Despite being a young woman who believes in advocating for gender equality, I don’t feel at ease calling myself a feminist. I have voted accordingly, continue to cover gender issues and advocate where I can, but for some reason, it just doesn’t quite feel right. 

Feminism as a word exists somewhere between a landmine and a choose-your-own-adventure version of a movement. Thus, I struggle to define myself and the movement as a whole. 

I know I’m not alone. 

In a post-girlboss feminist era, the word has almost exclusively picked up negative connotations. I know many people don’t want to be reduced to some blue-haired “SCUM Manifesto”-touting bra-burner or scapegoat. 

Maybe I’m not as brave as a true feminist should be for espousing this viewpoint. I’m not outright rejecting feminism, but rather questioning the label. 

Britannica defines feminism as “the belief in social, economic and political equality of the sexes.” That’s almost too loose. Anyone can technically say they are in favor of equality while acting toward its detriment. 

The feminist movement has had four waves. Each suited to tackle unique issues for the women of its respective period and held differing — and sometimes opposing — views toward what was and wasn’t furthering the mission of gender equality and women’s liberation.

The infighting that continues to evolve with and shape feminism’s cause is necessary on an ideological level, but it can be confusing to onlookers. Those without interest in the topic miss out on much of the nuance that comes with those contradictions, making feminists especially vulnerable to strawman arguments and reductive caricatures. 

In times when the movement doesn’t put on an explicit, easily digestible public front, the real objective can be lost. 

More recently, right-wing and manosphere content has put feminism through all kinds of mockery, further blurring the movement’s image. 

University of Minnesota sociology PhD student Jordyn Wald said this splintering of the feminist movement is where public perception begins to waver. 

“I think it’s these, all of these different representations of, you know, who are feminists?” Wald said. “What are they even for? I think people don’t even know anymore.”

This lack of a Platonic ideal of what a feminist is can be good, as it allows for a diversity of viewpoints within feminism. Given the throughline in the movement is gender equality, this flexibility gives not only a mission to further its efforts, but also room to evolve, progress and grow. 

As far as visibility goes, this can make things somewhat tricky. 

Wald said our preconceived notions tend to skew and warp our visions of who feminists are and what they stand for.

“People’s ideals of feminism are drastically changed based on political orientation as well as age,” Wald said. 

If someone has only encountered a certain wave or subtype of feminism due to their age or other factors, they may view all feminists as espousing the viewpoints they now associate with it based on their limited perspective. It’s somewhat of a logical fallacy. 

A common example today is how many people fail to grasp that while all trans-exclusionary radical feminists may call themselves feminists, not all feminists identify or agree with this ideology. This extends to any subgrouping of self-identified feminists.  

Feminism’s position in the public consciousness ebbs and flows as the ideological pendulum swings left and right in this country.

There is an undeniable amount of animosity generated toward feminists as part of a wider distaste toward progressivism in nearly any capacity right now. This makes it an especially precarious time to call oneself a feminist. 

Wald said people generally support feminist ideas until they’re informed that what they support is a feminist idea. 

“If you say something that feminists argue for, but you don’t let the person know that this is a feminist idea, I think people will be like, ‘Oh, yeah, I support that,’” Wald said. “But then as soon as you say feminist, they’re like, ‘No, no, no, no.’”

The tirade against feminism and socially liberal ideas is a defining part of President Donald Trump’s popularity. 

His supporters were fed up with what they viewed to be stiflingly liberal politics, or what they were told were stiflingly liberal politics. It’s the “Make America Great Again” mindset, where people think there can be too much of a good thing, like gender equality and liberation. 

According to Wald, feminists are so feared and scapegoated because they have the power to upset the status quo and make people question their worldviews. 

“They’re making them question reality,” Wald said. “They’re making them question all these systems, and I feel like all that change makes people uncomfortable and think that feminists are going too far into uncharted territory that they don’t get anymore.”

Self-identification can be a great tool or a method of communication. I just don’t know if I want to signal to others that I’m a feminist right now. 

I’m making a case for self-preservation. 

We may know what we stand for, but if the public doesn’t see it clearly, I know I’m not willing to face that kind of needless backlash. 

Actions speak louder than words after all. 

Defining oneself is an action, though, and not everyone in favor of fighting for gender equality are willing to call themselves feminists in our volatile political climate. 

In my case, I think it’s best to ditch the label. I’d rather not be a fair-weather feminist.

Maybe the litmus test for true feminists is deciding whether you’re willing to absorb all of the baggage and become a metaphorical punching bag for the sake of the movement. 

I’m not, though.

Despite being a young woman who believes in advocating for gender equality, I don’t feel at ease calling myself a feminist. I have voted accordingly, continue to cover gender issues and advocate where I can, but for some reason, it just doesn’t quite feel right. 

Feminism as a word exists somewhere between a landmine and a choose-your-own-adventure version of a movement. Thus, I struggle to define myself and the movement as a whole. 

I know I’m not alone. 

In a post-girlboss feminist era, the word has almost exclusively picked up negative connotations. I know many people don’t want to be reduced to some blue-haired “SCUM Manifesto”-touting bra-burner or scapegoat. 

Maybe I’m not as brave as a true feminist should be for espousing this viewpoint. I’m not outright rejecting feminism, but rather questioning the label. 

Britannica defines feminism as “the belief in social, economic and political equality of the sexes.” That’s almost too loose. Anyone can technically say they are in favor of equality while acting toward its detriment. 

The feminist movement has had four waves. Each suited to tackle unique issues for the women of its respective period and held differing — and sometimes opposing — views toward what was and wasn’t furthering the mission of gender equality and women’s liberation.

The infighting that continues to evolve with and shape feminism’s cause is necessary on an ideological level, but it can be confusing to onlookers. Those without interest in the topic miss out on much of the nuance that comes with those contradictions, making feminists especially vulnerable to strawman arguments and reductive caricatures. 

