White women try to "reclaim power" through #vanillagirl and #cleangirl beauty posts??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

Exactly.

I stopped listening to NPR when it became clear NPRs goal above all else is to protect male power.

I googled a bit around this and I’m not convinced. The President and CEO is white, and that’s a big one, but the leadership page is majority women. I guess you’d argue the women are all co-opted.

Anyways I doubt leadership told that host to bring on Cao. They might have approved it, I don’t know.

Agree completely that “theorists” like DiAngelo made it ok to jump on the existing bandwagon of bashing white women (why she’s always saying she’s a different type of white woman). Her book had some useful and thought-provoking ideas, but she also unleashed this particular misogyny.

I’m one of the PPs who has stopped listening to NPR because it has become devoted to protecting male hegemony. I don’t feel a need to persuade anyone of why I think that. However, for what it’s worth I have stopped all donations to NPR stations after a lifetime of donation.

Pp here. OK, but you could stop me donating if you bothered to convince me.

Why would I want to do that? You should be able to make your own decisions. If you think NPR is solidly pro-woman, keep listening and donating.

It’s a little bizarre to demand that someone else convince you of something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

Exactly.

I stopped listening to NPR when it became clear NPRs goal above all else is to protect male power.

I googled a bit around this and I’m not convinced. The President and CEO is white, and that’s a big one, but the leadership page is majority women. I guess you’d argue the women are all co-opted.

Anyways I doubt leadership told that host to bring on Cao. They might have approved it, I don’t know.

Agree completely that “theorists” like DiAngelo made it ok to jump on the existing bandwagon of bashing white women (why she’s always saying she’s a different type of white woman). Her book had some useful and thought-provoking ideas, but she also unleashed this particular misogyny.

I’m one of the PPs who has stopped listening to NPR because it has become devoted to protecting male hegemony. I don’t feel a need to persuade anyone of why I think that. However, for what it’s worth I have stopped all donations to NPR stations after a lifetime of donation.

Pp here. OK, but you could stop me donating if you bothered to convince me.

Why would I want to do that? You should be able to make your own decisions. If you think NPR is solidly pro-woman, keep listening and donating.

It’s a little bizarre to demand that someone else convince you of something.

I said above that I googled but didn’t find anything convincing. Was wondering if I missed something. But, you can’t be bothered, sooo….

And no, I don’t think they’re solidly pro-woman, as this nuts piece shows, and I’ve said that. Please don’t misrepresent my posts.

Bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

Exactly.

I stopped listening to NPR when it became clear NPRs goal above all else is to protect male power.

I googled a bit around this and I’m not convinced. The President and CEO is white, and that’s a big one, but the leadership page is majority women. I guess you’d argue the women are all co-opted.

Anyways I doubt leadership told that host to bring on Cao. They might have approved it, I don’t know.

Agree completely that “theorists” like DiAngelo made it ok to jump on the existing bandwagon of bashing white women (why she’s always saying she’s a different type of white woman). Her book had some useful and thought-provoking ideas, but she also unleashed this particular misogyny.

I’m one of the PPs who has stopped listening to NPR because it has become devoted to protecting male hegemony. I don’t feel a need to persuade anyone of why I think that. However, for what it’s worth I have stopped all donations to NPR stations after a lifetime of donation.

Pp here. OK, but you could stop me donating if you bothered to convince me.

Why would I want to do that? You should be able to make your own decisions. If you think NPR is solidly pro-woman, keep listening and donating.

It’s a little bizarre to demand that someone else convince you of something.

You’re doing for the feminist cause what Steffi Cao is doing for the anti-white-supremacy cause: outrageous statements about another group followed by “I don’t have to explain myself to you.” Just sayin….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy crap, just read the Steffi Cao essay that the piece was predicated on, and... wow.

"The white girl’s soft power is in victimhood. And without it, they are unable to afford the luxuries of committing violence under the guise of it, as they have done for decades."

I, uh, am struggling with my allyship in this moment.

I'm not white and I think this kind of constant criticism of anything that white ppl do is bad for everyone.

It's also fascinating to me how hard this criticism goes on young white women. You'd think random 25 yr old white women on Instagram were the locus of global power the way some of this criticism reads. Or 45 year old suburban soccer moms on Facebook.

Like have you noticed how rarely this kind of broad-brush criticism of white women focuses on actually powerful white women? Rich white women from generational wealth who are in positions to influence politics and culture? Like here's a lengthy conversation about soft power in the beauty industry that doesn't mention Anna Winter? Aerin Lauder is a billionaire who inherited a beauty empire, but the real enemy is a nameless 20-something influencer hawking Coastal Grandmother aesthetic from a studio apartment in Costa Mesa, California? Ok, I guess if your goal is clicks and not substantive change, that makes sense.

