I was wrong.

In the last article of this series on cyberfeminism, I suggested a method for spreading feminist ideas: using humor — a somewhat sarcastic humor inspired by memes — by reclaiming the codes of the far right for progressive and feminist ends.

To prove my point, I spent three hours yesterday creating “Pepe memes” (they’re published on Farcaster). The result? First, I’m not very funny, and second, it wasn’t even fun or liberating. Making fun of a tradwife didn’t make me laugh. Nor did mocking masculinists. In fact, maybe nothing about feminism is really funny.

In this series of articles, I sometimes allow myself to criticize other people’s feminism as well as their methods. So I have to apply the same questioning to myself. Well, after this experience, I admit it: it was a crappy idea — within reason, of course.

While researching the next topic, serendipity! led me to an article criticizing white feminism that really resonated with my own second thoughts.

The Jezebel article, “Mean Girl Feminism Argues That Being Sassy or Sarcastic Isn’t the Feminist Act White Women Think It Is,” interviews Dr. Kim Hong Nguyen about her book Mean Girl Feminism. According to the author, some white feminists use sarcasm and insolence as activist tools, which in reality perpetuates harmful power dynamics while excluding the voices of women of color.

I have to admit, I felt somewhat targeted. I’m white, middle-class, and generally fit Western beauty standards — not perfectly, but enough. So I benefit from a privileged status that allows me to mock certain jerks on X without completely losing my standing. Sometimes, I’m even applauded when I put a few far-right trolls in their place online, even lauded as a role model (it may not be obvious to my readers, but yes, people come up to congratulate me at events, discreetly…).

Yes, in some sense, I do become a bit of that Mean Girl character. And it bothers me. Before, it didn’t, because I felt I was being told to “shut up” precisely for the reason that fueled my fight: women who speak out are never welcome. So being seen as the “bad girl” didn’t bother me, especially if it riled up sexist men.

However, Dr. Kim Hong Nguyen (whom I have yet to read in depth) argues that the sarcasm used by white feminists can have a negative impact on non-white women. I haven’t read her book, but I can only sit down and listen. I have to believe her — or at least give her the benefit of the doubt. Because if marginalized people tell me that my attitude is making their situation worse, I should do what I wish men would do: shut up, accept it, and change.

That doesn’t mean I’ll stop calling out random idiots on the Internet. But I clearly need to take this critique from other groups of women, especially feminist groups, into account.

This self-reflection also aligns with a broader critique of current feminism, which I’ve contributed to myself in my episode on women’s ownership in cyberspace. Dr. Kim Hong Nguyen might be right: I may indeed fit the stereotype of the “white feminist” she describes — the one who spends her time pointing out how this or that brand of feminism isn’t feminist enough, or how another is inadequate.

“In contrast, when I read a lot of white feminist literature, it’s aimed at constantly arguing and showing how this feminism or that feminism is not feminist enough.”

Personally, I don’t reject intersectional feminism and never have. That said, I am somewhat critical of certain groups of women who claim to be inclusive.

In her article “The Backlash Against a Feminism That Never Was” published in The Critic, author Victoria Smith analyzes the current pushback against a form of feminism she considers distorted. She criticizes a “fake feminism” adopted by some privileged women, focused on denying biological sex and policing pronouns, without challenging existing power structures. According to Smith, this type of feminism never posed a real threat to misogynistic men or big corporations, but instead served to lend a veneer of progressive respectability to the “woke” patriarchy.

With the decline in popularity of “wokeness,” this same brand of feminism now provides traditional patriarchy with an excuse to dismiss gender equality along with what they see as the excesses of gender ideology.

So yes, in that sense, I’m one of those privileged women criticizing other privileged women. And no, I’ll admit: I’m not particularly active in fighting racism. I talk primarily about gender inequalities.

At the end of her interview, Dr. Kim Hong Nguyen suggests the following to white feminists:

“I think white women need to be ready to say what may make them unpopular, which isn’t the same thing as being bitchy. … Saying the unpopular … that’s what racialized and marginalized people deal with on a daily basis. And I don’t think that white women are often ready to do that.”

I wondered what I could say that would be so unpopular. I already feel that being a feminist in the crypto sector is a great way to get yourself hated. And indeed, when I speak about racial injustice, things get even worse. But I’ll always be white and middle-class; there will always be people who admire me, despite my best efforts to be disliked…

She also points out that some white women (feminists or not) use “Black or Brown vernacular” to come across as more sassy. I have to admit, in my interactions on X, there have been times I wanted to use GIFs featuring Black women — they’re often very funny and expressive. But several times, I held back, because it felt weird to reinforce the stereotype of the “strong, loud African-American woman with long nails and an explosive personality.” I could already sense how that might backfire on them. So on that point, I do agree with her critique.

Dr. Kim Hong Nguyen uses the term “postfeminism,” which led me to other research that I’ll discuss further below.

Before delving back into feminism, let’s make a quick detour through another article, “Left-Wing Irony” in The Point Magazine, where Jessi Jezewska Stevens analyzes the rise of irony on the right and offers ideas for how the left might respond.

She recalls that in 1931, Walter Benjamin criticized the Weimar left for settling for a critical, ironic posture instead of taking concrete action. Today, we observe a “right-wing irony” (embodied by figures like “Bronze Age Pervert”) that has dominated the online cultural avant-garde for nearly a decade. Yet with Trump, certain messages previously on the fringes have become mainstream.