In times when the movement doesn’t put on an explicit, easily digestible public front, the real objective can be lost. 

More recently, right-wing and manosphere content has put feminism through all kinds of mockery, further blurring the movement’s image. 

University of Minnesota sociology PhD student Jordyn Wald said this splintering of the feminist movement is where public perception begins to waver. 

“I think it’s these, all of these different representations of, you know, who are feminists?” Wald said. “What are they even for? I think people don’t even know anymore.”

This lack of a Platonic ideal of what a feminist is can be good, as it allows for a diversity of viewpoints within feminism. Given the throughline in the movement is gender equality, this flexibility gives not only a mission to further its efforts, but also room to evolve, progress and grow. 

As far as visibility goes, this can make things somewhat tricky. 

Wald said our preconceived notions tend to skew and warp our visions of who feminists are and what they stand for.

“People’s ideals of feminism are drastically changed based on political orientation as well as age,” Wald said. 

If someone has only encountered a certain wave or subtype of feminism due to their age or other factors, they may view all feminists as espousing the viewpoints they now associate with it based on their limited perspective. It’s somewhat of a logical fallacy. 

A common example today is how many people fail to grasp that while all trans-exclusionary radical feminists may call themselves feminists, not all feminists identify or agree with this ideology. This extends to any subgrouping of self-identified feminists.  

Feminism’s position in the public consciousness ebbs and flows as the ideological pendulum swings left and right in this country.

There is an undeniable amount of animosity generated toward feminists as part of a wider distaste toward progressivism in nearly any capacity right now. This makes it an especially precarious time to call oneself a feminist. 

Wald said people generally support feminist ideas until they’re informed that what they support is a feminist idea. 

“If you say something that feminists argue for, but you don’t let the person know that this is a feminist idea, I think people will be like, ‘Oh, yeah, I support that,’” Wald said. “But then as soon as you say feminist, they’re like, ‘No, no, no, no.’”

The tirade against feminism and socially liberal ideas is a defining part of President Donald Trump’s popularity. 

His supporters were fed up with what they viewed to be stiflingly liberal politics, or what they were told were stiflingly liberal politics. It’s the “Make America Great Again” mindset, where people think there can be too much of a good thing, like gender equality and liberation. 

According to Wald, feminists are so feared and scapegoated because they have the power to upset the status quo and make people question their worldviews. 

“They’re making them question reality,” Wald said. “They’re making them question all these systems, and I feel like all that change makes people uncomfortable and think that feminists are going too far into uncharted territory that they don’t get anymore.”

Self-identification can be a great tool or a method of communication. I just don’t know if I want to signal to others that I’m a feminist right now. 

I’m making a case for self-preservation. 

We may know what we stand for, but if the public doesn’t see it clearly, I know I’m not willing to face that kind of needless backlash. 

Actions speak louder than words after all. 

Defining oneself is an action, though, and not everyone in favor of fighting for gender equality are willing to call themselves feminists in our volatile political climate. 

In my case, I think it’s best to ditch the label. I’d rather not be a fair-weather feminist.

Maybe the litmus test for true feminists is deciding whether you’re willing to absorb all of the baggage and become a metaphorical punching bag for the sake of the movement. 

I’m not, though.

Despite being a young woman who believes in advocating for gender equality, I don’t feel at ease calling myself a feminist. I have voted accordingly, continue to cover gender issues and advocate where I can, but for some reason, it just doesn’t quite feel right. 

Feminism as a word exists somewhere between a landmine and a choose-your-own-adventure version of a movement. Thus, I struggle to define myself and the movement as a whole. 

I know I’m not alone. 

In a post-girlboss feminist era, the word has almost exclusively picked up negative connotations. I know many people don’t want to be reduced to some blue-haired “SCUM Manifesto”-touting bra-burner or scapegoat. 

Maybe I’m not as brave as a true feminist should be for espousing this viewpoint. I’m not outright rejecting feminism, but rather questioning the label. 

Britannica defines feminism as “the belief in social, economic and political equality of the sexes.” That’s almost too loose. Anyone can technically say they are in favor of equality while acting toward its detriment. 

The feminist movement has had four waves. Each suited to tackle unique issues for the women of its respective period and held differing — and sometimes opposing — views toward what was and wasn’t furthering the mission of gender equality and women’s liberation.

The infighting that continues to evolve with and shape feminism’s cause is necessary on an ideological level, but it can be confusing to onlookers. Those without interest in the topic miss out on much of the nuance that comes with those contradictions, making feminists especially vulnerable to strawman arguments and reductive caricatures. 

In times when the movement doesn’t put on an explicit, easily digestible public front, the real objective can be lost. 

More recently, right-wing and manosphere content has put feminism through all kinds of mockery, further blurring the movement’s image. 

University of Minnesota sociology PhD student Jordyn Wald said this splintering of the feminist movement is where public perception begins to waver. 

“I think it’s these, all of these different representations of, you know, who are feminists?” Wald said. “What are they even for? I think people don’t even know anymore.”

This lack of a Platonic ideal of what a feminist is can be good, as it allows for a diversity of viewpoints within feminism. Given the throughline in the movement is gender equality, this flexibility gives not only a mission to further its efforts, but also room to evolve, progress and grow. 

As far as visibility goes, this can make things somewhat tricky. 

Wald said our preconceived notions tend to skew and warp our visions of who feminists are and what they stand for.

“People’s ideals of feminism are drastically changed based on political orientation as well as age,” Wald said. 

If someone has only encountered a certain wave or subtype of feminism due to their age or other factors, they may view all feminists as espousing the viewpoints they now associate with it based on their limited perspective. It’s somewhat of a logical fallacy. 