It’s because the white men in power in the beauty industry are incredibly jealous of young teens, sometimes in completely inappropriate ways.

Where is your actual proof of this though? Or even reference to it? Everyone needs to stop making these broad generalizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

Exactly.

I stopped listening to NPR when it became clear NPRs goal above all else is to protect male power.

I googled a bit around this and I’m not convinced. The President and CEO is white, and that’s a big one, but the leadership page is majority women. I guess you’d argue the women are all co-opted.

Anyways I doubt leadership told that host to bring on Cao. They might have approved it, I don’t know.

Agree completely that “theorists” like DiAngelo made it ok to jump on the existing bandwagon of bashing white women (why she’s always saying she’s a different type of white woman). Her book had some useful and thought-provoking ideas, but she also unleashed this particular misogyny.

I’m one of the PPs who has stopped listening to NPR because it has become devoted to protecting male hegemony. I don’t feel a need to persuade anyone of why I think that. However, for what it’s worth I have stopped all donations to NPR stations after a lifetime of donation.

Pp here. OK, but you could stop me donating if you bothered to convince me.

Why would I want to do that? You should be able to make your own decisions. If you think NPR is solidly pro-woman, keep listening and donating.

It’s a little bizarre to demand that someone else convince you of something.

You’re doing for the feminist cause what Steffi Cao is doing for the anti-white-supremacy cause: outrageous statements about another group followed by “I don’t have to explain myself to you.” Just sayin….

The fact that you can unironically compare NPR to an entire demographic group shows you have lost the plot entirely.

Listen to NPR. Or don’t. I don’t care. I stopped. I don’t care if others keep slavishly worshipping at the foot of NPR. Not my problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Holy crap, just read the Steffi Cao essay that the piece was predicated on, and... wow.

"The white girl’s soft power is in victimhood. And without it, they are unable to afford the luxuries of committing violence under the guise of it, as they have done for decades."

I, uh, am struggling with my allyship in this moment.

I'm not white and I think this kind of constant criticism of anything that white ppl do is bad for everyone.

It's also fascinating to me how hard this criticism goes on young white women. You'd think random 25 yr old white women on Instagram were the locus of global power the way some of this criticism reads. Or 45 year old suburban soccer moms on Facebook.

Like have you noticed how rarely this kind of broad-brush criticism of white women focuses on actually powerful white women? Rich white women from generational wealth who are in positions to influence politics and culture? Like here's a lengthy conversation about soft power in the beauty industry that doesn't mention Anna Winter? Aerin Lauder is a billionaire who inherited a beauty empire, but the real enemy is a nameless 20-something influencer hawking Coastal Grandmother aesthetic from a studio apartment in Costa Mesa, California? Ok, I guess if your goal is clicks and not substantive change, that makes sense.

It’s because the white men in power in the beauty industry are incredibly jealous of young teens, sometimes in completely inappropriate ways.

Where is your actual proof of this though? Or even reference to it? Everyone needs to stop making these broad generalizations.

You can look at the Balenciaga advertising and question that?

[Anonymous]

It has been a relief to me to read this thread. For various reasons, I have spent the past 3ish years inundated by the ideas in this interview. I went from being a progressive liberal to literally just giving up and registering as Republican because it seemed like liberals were suddenly racial segregationists, and I didn't want to be involved in a movement that viewed people primarily as demographic categories. The fact that reasonable liberal women are weighing in to correctly call out this BS is very heartening to me. And I'm surprised that this article generated do much discussion here bc I have literally been inundated with this kind of crap for years, so I may need to figure out where the normal liberals are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think the ideas in this interview are racism. I do think they are wrongheaded and a massive rhetorical stretch. I also think it's part of a broader trend of blaming white women, and especially white women with the least amount of actual power (young women trying to make a buck on Instagram, middle aged moms) instead of the white women who have actually ascended to positions of real power and authority. Easier to complain about the soft power of some Instagram influencer than to talk about how some of the white women at high levels in the media or corporate world perpetuate white supremacy. Always easiest to criticize someone who will never, ever be able to offer you a job.

Also, if you've listened to the interview but haven't read Steffi Cao's essay that prompted NPR to invite her on, I recommend reading it. The tone of the interview makes her argument seem gentler than it is. Her essay is vitriolic in a way that really bothered me. Just the absolute disdain she has for her subject. I've read plenty of smart and valid criticisms of white women that have made me think and examine my own role in white supremacy. This wasn't one of them.

