Why Feminism Is Endangered in Today’s Political Climate
It was the day after the infamous Met Gala of 2021 (ooh, remember that one?…yikes) and I was eating lunch with a few people. Needless to say, we discussed Met Gala outfits at length, each of us with passionate convictions on the best and worst dressed at the event. The stunning Billie Eilish, the dazzling Rihanna (okay, but Rihanna could wear anything and still look like the icon she is), the…situation…with A$AP Rocky, and don’t even get me started about Kim K. And then someone brought up the (in)famous “Tax the Rich” gown, donned by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. In unison, almost in harmony, everyone said “Oh my god, I loved that one!”
I happened to disagree, and I made that known. Everyone at that table gave me accusatory glances, one person looked me up and down and scoffed. Another actually told me– “I never pegged you for a misogynist.” A misogynist. For not liking the “Tax the RICH” gown.
For those of you who have been living under a rock for the past five years, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC for short) is a far-left-leaning politician from New York. Although her policies are incredibly polarizing, she is often lauded as a feminist icon. Because she is. She came from an underprivileged, unwealthy background, and climbed her way to success using sheer will and talent. She is ridiculously articulate and persuasive, and I know I know this doesn’t matter…but her suits (*chef’s kiss*). Anyways, in the 2021 Met Gala, AOC wore a white gown with “Tax the Rich” written on it in big, flashy red letters. She instantly received both applause and criticism. Applause for advocating for the poor, and criticism for the hypocrisy of wearing a “Tax the Rich” gown at one of the richest parties in the world. I don’t actually agree with that criticism. The fact that she could sport this gown at this place shows that she is comfortable having beliefs that are distinct from the crowd, and I don’t see the problem with that. In fact, I think she was one of the few people who actually understood the theme that year: “Independent America” is about boldness–the exercising of one’s speech and expression to further social progress–and AOC was BOLD, to say the very least. She embodied dissent, the very epitome of what it means to be American.
But there’s another argument.
Whether or not it is ethical, plausible, or adequate to tax the rich is a debate people have been having ever since there has been a distinction between the rich and the poor. This discussion spans centuries, if not millennia, dating back to the start of free trade. Both sides of the discussion have complex arguments with multiple facets. And just like all complex things, any intellectually inclined person would know that the answer to the tax issue is also…well, it depends.
Issues of liberty, property, equality, welfare, class, power…these matters are not as simple as they may seem. And we desperately need to stop pretending like they are. We need to stop with the unilateral ideas of “let’s tax the rich because that will magically get rid of inequality, and we’ll just conveniently ignore the governmental overspending on ineffective policies,” or “the rich hogged all of the money when the poor were left underprivileged,” or “yasss! Our socially aware queen is advocating for the poor and condemning the evil rich, and by the way, I’m really enjoying the view from my penthouse in Manhattan.” We need to stop the “I don’t really know anything about taxing the rich, nor do I care, but I’m going to post about it so that I can further my personal brand, and let people know that I’m not an elitist.” Most of all, we need to stop thinking that our way is the only right way and that there is no other valid interpretation of the world that deters us from our own. It is boisterously reckless, egotistical, and superficial. And taking a stand against it doesn’t make me an elitist, a member of the far-right, a Trumpie, or any derivative thereof, LEAST of all, a misogynist.
The left is often labeled as postmodern, and at the very heart of postmodernism is the doctrine that there are infinite interpretations of finite realities, and that each situation, idea, or work of art has millions of interpretations. There could be countless takes on a given issue, and we, as hapless human beings, are really incapable of KNOWING FOR SURE which take is the best. And although postmodernism has its shortcomings, the ideology opened up forums for public discourse, it created open-minded, inquisitive individuals. But lately, the far-left has been deterred greatly from this ideology. And the prime example of this is AOC’s gown.
AOC managed to condense an incredibly multifaceted debate into three words. And I’m not surprised. She’s a politician, and being a propagandist is in the job description of every politician. Propaganda is characterized by its oversimplification of complex issues, and most propaganda are also infamous for villainizing a person–or group of people–for a larger problem that is rooted in the fabric of society. AOC’s gown does just this. It oversimplified the leftist take on taxes, and AOC’s statements after the Met Gala managed to villainize the rich for the larger issue of unregulated capitalism. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not mad at her. Like I said, this is her job.
I’m just incredibly concerned that no one seems to recognize this gown for what it is: a propagandistic stunt that has little legislative value. I mean, you would think that in the reigning era of social media, people–who are now equipped with the information they once didn’t have–would be able to distinguish between propaganda and intellectually-rooted, artistic messaging. But the amazing amount of support on behalf of individuals, businesses, and feminist organizations for AOC’s gown suggests otherwise. The acceptance…no, the celebration of blatant propaganda in mainstream feminism has turned feminism into another absolutist political ideology.
And that’s hardly what it is. Or what it was.
In 1963, Betty Friedan released The Feminine Mystique, which effectively sparked the second wave of feminism. It was a radical, thought-provoking, incredibly entertaining work that inspired countless women to take control of their lives (although some comparisons Friedan draws in the book are completely absurd). Friedan isn’t the only one. Jane Austen, Louisa May Alcott, Tarabhai Shinde, Maya Angelou, Toni Morrison, the list goes on. Up until very recently, feminism has been characterized by its great works–both artistically brilliant and intellectually inspiring. That’s starting to disappear. Today, any mildly conservative-leaning take regarding anything (even if it is intellectually rooted and benefits women and minority populations) would immediately brand someone as anti-feminist. This lack of open-mindedness, empathy, and discussion is in stark contrast to what feminism used to be.
Perhaps there is truly artistic work representing feminism today, but it’s being brutally overshadowed by the ever-so-applauded propaganda in mainstream feminism. And this propaganda is perpetrated by those who seek to come off as socially aware, and who are, indeed, often oblivious. This has made feminism a political stunt, a brand label. Just like AOC’s “Tax the Rich” gown, it is often marketed in the simplest of terms. People who identify as feminists rarely know what that entails, and why it is so powerful.
Feminism used to be a medium of discourse, a mechanism by which men and women alike could have a seat at the table to discuss issues that mattered to them. Nowadays—when people casually throw around accusations like “I never pegged you for a misogynist” in response to a dissenting opinion—maintaining one’s own feminist brand has obviously taken precedence over preserving the heart of feminism.
I wish for there to be a world where, as an ode to feminism, we are able to speak to one another and learn from each other. If there’s one thing AOC’s gown got right, it is this: dissent is at the very heart of independent America. Feminism today is being manipulated as a tool to dismantle dissent. But feminism is more than this. Feminism is more than the five-hundred-dollar Dior T-shirt that says “We should all be feminists,” more than occasionally posting “Women’s rights are human rights” to make your feminism known to the world, more than superficial statements like “Tax the rich,” more than blindly supporting certain politicians.
Feminism is approaching all politicians–leftist and rightist–with skepticism, it is a bipartisan (or at least should be) discussion on furthering a woman’s place in society, it is art and complexity and critical thought. It is beauty and multifacetedness.
It is listening just as much as it is speaking.
