Yes, hating the Kardashians is misogynist

(L-R) Khloe Kardasian, Kylie Jenner, Kris Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, Kim Kardashian, and Kendall Jenner.
(L-R) Khloe Kardasian, Kylie Jenner, Kris Kardashian, Kourtney Kardashian, Kim Kardashian, and Kendall Jenner.

The Kardashians — for years they’ve provided North America and beyond with an outlet for our seething hatred of women. The mantra we hear over and over again is that the Kardashians are women who are “famous for nothing” except “making a sex tape.”

Representative of the superficial, vain “attention whore,” the Kardashian women serve an important function as a stress release valve through which the masses can vent their disgust at society’s obsession with trivial tabloid stories about the rich and famous. Even some feminists participate in the Kardashian pile on, in a desire to respond to the depravity of our reality TV era, brimming over with sexually objectified female social media stars.

A recent viral meme exemplifies the kind of acceptable misogyny directed at the women of the Kardashian family:

Kardasians

While many women were rightly critical of the image, a friend of mine defended it, arguing that hatred of individual women does not always constitute misogyny, and that, because the Kardashians are “talentless hacks who are famous for nothing,” it is acceptable to hate them in this manner.

While I agree that disliking individual women doesn’t always constitute misogyny (there are perfectly valid reasons one might dislike a woman — they can be terrible human beings just like anyone else), the Kardashians are not just individuals. They are public figures who hold a prominent place in popular culture. Even if they are totally garbage people, it doesn’t mean hating them is not related to misogyny.

The Kardashians embody all the negative feminine stereotypes: they’re vain, vapid, spoiled, shameless, and offer nothing of value beyond their sexually attractive bodies. They are viewed as nothing more than pretty sexual objects who should be treated accordingly.

Kim Kardashian is the quintessential female celebrity sacrifice. She is the woman who we sexually degrade, but need not feel bad about it, because she is (supposedly) intellectually worthless — incapable of having a complex inner life. She deserves to be derided and mocked because she is asking for it — she is an “attention seeker,” a “fame whore.” She is viewed as a worthless human being, devoid of talent or attributes worthy of respect, only famous because she made a sex tape. (I have no idea what the justification is for this conclusion, when thousands of sex tapes are constantly being made of women; yet none of those women become famous from these tapes. Actually, there’s this thing that makes up one third of the Internet, which features women having sex on film who aren’t famous… It’s called “porn.”).

Sometimes Kim’s reality TV series, Keeping Up with the Kardashians, is also recognized as relevant to her fame. In an interview with Elle Magazine, actor Jon Hamm said, of the Kardashians, “Being a fucking idiot is a valuable commodity in this culture because you’re rewarded significantly.” Daniel Craig echoed a similar sentiment in GQ, saying, “What, you mean all I have to do is behave like a fucking idiot on television and then you’ll pay me millions?”

Although the Kardashian women are certainly financially rewarded through their media empire, they’re not rewarded with esteem. Instead, they’re a national joke – a target that’s been declared fair game. In 2011, singer Michael Bublé joked onstage that he was bringing out Kim Kardashian. Met with confused silence from the audience, he clarified, “Nah, just fucking with you! That bitch isn’t coming on my stage,” to much applause. Cher shared her Kardashian hate in a series of tweets: “Is it true Kardashian did Porno! I’m so Fkn outa it!” “I don’t watch reality! Never saw a Kardashian but these bitches should be Drop kicked down a freeway! Not kidding!”

The Kardashians seem to exist in order to provide the public with female figures we are allowed to hate. Ironically, for many years, the Kardashian’s home network, E!, hosted the TV show most effusive in insults for the women. Kardashian disses became a regular fixture on The Soup, a comedy show hosted by Joel McHale, who incessantly belittled the women’s intellects and sexually degraded them as “fame-seeking harlots” who love “shoving chocolate into their mouths” (a racist reference to Kim’s sex-tape).

Reality TV has long produced shows that center around a plot that says, “Look at how terrible and disgusting these people are! These women are such dumb, trashy whores!” From Paris Hilton’s breakout role as a running dumb blonde joke in The Simple Life, to Jersey Shore’s trashy tableau, to the spoiled screeching Real Housewives, it seems we have developed a tradition of exercising justified misogyny for entertainment. (And let’s not forget the sadistic public shaming of Anna Nicole Smith, which ended in real-life tragedy).

