The opinions expressed in The Lawrentian are those of the students, faculty and community members who wrote them. The Lawrentian does not endorse any opinions piece except for the staff editorial, which represents a majority of the editorial board. The Lawrentian welcomes everyone to submit their own opinions. For the full editorial policy and parameters for submitting articles, please refer to the about section.
Misogyny is a lot like Lucifer in the Rolling Stones’ “Sympathy for the Devil”: it keeps finding new ways to brand itself throughout history so it can continue to haunt us. Despite centuries of feminist movements, it continues to creep into society in new ways, always one step ahead of us.
The 1990s marked the dawn of third-wave feminism, which sought to introduce feminism not only as a philosophy for privileged women, but as an inclusive movement for women of all backgrounds. It tried to incorporate women’s empowerment into everyday life and continue breaking down barriers in the workforce and higher education by changing the narratives surrounding women’s role in society. In pop culture, this created the archetype that we now call the “girlboss”—the woman who can do anything.
On the surface, the “girlboss” heroine was a figure of empowerment, but the trope actually placed unreasonable expectations on women. The third wave brought much-needed inclusivity to the feminist movement, but it did not free women from domestic labor. Instead, women faced an unbearable amount of responsibility; they were suddenly expected to match or exceed men’s success in the workforce while also balancing traditional duties of housekeeping and child-rearing. A movement that was intended to liberate women ended up inadvertently burying them under a greater burden.
The overworked woman has been a constant fixture in society for decades. However, 21st-Century perspectives often misinterpret women’s frustration as a call for the return of traditional gender roles, and this vantage point slips into our everyday media.
But how do they get away with it? By packaging this social conservatism in a way that sounds like it prioritizes women’s well-being. After struggling to “do it all” on their own, women are desperate to relieve themselves of this crushing weight. Misogyny twists this valid experience into a pop-culture narrative implying that women can’t do it all—not because their burden is excessive, but because carrying it violates women’s natural role in society. These pieces of media often think they’re bringing a fresh perspective to gender discourse, but they’re actually just regurgitating decades-old conservative narratives dressed up in new clothing.
Comedy films from the 2000s are a breeding ground for these ideas. For example, Miranda Priestly in “The Devil Wears Prada” (2006) is portrayed as ruthless and heartless due to her raging ambition, and she gets divorced because she prioritized her work over her marriage. Her protegee, Andy Sachs, only manages to escape a similar fate by leaving Miranda’s company and reconciling with her own boyfriend. Although “The Devil Wears Prada” is overall a progressive-minded film that provides excellent commentary on the toxicity of corporate America and the fashion industry, it still suggests that women need to prioritize their partners in order to maintain a happy and stable lifestyle and that women who choose their careers over their families are vicious and unfeeling. Virtually every Hallmark Christmas movie features a successful but deeply unsatisfied young woman who quits her “soulless” job in the big city to be with a small-town man who teaches her that love is more valuable than independence or financial stability. Even mainstream romantic comedies like “How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days” (2003) are guilty of pushing similar narratives.
This phenomenon persists today via viral trends that continue to spiral out of control. For example, the catchphrase “academic validation” has been making its rounds on TikTok. The term was initially coined to describe people who take great pride in their academic success, but the online community has overanalyzed it so much that it is often treated more like a mental illness than a character trait. Most of this discourse is directed towards women.
Often, the “academic validation” label comes with the underlying assumption that women only strive for success in school because they are lacking some other crucial component in their lives, such as self-confidence, healthy familial relationships or a significant other. While relying too much on any single thing for validation is troublesome, the internet is particularly obsessed with the idea that thriving on “academic validation” is inherently problematic. Why? Because society wants to pathologize women’s ambition. We cannot deny that ambitious women exist. But if we can convince people that ambitious women are really just insecure, unloved or traumatized, we’ll have an entire generation of women going to therapy in an effort to “heal” away their hunger for success.
Our culture demands nonstop labor from women, then condemns us as heartless workaholics when we rise to the challenge and calls us inferior when we require a break. It’s time we stop trying to fix women and start fixing our misogynistic society.