A common example today is how many people fail to grasp that while all trans-exclusionary radical feminists may call themselves feminists, not all feminists identify or agree with this ideology. This extends to any subgrouping of self-identified feminists.  

Feminism’s position in the public consciousness ebbs and flows as the ideological pendulum swings left and right in this country.

There is an undeniable amount of animosity generated toward feminists as part of a wider distaste toward progressivism in nearly any capacity right now. This makes it an especially precarious time to call oneself a feminist. 

Wald said people generally support feminist ideas until they’re informed that what they support is a feminist idea. 

“If you say something that feminists argue for, but you don’t let the person know that this is a feminist idea, I think people will be like, ‘Oh, yeah, I support that,’” Wald said. “But then as soon as you say feminist, they’re like, ‘No, no, no, no.’”

The tirade against feminism and socially liberal ideas is a defining part of President Donald Trump’s popularity. 

His supporters were fed up with what they viewed to be stiflingly liberal politics, or what they were told were stiflingly liberal politics. It’s the “Make America Great Again” mindset, where people think there can be too much of a good thing, like gender equality and liberation. 

According to Wald, feminists are so feared and scapegoated because they have the power to upset the status quo and make people question their worldviews. 

“They’re making them question reality,” Wald said. “They’re making them question all these systems, and I feel like all that change makes people uncomfortable and think that feminists are going too far into uncharted territory that they don’t get anymore.”

Self-identification can be a great tool or a method of communication. I just don’t know if I want to signal to others that I’m a feminist right now. 

I’m making a case for self-preservation. 

We may know what we stand for, but if the public doesn’t see it clearly, I know I’m not willing to face that kind of needless backlash. 

Actions speak louder than words after all. 

Defining oneself is an action, though, and not everyone in favor of fighting for gender equality are willing to call themselves feminists in our volatile political climate. 

In my case, I think it’s best to ditch the label. I’d rather not be a fair-weather feminist.

Maybe the litmus test for true feminists is deciding whether you’re willing to absorb all of the baggage and become a metaphorical punching bag for the sake of the movement. 

I’m not, though.

Despite being a young woman who believes in advocating for gender equality, I don’t feel at ease calling myself a feminist. I have voted accordingly, continue to cover gender issues and advocate where I can, but for some reason, it just doesn’t quite feel right. 

Feminism as a word exists somewhere between a landmine and a choose-your-own-adventure version of a movement. Thus, I struggle to define myself and the movement as a whole. 

I know I’m not alone. 

In a post-girlboss feminist era, the word has almost exclusively picked up negative connotations. I know many people don’t want to be reduced to some blue-haired “SCUM Manifesto”-touting bra-burner or scapegoat. 

Maybe I’m not as brave as a true feminist should be for espousing this viewpoint. I’m not outright rejecting feminism, but rather questioning the label. 

Britannica defines feminism as “the belief in social, economic and political equality of the sexes.” That’s almost too loose. Anyone can technically say they are in favor of equality while acting toward its detriment. 

The feminist movement has had four waves. Each suited to tackle unique issues for the women of its respective period and held differing — and sometimes opposing — views toward what was and wasn’t furthering the mission of gender equality and women’s liberation.

The infighting that continues to evolve with and shape feminism’s cause is necessary on an ideological level, but it can be confusing to onlookers. Those without interest in the topic miss out on much of the nuance that comes with those contradictions, making feminists especially vulnerable to strawman arguments and reductive caricatures. 

In times when the movement doesn’t put on an explicit, easily digestible public front, the real objective can be lost. 

More recently, right-wing and manosphere content has put feminism through all kinds of mockery, further blurring the movement’s image. 

University of Minnesota sociology PhD student Jordyn Wald said this splintering of the feminist movement is where public perception begins to waver. 

“I think it’s these, all of these different representations of, you know, who are feminists?” Wald said. “What are they even for? I think people don’t even know anymore.”

This lack of a Platonic ideal of what a feminist is can be good, as it allows for a diversity of viewpoints within feminism. Given the throughline in the movement is gender equality, this flexibility gives not only a mission to further its efforts, but also room to evolve, progress and grow. 

As far as visibility goes, this can make things somewhat tricky. 

Wald said our preconceived notions tend to skew and warp our visions of who feminists are and what they stand for.

“People’s ideals of feminism are drastically changed based on political orientation as well as age,” Wald said. 

If someone has only encountered a certain wave or subtype of feminism due to their age or other factors, they may view all feminists as espousing the viewpoints they now associate with it based on their limited perspective. It’s somewhat of a logical fallacy. 

A common example today is how many people fail to grasp that while all trans-exclusionary radical feminists may call themselves feminists, not all feminists identify or agree with this ideology. This extends to any subgrouping of self-identified feminists.  

Feminism’s position in the public consciousness ebbs and flows as the ideological pendulum swings left and right in this country.

There is an undeniable amount of animosity generated toward feminists as part of a wider distaste toward progressivism in nearly any capacity right now. This makes it an especially precarious time to call oneself a feminist. 

Wald said people generally support feminist ideas until they’re informed that what they support is a feminist idea. 

“If you say something that feminists argue for, but you don’t let the person know that this is a feminist idea, I think people will be like, ‘Oh, yeah, I support that,’” Wald said. “But then as soon as you say feminist, they’re like, ‘No, no, no, no.’”

The tirade against feminism and socially liberal ideas is a defining part of President Donald Trump’s popularity. 

His supporters were fed up with what they viewed to be stiflingly liberal politics, or what they were told were stiflingly liberal politics. It’s the “Make America Great Again” mindset, where people think there can be too much of a good thing, like gender equality and liberation. 

According to Wald, feminists are so feared and scapegoated because they have the power to upset the status quo and make people question their worldviews. 