When feminists echo the misogynistic characterization of Kim Kardashian and her younger sister Kylie Jenner, it’s often defended on the basis that putting down these particular celebrity figures equates to a critique of celebrity culture itself or is an endorsement of other more wholesome, worthwhile pursuits. But slinging the same insults that male-dominated media does — calling women like the Kardashians brainless, slutty, attention-whores — plays right into the hands of male supremacy.

The practice of justifying misogyny extends past the screen. In our culture, just being female is enough to be derided. Dress nicely, and you’re accused of “attention-seeking.” Excel in your profession, and you’re accused of being a whore who was only promoted because the boss wants to get in your pants. If you let your guard down and say something silly, you’re accused of being dumb. Even Frida Kahlo was accused of only being successful because of her sexual relationship with Diego Rivera. It doesn’t matter how great you objectively are, it’s always easy to reduce women to these stereotypes that make us worthy of contempt.

The hatred of female celebrities/public figures often seems connected to the fact that our sins are treated as being more egregious. While women are told to “die in a fire” for being a “dumb slut,” it seems men need to be literal criminals or child rapists before they are objects of public scorn. (And even then, Kobe Bryant continues to be a basketball superstar and Woody Allen makes successful movies). Charlie Sheen becomes a legendary party animal, while Lindsay Lohan is viewed as a cracked-out crazy with no career to speak of. Justin Timberlake is allowed to evolve into a respected and multi-faceted performer, while Britney Spears is forever branded as a trashy, talentless dumb blonde who fell from grace.

For feminists, there is nothing noble in defending or reproducing this kind of misogynistic treatment. Tearing down the Kardashian women does not tear down the negative feminine stereotypes through which their degradation is justified — it just legitimizes that process of justification for all women.

Feminists wouldn’t insult women who work in porn by calling them idiotic, attention-seeking bimbos… Why? Well, aside from being unnecessarily cruel and decontextualized (who knows what personal grooming/coercion the particular woman underwent), it’s a totally unproductive analysis. It doesn’t contribute to a critique of the industry nor does it confront power where it lies.

Feminists, especially those with a radical political analysis, acknowledge the structural context in which female subordination occurs and reject an individualistic analysis of women’s status. But, when it comes to celebrity culture, we seem to get distracted by the cult of personality and attack the individual instead of the system.

In the end, Kim Kardashian actually does have a job, which I imagine is extremely difficult and taxing. (I’m exhausted just thinking about her job!) She is a professional bullseye, absorbing the misogynistic hatred of millions as an embodiment of hyperfemininity in all its subhuman, objectified glory. Considering this, it’s little wonder that, when asked how she feels about being “dethroned” by her 18-year-old sister, Kylie Jenner (who was groomed since childhood to do so), Kim replied, “I love it. Like, I love it.”

Susan Cox
Susan Cox

Susan Cox is a feminist writer and academic living in the United States. She teaches in Philosophy.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

$
Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • Jeyssika

    I’d say it’s weird people don’t see this but they know they’re doing it & why they just don’t care. It happens to Katie Price in the UK, she does a lot people don’t see – or do if they watch her TV show, which my Mum does which my Dad derides her for – and she works hard but people still see her as famous for nothing and that’s she clearly stupid. Also a point is how people still respect men who come across as stupid such as Joey Essex, jokes made about him are ones with sympathy not active vicious hatred.

  • Maya

    The “valuable” people in that meme aren’t only men; they’re also a) very talented people who b) died recently.

    Of course male privilege helped their careers in all 3 cases, but still, I’m sure that if Tina Fey and J.K. Rowling had died recently, people would be making memes about missing them.

    • Anon

      Who is the middle guy in the meme? Does anyone know?

      • Maya

        Alan Rickman, a very talented British actor who was in Harry Potter, Love Actually and more.

    • lagattamontral

      That is true, but the blogger should have made an effort to have at least one of the recently-dead be a woman. I’m thinking of Berta Cacares, but she was an Indigenous environmental activist, not a celebrity.

  • Anon

    Sorry, I don’t agree. No one has to turn in their feminist card for disliking individual women. These women hold women back as a class and profit off of it individually. They only care about themselves. More vulnerable and less wealthy women pay the price for what the K clan puts out there.

