least, that all masculinity is toxic. The ‘Believe Women’ slogan came from an already cynical use of feminism for commercial branding. A dating app targeting women took out a full-page advert in the New York Times, with only those words blazoned across it. It was criticized at the time for undermining justice and due diligence, but the discourse developed in the same pattern as the discourse about ‘toxic masculinity. Initially, criticisms that feminism was attacking the fundamental principles of justice were reframed as a wilful misinterpretation of feminism per se. Other feminists, such Jenny Hollander writing for Bussle, soon advocated that the presumption of guilt is exactly what ‘Believe Women’ is about:
What also needs to be made clear is that when you believe women on principle, you believe all women, No, exceptions. No ‘what if’s’ .
(Bussle, Nov, 21, 2017, italics in original)
The same pattern developed after whisper networks were exposed. Initially, some women criticized the ‘gossip mills’ that could ruin someone’s life when made public, which they inevitably would. A columnist for Teen Vogue stated that,
“if some innocent man’s reputation have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is the price I am absolutely willing to pay… How many of our lives have ALREADY BEEN destroyed because of physical violence against us?”
Twitter 21/11/2017
Gone Girl Feminism
Of course, having your life destroyed by false accusations is not a price that radical activists will pay. They are the ones in a large powerful network doing the harassment, drugging, robbing and assaulting. Emily Linden simply made her Instagram private among friends rather than face criticism. Friends in the expanded sense of social media. Hundreds of thousands of strangers expressing moral emotions as a collective identity. Not sharing interests and drawing up a program for change. People demonstrate allegiance by attacking strangers at the online instructions of other strangers. Feminism has been democratized with social media, but there is no fellowship founded in a religious, moral, legal or even political communion. Today there is only a sense of security in number, and anonymity, as partners in crime.
Mainstream Feminism now deals in “open secrets” and is founded on the open secret of toxic masculinity. ‘Secret’ because their belief must not be exposed to scepticism and shame, and ‘open’ because their belief must be without bounds. Certain that they are dealing with a treacherous sickness, feminists feel justified in helpfully fabricating evidence to prosecuting cases in camera. Recordings capture a reaction to harassment while the harassment is kept secret. The reaction is posted on the group chat as the real (that is, spontaneous) toxic identity of the victim. The belief in the transparency of online networks has replaced due process and diligence. The accused is not allowed to speak in his defence, nor cross examine evidence and witnesses. Faith in the feminist network and a belief in a ‘pure’ exchange of ‘open secrets’ that trumps all concern for justice.
Women who have previously not fitted in with feminist movements because of class, race, occupation, education, parental or marital status, personality, are encouraged to participate. Even men of all backgrounds, opinions and character can participate. Everyone can spit in a beer while instructions are given on how to drug someone. The democratization of feminism is made possible by targeting some of the most vulnerable in society. This is not the demos or the multitude revolting against the patriarchs. The victims, that I know of, are alienated migrants from a working-class family earning minimum wage, or less, in a low status job, while stuttering in a foreign language. Everyone can participate knowing such victims are powerless.
It is unclear how this will ‘undo the patriarchy’. For many, these networks offer a vicarious sense of power in a reversal of their usual roles. However, these reversals are only a fleeting act of violence to puncture their everyday experience of capitalism and patriarchy. The anonymous leaders, meanwhile, have a vested interest in keeping the public ignorant of the decision-making processes, while focusing anger on vulnerable targets. The myth of leaderless networks helps mask a small core elite who can mislead the multitude and target the vulnerable.
Meanwhile the popularity of feminism has returned to an all time high with many film actresses/actors and popstars flying the flag. Film actresses represent mainstream feminism without providing leadership, and this is not bad thing. Unaccountable film stars who are selected by the press, and not elected by feminists, are not setting the agenda. They now perform to a script written in collaborative efforts in feminist networks. However, their role is not consigned to #MeToo thrillers, such as ‘Don’t Worry Darling’, ‘Promising Young Woman’, ‘Blink Twice’. Thrillers in which the, “shock factor is supposed to be in that everyman’s true character turns out to be beyond despicable” (Horton in the Guardian, 27/08/24). These films were prefigured by the film ‘Gone Girl’ in which a woman frames men for crimes they have not committed as revenge. In particular, she disappears to frame her husband for her own murder as revenge for him having an affair. The police and the press are easy prey in the film because they presume women are naive and innocent, they thus believe women as a rule.
Up and coming screen writers gain acclaim by peppering scripts with the words of toxic men. These men are already infamous thanks to recordings shared in whisper networks. Many of these recordings are the man’s response to a campaign of provocations and abuse that can last years. When the everyday feminists post their short films on a secure group chat they get ‘likes’ or ‘claps’ from the group chat members. Anyone can receive broad acclaim as a film actress in a virtual applause that echoes the Cannes film festival, only this acclaim bestows moral edification on the ‘activist’.
Some script writers go so far as reframing sexual assault as a kinky episode in a loving relationship to mock the victim, while another screen writer misrepresents the abuse and sexual harassment that led to the sexual assault in another drama. This collaborative work harnesses the desire to destroy toxic men as creative inspiration and a writing exercise. The film makers involved have several vested interests in these projects. For one, the opportunity to distinguish their brand in a powerful industry that has become synonymous with sexism, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault. Only, they do so at the expense of vulnerable strangers who have suffered sexual harassment and sexual assault.
Politics has become a matter of signalling one’s personal virtues as part of a collective identity. It is about collecting clues and decoding which side people where on. The personal virtues sought for are not the same as public virtues, virtues such as intellectual integrity and moral clarity. Personal virtues are authentic emotions and sincere motivations. It is easier to express hatred and disgust for the others through dehumanizing violence, than develop one’s own values and interests. It is easier to express hatred as a way of being in relation to a disgusting other, than fostering collective action. Every man and woman can lay claim to feminism without taking any shared interest in justice.
2024
It seems Kamala Harris and her team has learned lessons from the failure of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Criticism of Trump’s character have been kept to a minimum. Only referring to him as a ‘felon’ a couple of times in the presidential debate. Even this plays into his image of someone who is willing to break the rules to get the job done. For many, his job is breaking down the establishment. Focusing attention on Trump’s personality and motivations only distracts people from a true evaluation of their interests. Kamala Harris has also carefully neglected to mention that she could be the first woman of colour to become the President. Perhaps sensing that to trumpet her inalienable characteristics would be to offend people’s intelligence. The problem is that people cannot be sure of her policies and what she stands for, except standing as the candidate for continuity. She provides no hope for change for the many Americans who are unhappy with their lot. To use an American idiom, people like to believe that the quarter back on the bench could change the game.
If women do their bit to keep Trump out of the White House in a month’s time, it will not be thanks to the new figure of feminism. A figure I will draw out in more detail in the next Substack. The women’s vote for the Democrats may be the inevitable reaction to the Supreme Court, and by extension Trump, overturning the constitutional right to abortion in 2022. But what about the male vote? Demonizing half the demos is as much a threat to democracy as Trump. Perhaps feminism has failed the Trump test again. Whichever way it goes in November, we need to ask whether the campaign against toxic masculinity has not come at the cost of human dignity, the hope of political and cultural communion, and the kind of social change that feminism always stood for.