“They’re making them question reality,” Wald said. “They’re making them question all these systems, and I feel like all that change makes people uncomfortable and think that feminists are going too far into uncharted territory that they don’t get anymore.”

Self-identification can be a great tool or a method of communication. I just don’t know if I want to signal to others that I’m a feminist right now. 

I’m making a case for self-preservation. 

We may know what we stand for, but if the public doesn’t see it clearly, I know I’m not willing to face that kind of needless backlash. 

Actions speak louder than words after all. 

Defining oneself is an action, though, and not everyone in favor of fighting for gender equality are willing to call themselves feminists in our volatile political climate. 

In my case, I think it’s best to ditch the label. I’d rather not be a fair-weather feminist.

Maybe the litmus test for true feminists is deciding whether you’re willing to absorb all of the baggage and become a metaphorical punching bag for the sake of the movement. 

I’m not, though.

Despite being a young woman who believes in advocating for gender equality, I don’t feel at ease calling myself a feminist. I have voted accordingly, continue to cover gender issues and advocate where I can, but for some reason, it just doesn’t quite feel right. 

Feminism as a word exists somewhere between a landmine and a choose-your-own-adventure version of a movement. Thus, I struggle to define myself and the movement as a whole. 

I know I’m not alone. 

In a post-girlboss feminist era, the word has almost exclusively picked up negative connotations. I know many people don’t want to be reduced to some blue-haired “SCUM Manifesto”-touting bra-burner or scapegoat. 

Maybe I’m not as brave as a true feminist should be for espousing this viewpoint. I’m not outright rejecting feminism, but rather questioning the label. 

Britannica defines feminism as “the belief in social, economic and political equality of the sexes.” That’s almost too loose. Anyone can technically say they are in favor of equality while acting toward its detriment. 

The feminist movement has had four waves. Each suited to tackle unique issues for the women of its respective period and held differing — and sometimes opposing — views toward what was and wasn’t furthering the mission of gender equality and women’s liberation.

The infighting that continues to evolve with and shape feminism’s cause is necessary on an ideological level, but it can be confusing to onlookers. Those without interest in the topic miss out on much of the nuance that comes with those contradictions, making feminists especially vulnerable to strawman arguments and reductive caricatures. 

In times when the movement doesn’t put on an explicit, easily digestible public front, the real objective can be lost. 

More recently, right-wing and manosphere content has put feminism through all kinds of mockery, further blurring the movement’s image. 

University of Minnesota sociology PhD student Jordyn Wald said this splintering of the feminist movement is where public perception begins to waver. 

“I think it’s these, all of these different representations of, you know, who are feminists?” Wald said. “What are they even for? I think people don’t even know anymore.”

This lack of a Platonic ideal of what a feminist is can be good, as it allows for a diversity of viewpoints within feminism. Given the throughline in the movement is gender equality, this flexibility gives not only a mission to further its efforts, but also room to evolve, progress and grow. 

As far as visibility goes, this can make things somewhat tricky. 

Wald said our preconceived notions tend to skew and warp our visions of who feminists are and what they stand for.

“People’s ideals of feminism are drastically changed based on political orientation as well as age,” Wald said. 

If someone has only encountered a certain wave or subtype of feminism due to their age or other factors, they may view all feminists as espousing the viewpoints they now associate with it based on their limited perspective. It’s somewhat of a logical fallacy. 

A common example today is how many people fail to grasp that while all trans-exclusionary radical feminists may call themselves feminists, not all feminists identify or agree with this ideology. This extends to any subgrouping of self-identified feminists.  

Feminism’s position in the public consciousness ebbs and flows as the ideological pendulum swings left and right in this country.

There is an undeniable amount of animosity generated toward feminists as part of a wider distaste toward progressivism in nearly any capacity right now. This makes it an especially precarious time to call oneself a feminist. 

Wald said people generally support feminist ideas until they’re informed that what they support is a feminist idea. 

“If you say something that feminists argue for, but you don’t let the person know that this is a feminist idea, I think people will be like, ‘Oh, yeah, I support that,’” Wald said. “But then as soon as you say feminist, they’re like, ‘No, no, no, no.’”

The tirade against feminism and socially liberal ideas is a defining part of President Donald Trump’s popularity. 

His supporters were fed up with what they viewed to be stiflingly liberal politics, or what they were told were stiflingly liberal politics. It’s the “Make America Great Again” mindset, where people think there can be too much of a good thing, like gender equality and liberation. 

According to Wald, feminists are so feared and scapegoated because they have the power to upset the status quo and make people question their worldviews. 

“They’re making them question reality,” Wald said. “They’re making them question all these systems, and I feel like all that change makes people uncomfortable and think that feminists are going too far into uncharted territory that they don’t get anymore.”

Self-identification can be a great tool or a method of communication. I just don’t know if I want to signal to others that I’m a feminist right now. 

I’m making a case for self-preservation. 

We may know what we stand for, but if the public doesn’t see it clearly, I know I’m not willing to face that kind of needless backlash. 

Actions speak louder than words after all. 

Defining oneself is an action, though, and not everyone in favor of fighting for gender equality are willing to call themselves feminists in our volatile political climate. 

In my case, I think it’s best to ditch the label. I’d rather not be a fair-weather feminist.

Maybe the litmus test for true feminists is deciding whether you’re willing to absorb all of the baggage and become a metaphorical punching bag for the sake of the movement. 

I’m not, though.

Despite being a young woman who believes in advocating for gender equality, I don’t feel at ease calling myself a feminist. I have voted accordingly, continue to cover gender issues and advocate where I can, but for some reason, it just doesn’t quite feel right. 

Feminism as a word exists somewhere between a landmine and a choose-your-own-adventure version of a movement. Thus, I struggle to define myself and the movement as a whole. 