Stevens suggests that the left could seize this moment, but without falling into the same contemptuous irony. When the left adopts this brand of irony, it ends up sneering at its “adversary,” thereby often failing to convince or include.

Feminism, for instance, isn’t an obvious stance for many people, and pure irony or sarcasm can quickly become mere scorn. Stevens calls for an irony rooted in ideological humility, relying on each person’s experiences, without slipping into condescension.

Personally, I struggle with this idea of “left-wing irony,” whether it’s biting (as it risks harming our marginalized allies) or “benevolent” (I find that hypocritical). I don’t want to nod along to repugnant ideas drawn from religious dogma or a bygone era under the guise of understanding them.

In my view, Stevens’ article veers too close to dangerous relativism. I don’t see the left saying, “Let’s be open-minded” only to then guide people toward the “right way.” That’s a position I find centrist and hypocritical. From my perspective, there can be no flexibility on fundamental issues like gender equality.

Ultimately, left-wing irony doesn’t convince me. Whether it’s harsh or soft, I no longer see it as a sustainable strategy.

Let’s return to the critique of feminism through the lens of postfeminism.

In the article “Among the Post-Feminists” in The Point Magazine, Grazie Sophia Christie argues that we live in a postfeminist era, where traditional feminism is seen as outdated. She notes that some feminist figures from the 2010s (including Emma Watson) have distanced themselves from the feminist rhetoric they once championed.

She then sketches out a gallery of “new female archetypes” that she sees as reactions (or escapes) from a feminism they feel betrayed by:

1. The Tradwife: who returns to a 1950s-style domestic role.

2. The Chronic Sufferer: perpetually seeking detox and healing.

3. The Modern Shaman: embracing psychedelic retreats and reimagined spiritualities.

4. The Eternal Girl: who avoids the responsibilities of adulthood.

5. The Contemporary Nun: choosing a life of retreat, solitude, or meditation.

6. The Declared Scammer: who steals or diverts resources under the claim, “I’m fixing systemic injustice.”

All consider themselves victims of a massive feminist hoax. Christie suggests that the 2010s brand of feminism, centered on individual empowerment and personal success, may have set unrealistic expectations, leading to widespread disappointment.

Finally, she brings in a surprising twist: Jane Austen. In her novels, Austen presents heroines (like Elizabeth Bennet) who, though constrained by strict social rules, manage to negotiate these constraints without sacrificing their integrity.

For Christie, this Austenian realism — acknowledging that there are real constraints while affirming the possibility of gradually breaking free from them — remains relevant for women today.

On one hand, it angers me, because it feels like a live broadcast of feminism abandoning ship. No more revolution, just a daily process?

On the other hand, her approach isn’t entirely anti-feminist. She recognizes injustices but believes a total, immediate revolution may be illusory, and I can’t ignore the “delulu” (delusion) of the women of my generation.

All of this, to me, reveals a crisis in contemporary feminism. We talk about postfeminism, we highlight failures and divisions. It’s a depressing assessment.

My initial idea of using ironic memes didn’t convince me even in practice. But, after reading these texts that highlight the “heaviness” of contemporary feminism, I’m now certain: no one feels like laughing about it.

The criticisms leveled at white feminism (or Mean Girl Feminism) must be taken seriously.

It seems a common thread runs through all this introspection: a call for more authenticity, humility, and sincerity in our feminist discourse and practices.

This notion of sincerity strikes me as a real glimmer of hope for what comes next. A sincerity where we acknowledge our limits, listen to critiques from marginalized groups, and own our contradictions and privileges.

I want to explore this idea further in upcoming installments. Has cyberfeminism ever delved into this notion of sincerity, and if so, how?

Is there, in the history and practices of cyberfeminism, a reflection on the authenticity of feminist discourse, on the necessity of genuine commitment, on the limitations of online sarcasm and irony? And if such a reflection exists, isn’t it time we revisited and extended it?

That will be the subject of my next article, and I can already tell you there’s plenty to explore.

I hope these reflections have been of interest and, above all, inspire you to keep questioning (again and again) cyberfeminism and its methods of action.

See you soon…

@agathedavray.eth

Translated from French, original version on Medium : https://medium.com/p/976ff435df1a

• Dr. Kim Hong Nguyen, Mean Girl Feminism.
  Interview in Jezebel:
  “Mean Girl Feminism Argues That Being Sassy or Sarcastic Isn’t the Feminist Act White Women Think It Is”

• Jessi Jezewska Stevens,
  “Left-Wing Irony,” The Point Magazine.

• Grazie Sophia Christie,
  “Among the Post-Feminists,” The Point Magazine.

• Victoria Smith,
  “The Backlash Against a Feminism That Never Was,” The Critic.

• Inside Gender Agenda: The Rebirth of Feminism in Cambridge, Varsity

• The Strand — “Feminism’s Forgotten Love Revolution”

• Mississippi Free Press — “Little Black Girls Are Not Fast: Why Intersectional Feminism Is the Only True Feminism”

• The New York Times — “Gender Ideology, Trump, Orban”

• The Critic — “War, Feminism and Percentages of Rights”