  • Anon

    Paltrow isn’t seen as a “Madonna” but rather as a senseless, poor-little-rich girl and it is hard to argue with that conclusion.

    You won’t dismantle the patriarchy by liking the K clan. If only.

    • TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsYoya

      I’m pretty sure it was not suggested that liking the Kardashians will dismantle patriarchy.

      • Anon

        No, it sure won’t. I retain my right to criticize the K clan. They have done nothing for women.

  • Anon

    This is an excellent analysis. This made far more sense than the opinion piece. I also don’t hate the K clan as individuals. (I do not know them.) I do dislike what they stand for and do not know why they don’t take on important causes instead of attention whoring. It is not sexist or wrong to criticize women when they are criticism worthy. I hope the Ks one day contribute something of actual value and learn to give back. They are not worthy of God-like reverence simply because they are rich.

  • Anon

    good analysis

  • Anon

    They still don’t advance the culture or help those in need.

    • Advance the culture? Hilarious laughter. As if Prince or Robin Williams advanced the culture. What culture? Patriarchal culture?

      • TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsYoya

        Yes. Why do women have this special requirement of “advancing the culture” or “helping other women” in order to deserve to exist in a public way?

  • Anon

    I haven’t seen her show (no interest.) What she puts out there, that has come to my attention, is vapid.

  • Anon

    So no women can be criticized for any reason or it is internalized misogyny? Women just aren’t that fragile.

    • TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsYoya

      Noooooobody said that. At all. Anywhere.

  • TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsYoya

    I like your comment. And I think people love to set up a false dichotomy: either it’s ok to criticize the Kardashians as individual women in what I would consider a misogynistic way, or you must worship and love the Kardashians. I think there’s room to acknowledge that there is a lot of misogyny underlying the typical criticism of the Kardashians (whores, useless, brainless, trash, sluts) while still acknowledging that the lifestyle and version of femininity that they represent is problematic in our culture. And it’s no coincidence that one of the criticisms of them is that they “emasculate” the men in their lives. Men can’t stand women who don’t succumb. And some women can’t stand reminders of how they have been forced to succumb.

    • Yes, I’m thinking of your last sentence. I’m not pro-prostitution at all, and I don’t think any woman actually empowers herself by selling her body. But lots of “liberal” feminists say they support such women, right? So why don’t they support the Kardashians, who are doing the equivalent? I think, in fact, many women are frightened of women who don’t succumb. Especially those who claim attention, as if they have a right to public attention. We don’t really believe women have that right, do we? Witness the terrible women’s ambivalence toward Hillary Clinton.

      • TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsYoya

        A lot of liberal feminism seems to me about gaining approval and acceptance of liberal men. Liberal men approve of prostitution; liberal men don’t approve of “whores who have never succumbed to a pimp”. I should perhaps not say “approval and acceptance” because I know what it’s like to be young, new to feminism, and still very afraid of what men think of me.

  • Novo

    I agree that the way people talk about the Kardashians themselves is gross and misogynistic. Which male celebrities are treated the same way? I mean, even Justin Bieber isn’t laughed at anymore. James Franco would NEVER get away with peddling his crap if he was a woman. Not to mention the Kardashians’ fellow reality TV star, that tan guy from the Apprentice with the horrible hair.

  • fragglerock

    Well said! I’ve never been on board with the whole “let’s trash so-and-so” past time. It serves no purpose except to elevate one’s self-esteem, which is only temporary until the high wears off and you need another fix. I try not to get sucked in but it’s difficult when it saturates our society.

  • Meghan Murphy

    To say ‘feminists always think of the plight white women’ seems not to take into account all the women of colour who are central to and lead the feminist movement.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Do you mean to ask why I write about pop culture sometimes? Well, because it’s reflective of society and culture. It’s part of a public discussion that often has notable impacts on women and girls. Imagery and messaging we see in media and pop culture obviously has notable impacts on women and girls…

  • Hannah

    Also the fact that porn stars would never be as rich as the kardashians so they’re less of a “threat”.