I know I’m not alone. 

In a post-girlboss feminist era, the word has almost exclusively picked up negative connotations. I know many people don’t want to be reduced to some blue-haired “SCUM Manifesto”-touting bra-burner or scapegoat. 

Maybe I’m not as brave as a true feminist should be for espousing this viewpoint. I’m not outright rejecting feminism, but rather questioning the label. 

Britannica defines feminism as “the belief in social, economic and political equality of the sexes.” That’s almost too loose. Anyone can technically say they are in favor of equality while acting toward its detriment. 

The feminist movement has had four waves. Each suited to tackle unique issues for the women of its respective period and held differing — and sometimes opposing — views toward what was and wasn’t furthering the mission of gender equality and women’s liberation.

The infighting that continues to evolve with and shape feminism’s cause is necessary on an ideological level, but it can be confusing to onlookers. Those without interest in the topic miss out on much of the nuance that comes with those contradictions, making feminists especially vulnerable to strawman arguments and reductive caricatures. 

In times when the movement doesn’t put on an explicit, easily digestible public front, the real objective can be lost. 

More recently, right-wing and manosphere content has put feminism through all kinds of mockery, further blurring the movement’s image. 

University of Minnesota sociology PhD student Jordyn Wald said this splintering of the feminist movement is where public perception begins to waver. 

“I think it’s these, all of these different representations of, you know, who are feminists?” Wald said. “What are they even for? I think people don’t even know anymore.”

This lack of a Platonic ideal of what a feminist is can be good, as it allows for a diversity of viewpoints within feminism. Given the throughline in the movement is gender equality, this flexibility gives not only a mission to further its efforts, but also room to evolve, progress and grow. 

As far as visibility goes, this can make things somewhat tricky. 

Wald said our preconceived notions tend to skew and warp our visions of who feminists are and what they stand for.

“People’s ideals of feminism are drastically changed based on political orientation as well as age,” Wald said. 

If someone has only encountered a certain wave or subtype of feminism due to their age or other factors, they may view all feminists as espousing the viewpoints they now associate with it based on their limited perspective. It’s somewhat of a logical fallacy. 

A common example today is how many people fail to grasp that while all trans-exclusionary radical feminists may call themselves feminists, not all feminists identify or agree with this ideology. This extends to any subgrouping of self-identified feminists.  

Feminism’s position in the public consciousness ebbs and flows as the ideological pendulum swings left and right in this country.

There is an undeniable amount of animosity generated toward feminists as part of a wider distaste toward progressivism in nearly any capacity right now. This makes it an especially precarious time to call oneself a feminist. 

Wald said people generally support feminist ideas until they’re informed that what they support is a feminist idea. 

“If you say something that feminists argue for, but you don’t let the person know that this is a feminist idea, I think people will be like, ‘Oh, yeah, I support that,’” Wald said. “But then as soon as you say feminist, they’re like, ‘No, no, no, no.’”

The tirade against feminism and socially liberal ideas is a defining part of President Donald Trump’s popularity. 

His supporters were fed up with what they viewed to be stiflingly liberal politics, or what they were told were stiflingly liberal politics. It’s the “Make America Great Again” mindset, where people think there can be too much of a good thing, like gender equality and liberation. 

According to Wald, feminists are so feared and scapegoated because they have the power to upset the status quo and make people question their worldviews. 

“They’re making them question reality,” Wald said. “They’re making them question all these systems, and I feel like all that change makes people uncomfortable and think that feminists are going too far into uncharted territory that they don’t get anymore.”

Self-identification can be a great tool or a method of communication. I just don’t know if I want to signal to others that I’m a feminist right now. 

I’m making a case for self-preservation. 

We may know what we stand for, but if the public doesn’t see it clearly, I know I’m not willing to face that kind of needless backlash. 

Actions speak louder than words after all. 

Defining oneself is an action, though, and not everyone in favor of fighting for gender equality are willing to call themselves feminists in our volatile political climate. 

In my case, I think it’s best to ditch the label. I’d rather not be a fair-weather feminist.

Maybe the litmus test for true feminists is deciding whether you’re willing to absorb all of the baggage and become a metaphorical punching bag for the sake of the movement. 

I’m not, though.

Despite being a young woman who believes in advocating for gender equality, I don’t feel at ease calling myself a feminist. I have voted accordingly, continue to cover gender issues and advocate where I can, but for some reason, it just doesn’t quite feel right. 

Feminism as a word exists somewhere between a landmine and a choose-your-own-adventure version of a movement. Thus, I struggle to define myself and the movement as a whole. 

I know I’m not alone. 

In a post-girlboss feminist era, the word has almost exclusively picked up negative connotations. I know many people don’t want to be reduced to some blue-haired “SCUM Manifesto”-touting bra-burner or scapegoat. 

Maybe I’m not as brave as a true feminist should be for espousing this viewpoint. I’m not outright rejecting feminism, but rather questioning the label. 

Britannica defines feminism as “the belief in social, economic and political equality of the sexes.” That’s almost too loose. Anyone can technically say they are in favor of equality while acting toward its detriment. 

The feminist movement has had four waves. Each suited to tackle unique issues for the women of its respective period and held differing — and sometimes opposing — views toward what was and wasn’t furthering the mission of gender equality and women’s liberation.

The infighting that continues to evolve with and shape feminism’s cause is necessary on an ideological level, but it can be confusing to onlookers. Those without interest in the topic miss out on much of the nuance that comes with those contradictions, making feminists especially vulnerable to strawman arguments and reductive caricatures. 

In times when the movement doesn’t put on an explicit, easily digestible public front, the real objective can be lost. 

More recently, right-wing and manosphere content has put feminism through all kinds of mockery, further blurring the movement’s image. 