Oh for God’s sake. The ultimate critique all of this coverage drives at is of how white women, when we have our interest in whiteness catered to in this way, ultimately do at the ballot box. We are unreliable allies at best—and that is absolutely generalizable across differential levels of “real power and authority” among white women.

Agree that some white women vote along race and class lines, and I'm with you in feeling disgusted about that. But contrary to what you say, the MAGA women weren't allies in the first place.

But how on earth do makeup, clothing, and manicure choices "cater to whiteness"? Women of every race and color are following trends that work for them in terms of comfort etc. It's just math that some racial groups are a larger share of the population so they get more exposure on TicToc. Your statement that certain beauty trends should be abhorred because they "cater to whiteness" is as dumb as a lot of the associations in the article itself.

white college educated women are overwhelmingly liberal/democratic.

DP. 59% of college-educated white women voters went for Biden. I wouldn't call that "overwhelmingly liberal."

A lot of posters are taking these commentaries super personally without looking at their peers. Yes, not all white women behave any particular way, but you have to see that concerns from POC can arise because of the actions of a large enough minority.

Because we wear minimal makeup and oval nails, we aren’t MAGA, and we simply can’t understand how these make us avatars of white racism. Please explain.

If the emotional impact of your minimum makeup and oval nails weren’t linked to anything more, you wouldn’t be going nuts demanding explanations of other people’s views of those things. You’d just do them and be comfortable with it. Clearly that’s not what is happening here. See above.

The "link" is bogus. A wild accusation. The "going nuts" is because we won't stand for this nonsense.

You can denounce us, but that doesn't mean we have to fall into line.

It's the same old thing. If we push back, we are "hysterical". F that. We push back.

Yes! The other thing is that this ideology demands uncritical swallowing of it's tenets. Pushing back is strongly stigmatized. F that, too.

This IS the point. It's to make you distrust your own perceptions, accept irrational theories as a form of obedience, and hate yourself so that you don't push back. NPR is not a bunch of dummies who sit around making conspiracy theories about oval nails for no reason.

Meh. I don’t think NPR wants me to hate myself, that’s it’s own conspiracy theory. But they do give platforms to idiots if the topic is white supremacy.

NPR is in fact devoted to protecting the hegemony of men, though.

Is it, though? They’re pretty good on pro-choice issues.

I just think they recently hired a lot of woke hosts without a lot of discernment as to the quality of the guests they bring on.

Being “good on pro-choice issues” doesn’t necessarily mean that they are not protecting male supremacy.

It’s why I stopped listening

Exactly.

I stopped listening to NPR when it became clear NPRs goal above all else is to protect male power.

I googled a bit around this and I’m not convinced. The President and CEO is white, and that’s a big one, but the leadership page is majority women. I guess you’d argue the women are all co-opted.

Anyways I doubt leadership told that host to bring on Cao. They might have approved it, I don’t know.

Agree completely that “theorists” like DiAngelo made it ok to jump on the existing bandwagon of bashing white women (why she’s always saying she’s a different type of white woman). Her book had some useful and thought-provoking ideas, but she also unleashed this particular misogyny.

I’m one of the PPs who has stopped listening to NPR because it has become devoted to protecting male hegemony. I don’t feel a need to persuade anyone of why I think that. However, for what it’s worth I have stopped all donations to NPR stations after a lifetime of donation.

Pp here. OK, but you could stop me donating if you bothered to convince me.

Why would I want to do that? You should be able to make your own decisions. If you think NPR is solidly pro-woman, keep listening and donating.

It’s a little bizarre to demand that someone else convince you of something.

You’re doing for the feminist cause what Steffi Cao is doing for the anti-white-supremacy cause: outrageous statements about another group followed by “I don’t have to explain myself to you.” Just sayin….

The fact that you can unironically compare NPR to an entire demographic group shows you have lost the plot entirely.

Listen to NPR. Or don’t. I don’t care. I stopped. I don’t care if others keep slavishly worshipping at the foot of NPR. Not my problem.

DP. Your posts are increasingly bizarre. "worshiping at the foot of NPR". that is hilarious.

Anyone who comes onto a board like this and drops the statement like yours but says, not my problem to convince you, is basically saying, I have no ability to back up my statements.

[Anonymous]

Damn. I feel bad for white women. They can’t do anything right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has been a relief to me to read this thread. For various reasons, I have spent the past 3ish years inundated by the ideas in this interview. I went from being a progressive liberal to literally just giving up and registering as Republican because it seemed like liberals were suddenly racial segregationists, and I didn't want to be involved in a movement that viewed people primarily as demographic categories. The fact that reasonable liberal women are weighing in to correctly call out this BS is very heartening to me. And I'm surprised that this article generated do much discussion here bc I have literally been inundated with this kind of crap for years, so I may need to figure out where the normal liberals are.