  • Hannah

    It definitely has had an impact on women/girls. The number of Brazilian butt lifts being done has gone up, and that’s not a coincidence. They’re the most well known for this butt trend.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Ok. So why wouldn’t I write about it? Why wouldn’t I write about images and ideas that impact us all? I don’t personally believe the Kardashians contribute anything of use to society. They are capitalists and therefore I don’t support what they do. The only thing I’ve written about them is this: http://www.feministcurrent.com/2016/03/09/kim-kardashian-naked-selfie/ http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/07/06/feminist-kim-kardashians-rolling-stone-cover-shot-by-terry-richardson/

    As you can see, my commentary was critical, not promotional. What is the problem with that?

    • lagattamontral

      None. My commentary addressed Ms Cox’s article, not yours, which I
      hadn’t read. I make a point of NOT reading articles on such subjects.
      I’m very sorry if you thought I was attacking your article. I’m sure we
      agree on them. No, I wouldn’t be bothered “hating” the Kardashians –
      there are so many real villains (most, but not all of them, are males)
      who exploit, kill, rape, invade countries and destroy Indigenous
      cultures and the environment etc. But I think those fake reality shows
      have a dire impact on young girls (and on young boys for that matter, by
      providing them a pornified view of women).
      Once again, I’m very sorry.

      • Meghan Murphy

        It’s ok. I read your comment as meaning you didn’t feel feminists should address media or pop culture at all, which I didn’t really understand. Thanks for clarifying.

  • Meghan Murphy

    I honestly think lots of celebrities — men and women alike — are stupid… I think the idea of WANTING to be a celebrity is a bad value, in fact, which leads me not to respect many celebrities. That said, I do think people need to be somewhat accountable for the messages they send. To me, the Kardashians promote capitalism and objectification. I don’t hate them for this. They actually seem like nice people to me. But I don’t respect their message at all and I don’t think they’re doing anything good for the world. I think their goal is profit and that’s it.

  • Anon

    Sorry, but I was a feminist before you were born.

  • TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsYoya

    “folks who have never seen the show hate them the most”…so true.

  • TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsYoya

    Several people have posted here that they don’t care for the Kardashians because they don’t do anything for other women, they don’t advance women’s causes, etc. How is that different than your claim that people who don’t hate the Kardashians think we need to “support” them because they’re women? Personally I think “women should help women” is some misogynistic BS, no matter which side is saying it. And personally, I don’t dislike the Kardashians, yet I don’t like the WAY and the DEGREE to which people express strong feelings of hatred towards them, often using misogynistic slurs. The Kardashians didn’t create patriarchy. There are valid criticisms of them and the way they model their lives, I don’t think that means “anything goes” and we should use misogynistic slurs against them.

  • TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsYoya

    “Gender non conforming women (Stigmatized women) who hate them and/or this system =/= misogyny either

    MRA who hate them= misogyny”

    Gender non-conforming women who hate them can’t be misogyny? How does this work?

    I don’t think the article implied that hating this celebrity system or whatever you want to call it was misogyny at all. There’s just a way and degree to which the Kardashians in particular are hated. The article didn’t claim you have to like the K’s or approve of what they do.

  • TheArtistFormerlyKnownAsYoya

    Yes Prince, the great feminist hero.

  • Saiyan Princess

    Oh yeah, they are WAAAY more toxic, influential and anti-woman than the many women and men who promote the idea that certain kinds of women are ‘less than’ based on sex and modesty and deserve to be disrespected and discriminated against. How dare other women and feminists describe men and women as prudes for some of the things they say and point out how the slurs, attitudes, and stereotypes people resort to are connected to the Judeo-Christian/Islamic, victim-blaming, body-policing patriarchy we and our ancestors have lived in for a long time. The people who talk like that about women on the internet can’t possibly be coming from a place of internalizing the misogynistic messages that type of society has passed down from generation to generation. These concerned citizens can’t possibly hold conservative beliefs about morality, women, and rape, and they can’t possibly be influencing girls and boys into thinking that sexual bullying of their peers is ok, or that crime, violence, abuse, disrespect, and discrimination is partially the fault of the kind of women and girls they’d label ‘sluts and whores’. And of course they’re only saying these things about certain female celebrities, right? Who cares if they’re misogynistic as long as they’re anti-ALL-pornography (or so we think).

  • Bleep

    Sorry, I have quite a few issues with Disqus. This is still Bleep.