University of Minnesota sociology PhD student Jordyn Wald said this splintering of the feminist movement is where public perception begins to waver. 

“I think it’s these, all of these different representations of, you know, who are feminists?” Wald said. “What are they even for? I think people don’t even know anymore.”

This lack of a Platonic ideal of what a feminist is can be good, as it allows for a diversity of viewpoints within feminism. Given the throughline in the movement is gender equality, this flexibility gives not only a mission to further its efforts, but also room to evolve, progress and grow. 

As far as visibility goes, this can make things somewhat tricky. 

Wald said our preconceived notions tend to skew and warp our visions of who feminists are and what they stand for.

“People’s ideals of feminism are drastically changed based on political orientation as well as age,” Wald said. 

If someone has only encountered a certain wave or subtype of feminism due to their age or other factors, they may view all feminists as espousing the viewpoints they now associate with it based on their limited perspective. It’s somewhat of a logical fallacy. 

A common example today is how many people fail to grasp that while all trans-exclusionary radical feminists may call themselves feminists, not all feminists identify or agree with this ideology. This extends to any subgrouping of self-identified feminists.  

Feminism’s position in the public consciousness ebbs and flows as the ideological pendulum swings left and right in this country.

There is an undeniable amount of animosity generated toward feminists as part of a wider distaste toward progressivism in nearly any capacity right now. This makes it an especially precarious time to call oneself a feminist. 

Wald said people generally support feminist ideas until they’re informed that what they support is a feminist idea. 

“If you say something that feminists argue for, but you don’t let the person know that this is a feminist idea, I think people will be like, ‘Oh, yeah, I support that,’” Wald said. “But then as soon as you say feminist, they’re like, ‘No, no, no, no.’”

The tirade against feminism and socially liberal ideas is a defining part of President Donald Trump’s popularity. 

His supporters were fed up with what they viewed to be stiflingly liberal politics, or what they were told were stiflingly liberal politics. It’s the “Make America Great Again” mindset, where people think there can be too much of a good thing, like gender equality and liberation. 

According to Wald, feminists are so feared and scapegoated because they have the power to upset the status quo and make people question their worldviews. 

“They’re making them question reality,” Wald said. “They’re making them question all these systems, and I feel like all that change makes people uncomfortable and think that feminists are going too far into uncharted territory that they don’t get anymore.”

Self-identification can be a great tool or a method of communication. I just don’t know if I want to signal to others that I’m a feminist right now. 

I’m making a case for self-preservation. 

We may know what we stand for, but if the public doesn’t see it clearly, I know I’m not willing to face that kind of needless backlash. 

Actions speak louder than words after all. 

Defining oneself is an action, though, and not everyone in favor of fighting for gender equality are willing to call themselves feminists in our volatile political climate. 

In my case, I think it’s best to ditch the label. I’d rather not be a fair-weather feminist.

Maybe the litmus test for true feminists is deciding whether you’re willing to absorb all of the baggage and become a metaphorical punching bag for the sake of the movement. 

I’m not, though.

Our generation’s defining subculture, or lack thereof, is derivative and soulless. 

Previous generations had real, inspired subcultures that people still draw from and identify with today. Punks, emos, scene kids, goths, hippies and so on continue to carry out the pop culture legacies of their times. 

Nowadays, while there is more than enough countercultural rhetoric, we have no real outlet for any of it that’s serious, authentic or original. Individuals with inclinations toward alternative values or differing aesthetic preferences either adopt one of the previous subcultures’ values or file themselves under a weird miscellaneous indie category that doesn’t mean all that much. 

The closest Generation Z has come to producing anything resembling an original subculture is the coquette aesthetic, but even that is just the evolution of aesthetics from Tumblr blogs and riot grrrl bands, which way precede any of us zoomers. 

Our blatant lack of originalism is evident in our captivation by individuals who wear a certain indie, yet ultimately mainstream style. What was a way to make fun of young men for blatantly catering to what they think are female interests, in a rather hollow or shallow manner, has become a contrived lookbook or how-to guide. 

The essence of the modern-day poser, or “performative” individual, has been boiled down to the sum of its parts. Labubu on the tote bag, matcha in hand, jorts and Clairo in the headphones. 

Even this aesthetic is not original. It’s based upon styles and silhouettes that are typically vaguely vintage, most often nodding to ‘90s and early 2000s street style. 

However, people who genuinely partake in these consumer behaviors to varying extents use this newly named trope to poke fun at themselves. There are two virtually indiscernible camps here: the performative and the authentic. 

It’s increasingly difficult to draw the line between these two categories of consumers, if they’re even distinguishable at all. 

After all, it’s not exactly like there’s a real subculture that all of this is adjacent to or parodical of, other than being widely understood as vaguely indie and Gen Z-coded. 

It’s not as if any discerning behaviors separate the performative, so-called fake indie consumer from the supposed real one. Both shop at the same stores, drink the same drinks, purport to be reading the same books and buy the same records. 

The difference is in their intent, or authenticity, which is not objective or easily spotted. 

Those making fun of the more performative individuals lay claim to their self-expression and cast others out as if to say, “Yes, we look the same, but I am in fact the true consumer and more righteous inhabitant of the aesthetic.” 

Subcultures and countercultures are generally formed upon individuals meeting to signify their shared values. Whether it be political or philosophical, these values unite individuals beyond just their appearances or media consumption, more or less. 

Typically, the values and interests of these groups would be what aesthetics and music trends would stem from, and these trends would generally be in flux depending on the changing norms and meanings dictated by the sub or counterculture in question. 

Our generation is flipping it inside out. What you see is kind of all you get. This semi-indie catch-all we’ve now deemed performative and disingenuous is all we have to show for ourselves.

It’s a weird hoarder-esque amalgamation of different consumer behaviors and so-called niche references. It’s a desperate clamor to be the most referential and in-the-know while being understood with just a passing glance. 