It is very hard for me to believe anyone who truly believed in liberal causes, such as protecting the rights of all Americans and trying to right the wrongs against marginalized groups (from women to POC to LGBTQ+ etc) would think registering as a Republican in today's climate was a good option. Any group that is so obviously anti-women, anti-women's rights, anti-LGBTQ, against telling the truth about our nations history in schools, anti-environment, etc. and pro-conspiracy theories, pro-election denying, refusing to acknowledge the reality of Jan 6...just NO! They want to dismantle our democracy to hold on to power.

I am one of the posters who is sad about the anti-white-women sentiments that seem to be so ubiquitous and (unfortunately) tolerated right now, but I think this is a symptom of how, frankly, unsophisticated humans can be in their thinking. It's like we can never have the pendulum in the middle; we overreact to things that are wrong by going overboard in the other direction. We have to work together to right the ship, not go over to the group that wants to take away rights from women and other marginalized groups and defend only the wealthy and powerful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It has been a relief to me to read this thread. For various reasons, I have spent the past 3ish years inundated by the ideas in this interview. I went from being a progressive liberal to literally just giving up and registering as Republican because it seemed like liberals were suddenly racial segregationists, and I didn't want to be involved in a movement that viewed people primarily as demographic categories. The fact that reasonable liberal women are weighing in to correctly call out this BS is very heartening to me. And I'm surprised that this article generated do much discussion here bc I have literally been inundated with this kind of crap for years, so I may need to figure out where the normal liberals are.

Whatever liberals and Democrats are doing or not doing; the solution is not to "register Republican." Republicans are miserable racist, sexist, criminal-defending a**holes these days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has been a relief to me to read this thread. For various reasons, I have spent the past 3ish years inundated by the ideas in this interview. I went from being a progressive liberal to literally just giving up and registering as Republican because it seemed like liberals were suddenly racial segregationists, and I didn't want to be involved in a movement that viewed people primarily as demographic categories. The fact that reasonable liberal women are weighing in to correctly call out this BS is very heartening to me. And I'm surprised that this article generated do much discussion here bc I have literally been inundated with this kind of crap for years, so I may need to figure out where the normal liberals are.

It is very hard for me to believe anyone who truly believed in liberal causes, such as protecting the rights of all Americans and trying to right the wrongs against marginalized groups (from women to POC to LGBTQ+ etc) would think registering as a Republican in today's climate was a good option. Any group that is so obviously anti-women, anti-women's rights, anti-LGBTQ, against telling the truth about our nations history in schools, anti-environment, etc. and pro-conspiracy theories, pro-election denying, refusing to acknowledge the reality of Jan 6...just NO! They want to dismantle our democracy to hold on to power.

I am one of the posters who is sad about the anti-white-women sentiments that seem to be so ubiquitous and (unfortunately) tolerated right now, but I think this is a symptom of how, frankly, unsophisticated humans can be in their thinking. It's like we can never have the pendulum in the middle; we overreact to things that are wrong by going overboard in the other direction. We have to work together to right the ship, not go over to the group that wants to take away rights from women and other marginalized groups and defend only the wealthy and powerful.

Funny how you preach "working together" but what you really mean is, working with those who share your exact opinion with zero deviation from that opinion. It's pretty hard to take you seriously when you talk about the rights of all Americans while spewing such venom about the political party you oppose. How very virtuous to be so arrogant in your own opinion that everyone who questions it or doesn't share it gets a label. The poster that you responded to has some valid points, but you'll never hear them because you're so busy repeating your talking points. You don't have to open your mind to what the right espouses, but FFS, at least listen to another liberal and consider they might have some valid points.

[Anonymous]

Such fake posts, half these "I *was* a liberal" posts read like the white republican politician caught tweeting "as a gay black man" and I'm not buying it. Conservative trolls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has been a relief to me to read this thread. For various reasons, I have spent the past 3ish years inundated by the ideas in this interview. I went from being a progressive liberal to literally just giving up and registering as Republican because it seemed like liberals were suddenly racial segregationists, and I didn't want to be involved in a movement that viewed people primarily as demographic categories. The fact that reasonable liberal women are weighing in to correctly call out this BS is very heartening to me. And I'm surprised that this article generated do much discussion here bc I have literally been inundated with this kind of crap for years, so I may need to figure out where the normal liberals are.