    I used to agree with the feminist orthodoxy on this, and I understand why feminists believe in this line of reasoning, but it doesn’t feel like the truth to me anymore. As someone who is much, much less privileged than the Kardashians, I believe that the choice to express your sexuality in any and every way in public when you DO have the choice to do something else is based in narcissism, and it’s a shitty thing to do to other women. I cannot support it anymore. Every part of me feels like it needs to stand up and say THAT’S A LIE when I hear that I am to support all choices hyper-privileged, wealthy women, especially very public ones, make, no matter how bad for women as a class. I may be a bad feminist for talking about the idea of women selling out women, but well, so be it. The Kardashians may not have an obligation to care about the effects of their bullshit, but I just can’t go along with saying they are immune to feminist criticism because what they ‘do’ involves sex/sexuality.

    There are plenty of public women who are scrutinized by feminists from every angle possible, but only when it involves something other than sex and objectification. If it’s about that, there’s a huge ‘off limits’ wall that comes down. And, I’m wondering at the moment, if it has something to do with who owns all the major ‘feminist’ sites on the internet (and how connected they are to the porn industry), as Meghan’s new post has revealed. Miley Cyrus releases the name of her new album by tattooing it on her taint and posting the pictures? Well, no feminist is allowed to talk about that! She has the right and is also brainwashed and is also too stupid to inform herself about human trafficking and all the injuries young girls are suffering as a result of porn culture… I can’t, I just cannot anymore.

    • Saiyan Princess

      Human trafficking, rape, and other forms of violence against women aren’t problems that are going to lessen, disappear, or increase based on whether Miley Cyrus and Kim Kardashian show their naked bodies or not though. Women not presenting themselves like those two has never been a deterrent from men physically abusing or sexually abusing women and girls (or other people) in any society or time period. That’s the problem- as women, we get so used to hearing the idea that one of the keys to fighting against mistreatment/ violence against not only ourselves, but other women and girls, is presenting only a ‘respectable, classy’ image of ourselves to the public and being more modest with our bodies by saying no to things like public nudity, sex scenes, revealing clothes, and other things that people may categorize as ‘seductive’ or ‘promiscuous’ that we accept it. It’s not that I don’t think there are certain things Cyrus, the Kardashians, or other celebrities promote that are negative and not feminist or that gender should make anyone above all feminist criticism, but placing any blame for violence against women on the fact that certain women have allowed everyone to see their bodies (or in Kim’s case, that + allowed everybody to watch her have sex with her then-boyfriend Ray J on film) doesn’t seem feminist. We have to stop believing and teaching that any level of modesty- whether it’s “Wear this, not that”, “don’t dance like that” “say no to doing a sexual scene in a film or music video”, or “only do photoshoots that say ‘I’m a classy, ladylike professional, please take me seriously”- is a fight against violence. Just because there ARE lots of real world instances where public or private nudity is abuse instead of choice doesn’t mean that all instances of a privileged woman choosing to present herself to the public in a sexual or revealing manner is part of the cause of that abuse, or that it’s narcissistic and a shitty thing she’s ‘doing to’ other women by not choosing to be more modest with sex and her body in public. As a woman and a feminist, I definitely don’t want my worth or that of other women and girls to be based on fertility, whether or not a man wants to marry me, or sexual purity/modesty, and it makes me angry to hear about 10-year-old girls being forced to give birth to their rapist’s baby because she’s being denied access to abortion, women being pressured to stay in abusive marriages, victim-blaming, the rape of women or girls being minimized because of a lack of ‘sexual purity’, girls falling victim to emotional abuse, discrimination, domestic violence, or honor crimes because they’ve done something someone finds ‘slutty’, and different members of society attacking our reproductive rights, but that doesn’t mean that I see every privileged woman in Hollywood who’s flaunting her marriage, wedding, or baby in some magazine or selfie, deciding to present herself in a more modest way (Adele, Tori Kelly, Lorde, Janelle Monae) as a female public figure, or who takes on a role in a film that has something to do with marriage, babies, or covering up is complicit in those tragedies, or that she’s supposed to avoid those things so no woman ever gets pressure to get married, have a baby she doesn’t want, or ‘save something for a more serious/private’ relationship.