Incredibly postmodern, in a way that can only be approximated by the iGen, we communicate and express ourselves through references and curated “if you know, you know” aesthetic recreations and nods. 

This isn’t necessarily bad, or even particularly contrived, when done right. 

Fourth-year student Sofia Jerney said curation gives people room to breathe in the face of stifling trend cycles, allowing for more creativity. 

“As humans, we like putting things in boxes,” Jerney said. “The thing with curation is that there’s no real rules to it, so rules can change over time.”

You really can’t buy culture, though, and we’re seeing this. 

People want to buy into the newest fads. Generations prior had Cartier bracelets and frozen yogurt. That wasn’t all they had, though. 

Popular music is shaped by and influences mainstream culture. What does it tell us that two of this summer’s biggest stars are so highly artificial?

While Addison Rae and Benson Boone are both more or less astroturfed and debatably industry plants, it’s undeniable that Rae has seen far more critical acclaim and positive sentiment from the public. 

Second-year student Thomas Schmutterer said singer and actress Addison Rae’s blatant high artifice makes her seem more earnest, especially when compared to Boone. 

“With the case of Addison Rae, she’s kind of leaning into it,” Schmutterer said. “I feel like that makes her kind of, not endearing, but almost respectable, because it’s so obvious that she’s kind of like, fake, I guess, and she leans into it.”

Both are highly referential, but Rae infuses some semblance of meaning into her music and lyricism, generally pointing to a birds-eye view on fame, girlhood and performance in a postmodern world. 

In addition, her brand of hyperpop, while not exactly original, resembles something different and mainstream, with unconventional early aughts style visuals.

Boone, on the other hand, despite his recent and honestly quite funny self-jabs, makes no real point. He blatantly rips his vaguely groovy persona and wardrobe off of Harry Styles and Conan Gray, who themselves ripped from a plethora of ‘70s artists, most notably David Bowie and Freddie Mercury. 

His sound is unoriginal, and the formulaic nature of his lyrical content gives it an almost AI-generated quality. Most recently, his hit “Mystical Magical” has become somewhat of a laughingstock online, particularly the nonsensical meaning behind the lyrics “moonbeam ice cream.”

While neither artist is perfect, and it’d be a stretch to call either objectively good or original, Rae at least approaches subversion and gives us a glimmer of hope for true postmodern pop culture innovation. 

The intentional use of signs and symbols beyond their mere presence is something we need desperately in pop culture. 

It’s possible this absorption of subculture was inevitable, making us all doomed to an existence of poserdom. I find this highly unlikely and needlessly pessimistic, though. 

More importantly, I don’t think any of us want jorts and Clairo merch to become to the 2020s what flannels and Nirvana were to the 1990s. 

Our cultural legacy is at stake.

Recently, bars started hosting “Love Island” watch parties. Cowboy Jack’s, which has a location in downtown Minneapolis, is just one example. 

To think such programming could draw people into a loud and gregarious bar-type atmosphere is amusing. When taken at its word, “Love Island” is just a reality dating show, a type of entertainment usually relegated to private viewership in one’s home. 

The fanfare the series received in recent years, however, transformed its appeal. Updates and discourse shared in real time over the internet made us all keenly aware and privy to the drama, at least to some extent. It’s become nearly as ubiquitous as its barside-television predecessor, televised sports. 

In this group-cathartic experience, we communally feed off the energy of not only the people we’re watching but also the people we share the viewing experience with. 

Something here unites us. 

Somewhere in all of us, there is an urge to artificially contain a group of people to the confines of a facility for our viewing pleasure and watch them physically or emotionally beat each other up. 

But why is it that reality television viewers are denigrated and made the butt of jokes while sports viewership, casual or not, is seen as legitimate, or at least universally accepted? 

The place gladiators and battle warriors once held is now occupied by high-heeled glamazons hunting love for sport, or, in the more conventional sense, cleated athletes or gloved fighters. 

We may throw our popcorn or yell expletives at the screen, live-tweet or post updates. Either way, we’re invested. 

Emma Lopez, a third-year student at the University of Minnesota, said a big part of “Love Island’s” appeal is its ubiquity right now.

“People like to be a part of the conversation,” Lopez said. “‘Love Island’ is a huge discourse on all social media right now, and everybody has very parasocial relationships with these Islanders and their stories in the villa.”

We revel in and are consumed by the drama and brutality of it all. 

Kyesha Smith, a recent graduate of Aveda Arts & Sciences Institute, said people enjoy dramatic reality television like “Love Island” because it helps people confront some of their worst impulses or most dramatic moments through the simulated authenticity it brings. 

“I think it may also hold up a mirror,” Smith said. “Sometimes when things are that negative and traumatic, it may not be actually raw, but it comes off as raw.”

Smith said seeing the cast act like messy or complicated individuals humanizes them.

“You’re seeing on live television, these people that may be idolized, also showing some of the same traits that you have,” Smith said. “If you are jealous or toxic in relationships, or if you have ever related to that, it may show a reflection on the big screen of things that you were ashamed of.”

In front of our eyes, people are desecrated, brutalized and humiliated publicly. They are laid bare in front of us for our sick enjoyment. They act as they truly would, but in circumstances or confines elevated or artificialized for our viewing pleasure. 

Lopez said the atmosphere the production team created on “Love Island,” particularly the limited functionality of cell phones, makes for a more streamlined and authentic viewing experience. 

“It’s so refreshing sometimes to see people get called out in that way,” Lopez said. “It’s so nice to watch. I like watching people get like, yelled at and put in their place, and I like watching how they handle it, versus being super petty.”

In this way, it’s almost more real than human interactions and drama, which can be filtered through layers upon layers of social norms and etiquette. 