It is very hard for me to believe anyone who truly believed in liberal causes, such as protecting the rights of all Americans and trying to right the wrongs against marginalized groups (from women to POC to LGBTQ+ etc) would think registering as a Republican in today's climate was a good option. Any group that is so obviously anti-women, anti-women's rights, anti-LGBTQ, against telling the truth about our nations history in schools, anti-environment, etc. and pro-conspiracy theories, pro-election denying, refusing to acknowledge the reality of Jan 6...just NO! They want to dismantle our democracy to hold on to power.

I am one of the posters who is sad about the anti-white-women sentiments that seem to be so ubiquitous and (unfortunately) tolerated right now, but I think this is a symptom of how, frankly, unsophisticated humans can be in their thinking. It's like we can never have the pendulum in the middle; we overreact to things that are wrong by going overboard in the other direction. We have to work together to right the ship, not go over to the group that wants to take away rights from women and other marginalized groups and defend only the wealthy and powerful.

Funny how you preach "working together" but what you really mean is, working with those who share your exact opinion with zero deviation from that opinion. It's pretty hard to take you seriously when you talk about the rights of all Americans while spewing such venom about the political party you oppose. How very virtuous to be so arrogant in your own opinion that everyone who questions it or doesn't share it gets a label. The poster that you responded to has some valid points, but you'll never hear them because you're so busy repeating your talking points. You don't have to open your mind to what the right espouses, but FFS, at least listen to another liberal and consider they might have some valid points.

Oh I absolutely mean pro-democracy people working together against the anti-democracy members of the GOP. I'm not quibbling about it and I will not apologize. The opinions across the Democratic party *are* quite varied, because it is a large umbrella. Not so much across the lock-step GOP. There are a few Republicans out there willing to speak out against their parties awful policies, but unfortunately they are few. Please detail for me the policies of the Republican party that pro-women's rights, pro-LGBTQ rights, anti-racist, and are about rights of all Americans. You can't. Everything I stated about the policies, propaganda and rhetoric of Republicans is true.

You're attempt to parrot the GOP cry of "you must tolerate my intolerance" is ridiculous and tired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It has been a relief to me to read this thread. For various reasons, I have spent the past 3ish years inundated by the ideas in this interview. I went from being a progressive liberal to literally just giving up and registering as Republican because it seemed like liberals were suddenly racial segregationists, and I didn't want to be involved in a movement that viewed people primarily as demographic categories. The fact that reasonable liberal women are weighing in to correctly call out this BS is very heartening to me. And I'm surprised that this article generated do much discussion here bc I have literally been inundated with this kind of crap for years, so I may need to figure out where the normal liberals are.

It is very hard for me to believe anyone who truly believed in liberal causes, such as protecting the rights of all Americans and trying to right the wrongs against marginalized groups (from women to POC to LGBTQ+ etc) would think registering as a Republican in today's climate was a good option. Any group that is so obviously anti-women, anti-women's rights, anti-LGBTQ, against telling the truth about our nations history in schools, anti-environment, etc. and pro-conspiracy theories, pro-election denying, refusing to acknowledge the reality of Jan 6...just NO! They want to dismantle our democracy to hold on to power.

I am one of the posters who is sad about the anti-white-women sentiments that seem to be so ubiquitous and (unfortunately) tolerated right now, but I think this is a symptom of how, frankly, unsophisticated humans can be in their thinking. It's like we can never have the pendulum in the middle; we overreact to things that are wrong by going overboard in the other direction. We have to work together to right the ship, not go over to the group that wants to take away rights from women and other marginalized groups and defend only the wealthy and powerful.

Funny how you preach "working together" but what you really mean is, working with those who share your exact opinion with zero deviation from that opinion. It's pretty hard to take you seriously when you talk about the rights of all Americans while spewing such venom about the political party you oppose. How very virtuous to be so arrogant in your own opinion that everyone who questions it or doesn't share it gets a label. The poster that you responded to has some valid points, but you'll never hear them because you're so busy repeating your talking points. You don't have to open your mind to what the right espouses, but FFS, at least listen to another liberal and consider they might have some valid points.

Oh I absolutely mean pro-democracy people working together against the anti-democracy members of the GOP. I'm not quibbling about it and I will not apologize. The opinions across the Democratic party *are* quite varied, because it is a large umbrella. Not so much across the lock-step GOP. There are a few Republicans out there willing to speak out against their parties awful policies, but unfortunately they are few. Please detail for me the policies of the Republican party that pro-women's rights, pro-LGBTQ rights, anti-racist, and are about rights of all Americans. You can't. Everything I stated about the policies, propaganda and rhetoric of Republicans is true.

You're attempt to parrot the GOP cry of "you must tolerate my intolerance" is ridiculous and tired.

Correction... Your attempt