      • Bleep

        Self-objectification is good because otherwise we are caught in the madonna/whore, or classy/trashy trap. Got it. In other words, don’t talk about the problems. Kylie Jenner marketing her lipgloss (to teens) as a blow-job enhancer could only be viewed as problematic if I am a pearl-clutching prude. I am either supportive or I am ‘policing’ and shaming. There is no in-between. All sex, all objectified bodies, all the time, no boundaries, or church ladies in ankle-length gowns.

        Glad we had this discussion.

        • Saiyan Princess

          I never implied any of that, but ok. Apparently unless you’re asking women to cover-up like church ladies in ankle-length gowns, you’re not asking them to be more modest about sex and their bodies in public. And apparently blaming those serious problems like violence against women on women not having the ‘boundaries’ that you want them to have and accusing them of doing wrong by not living up to those boundaries is not shaming, policing, or scapegoating, it’s Saving Women, and anyone who sees a problem with that mentality is asking you to be blindly supportive of everything women say and do. Every woman who’s a public figure must do her part to show that “Woman is respectable and She has these very exact, uniform, specific boundaries. Any deviation from those uniform boundaries by any woman is an oppressive, dangerous wrongdoing that women must be rebuked for, because her deviation from The Boundaries will cause other people to do and think horrible things. The Boundaries are what gives us our humanity- The Boundaries are the only things that make us human beings instead of objects. Got it. Informative discussion.

  • Saiyan Princess

    Why isn’t it possible that the Kardashian women AND the women and men calling them sluts and whores (and saying other misogynistic, stereotypical, violent shit about them on the internet) have all internalized different sexist, harmful shit about women? The Kardashian women could have internalized and perpetuated the idea that a woman doesn’t have to be educated and try to do things to help others, all she has to do is be stereotypically beautiful, sexy, and popular. The ones saying the misogynistic things about them could have internalized and perpetuated the message that it’s natural or ok to verbally abuse, discriminate against, and disrespect women who you don’t find classy/wholesome/ ladylike because they’re ‘trash/slut/whores’/less than, and Those Kind of Girls ‘reap what they sow’/deserve what they get.

  • Bleeps

    I believe we have different beliefs and that’s fine. I’m just going to say that when a songwriter, male or female, writes misogynistic lyrics, and people sing along, and it becomes normalized/’cool’ to hear lyrics like that, it becomes part of the culture and may also shape attitudes towards women. In turn, other singers and songwriters may also write lyrics like that, because they see that it is a successful strategy to sell their songs. Feminists have pointed this out, talked about it, even criticized it. When a female business person, or politician, makes (by feminist standards — or maybe that’s too prescriptive, and there should be no such thing) being anti-woman, part of her strategy to further her career, she is… actually doing that, and there has been feminist discussion about it. Some feminists have been supportive of these women getting ahead any way they can, because, depending on circumstances, it can be almost impossible to be successful. And some feminists have been more critical. When advertisers and business-owners have used female objectification and ‘sex’ (almost always meaning sexualized women’s bodies) to sell product, feminists have criticized it (even when those advertisers and business-owners may be female, or when female models have chosen to participate).

    To me, it is insulting to famous women to suggest that they are dumber than the rest of these people and have to be protected from the same level of, uh, feminists pointing out and talking about what they are doing, even when feminists have different opinions to offer about, say, the necessity of female celebrities using sexualized female bodies to further their careers, or the harm it does to women as a class, etc. To shut the entire discussion down because… I mean, really, any feminist criticism of any woman’s behavior can be seen as tantamount to forcing or implementing a type of propriety, is a… rigid kind of dogma in itself. And, from what I have observed in liberal feminism, it is mostly meant to protect upper-middle-class women from feminist criticism about their promotion and use of self-objectification as a means of self-empowerment/attention-getting. But criticizing a celebrity, who is not just another woman, but is a giant business in and of themselves, is different than criticizing small potatoes like an upper-middle class ‘harlot’ or whatever. Part of the reason it is different is because there is not a variety of representation of women currently in the media. When feminists criticize ‘media representation of women’, and they include giant conglomerates, that run ‘media’, but not giant celebrity machinery, it’s ideologically inconsistent and hypocritical. Some may want feminists to not criticize, say, advertising for representing women badly, because a woman may have chosen to participate, but many feminists do it anyway, usually without much drama.