Self-preservation is not an issue for these contestants either. The more notorious they can be, the more likely they are to boost ratings and cement themselves as public figures. 

People particularly love to hate contestants, or players, who cause upsets or behave erratically. Think Huda Mustafa, Angel Reese, John McEnroe or literally any WWE star. The element of surprise, which makes for most of the authenticity, is the real selling point. 

This is what keeps people coming back. The audience’s simultaneous safety in their removal from the contestants or players, both physically and emotionally, and the real potential for chaos hold people’s attention. The supposed lack of a script, in many ways, is what compels viewers to tune in. 

It’s like a car crash we can’t look away from, but we’re watching it alongside people who are just as invested. 

A break from the harsh realities and social scripts of daily life can be relieving. Low culture is, at times, necessary to exorcise our demons. 

We have a long way to go in regard to the treatment of athletes and reality TV contestants in both the professional and public spheres. This is not an unnuanced dimension of media consumption so much as it is an inevitable one. Our morbid fascination with programming like this has been heavily satirized and deconstructed as a critique of class and celebrity, most notably in “The Hunger Games” series by Suzanne Collins. 

Regardless, we consume it. There are layers to this. Vulgarity is a language of the people. 

It seems almost inevitable that as long as we have entertainment, social mores and emotions, we will always find a way to amalgamate them.  

One thing’s for sure, it makes for interesting and, at times, truly great programming.

Generation Z needs to learn how our economy works. We are the ones who will need to contend with its future implications as we mature in an age defined by post-pandemic monetary policies. 

Our money system is not real, to put it in the most absurd and alarmist terms. Monetary policy is carried out by an institution that isn’t fully run by the government, with a currency that has no tangible backing. The arbitrary nature of this is simultaneously fascinating and terrifying.

Any impulse to don a tinfoil hat is not completely unfounded. At its base level, it’s mind-boggling to think one of the most real and concrete aspects of our reality is unreal itself. 

However, skepticism and conspiracy theories don’t have to collapse into each other. They’re often treated as if they always operate within the same continuum, but I like to think of them as a Venn diagram with overlaps. 

We can face our fears and resolve our dissonances with understanding and education. 

We need to address some of the shadows that lurk behind our concepts of money and economics and shine light on what is least understood and appreciated about our financial system, as well as address its pitfalls. 

Take this as a cursory guide to monetary policy for dummies, with a healthy grain of salt.

As a journalism major whose last encounter with any degree of economic thought was when I barely passed AP Macroeconomics, I often find our economic system elusive and confusing at best, if not downright sinister at worst. 

On its face, it is all of the above. Monetary policy and circulation are controlled by an institution not fully owned or operated by our government.

Joe Mahon, a regional outreach director at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, said while the Federal Reserve is not technically a government institution, it was established by the government, and its employees are very much public servants. 

“We conduct monetary policy with two goals in mind, and those are mandated by Congress,” Mahon said. “By act of Congress, we’re required to set monetary policy in order to try it and achieve maximum employment. The job market, the economy, is functioning, and the job market is keeping everybody able to be gainfully employed and price stability.” 

We aren’t tied to the gold standard, so the United States, along with many other countries, operates off of fiat money, a government-issued currency with no physical commodity, like gold or silver, backing it. There is also no limit on the amount the government can create. 

The Federal Reserve Bank conducts much of the government’s monetary policy, and while independent within the government, it’s still beholden to Congress. 

Some say the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, arguing that the only explicit mention of economic power in the Constitution is relegated to Congress exclusively. Some take healthy skepticism to the furthest extreme, scapegoating the reserve as the sole, purposeful cause of economic crises. That’s blatantly impossible and unproductive. 

Tim Collins, a political science lecturer at the University of Minnesota, said government skepticism is healthy and necessary, as room for accountability is factored into a lot of the government’s mechanisms to allow for progress. 

“People should always be skeptical of the government,” Collins said. “Usually, when government puts out information, a lot of it has to be open and transparent by law, with support for it or sources for it, so it’s good to be skeptical of government. You should always question it.”

Made popular over the past few years in response to news of economic shutdowns and resuscitations post-pandemic was the half-ironic query, “Why can’t we just print more money?” 

It turns out there is no such thing as a dumb question. We’re existing in a somewhat unprecedented time in the history of our nation’s economy.

Mahon said in his view the COVID-19 pandemic caused the biggest shock to our economy since the Great Depression, and the key to stability was the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy actions. 

“In particular were some of the sort of emergency lending facilities that were set up very quickly,” Mahon said. “And then what we call large-scale asset purchases, or sometimes in the financial press referred to as quantitative easing.”

Mahon said this easing refers to the reduction of the Federal Funds rate, the interest rate that banks charge each other, to zero. 

“People sometimes refer to this as printing money, which is not inaccurate,” Mahon said. “It’s inaccurate in that we don’t literally print money like cash to buy these securities, but the Fed does credit the financial institutions’ accounts that they’re buying those from, and that essentially puts a lot more money into circulation, it brings down interest rates, and just basically makes monetary policy, makes the financial system more accommodative.”

The fact that money can be manipulated without a physical backing is both incredibly helpful and somewhat terrifying. However, despite what we might commonly think, a gold standard won’t save us and actually might lead us to be worse off. 

Mahon said over the short term, the value of gold in particular oscillates a lot, causing instability in the short term that makes it incredibly difficult to operate a business, given the way inventory prices are essentially up in the air, leading many nations to make the tradeoff.

“You can look at the price of gold, see how much it swings around on a day-to-day basis. Well, if your dollar is tied to the value of gold, that means the value of the dollar swings around pretty wild, too.”

A complex economic system for a complex world. Is it completely ideal? Absolutely not. 

We fear what we don’t understand, and to fear, we need to understand what we’re looking at.