Bimbos and the Backlash

Patriarchal dependence is not anti-capitalist.

This newsletter is 100% reader supported, and this is the weekly free edition. If you are enjoying it and want more, consider upgrading to a paid subscription. I appreciate you and your support.

An anti-feminist backlash is in full swing, and the latest iteration is the reemergence of the bimbo — this time as a self-styled socialist.

#BimboTok is just one of the growing corners of backlash social media disguised as leftism, where female independence, women having any sort of authority or power, and feminism itself is deemed painfully uncool, while assessing women based on their physical attractiveness, deferring to men, and exchanging one’s conventional attractiveness and sex for financial support from men is the height of empowerment and a rejection of capitalist demands.

Yes, this is anti-feminism, even if it’s coming from some version of the left, and even if it’s cast as a joke.

Bimboism would be a dumb harmless online trend if it weren’t being presented as a better alternative to the now widely-derided “girlboss” and to female independence more broadly. From a recent New York Times op/ed on the trend, which basically argues that this isn’t a misogynist throwback, but really about anti-capitalism:

One might ask: How could it possibly be feminist to talk about how hot and dumb you are all the time? Women bragging that they can’t do long division has an obviously retrograde quality to it; it can play into juvenile stereotypes even as it attempts to manipulate them. Watching some of these videos can feel like peering into a series of conservative fantasies that have been ever so slightly warped: Is it really leftist for a woman to want to just go shopping and never get a job? But to dismiss this corner of the internet as totally backward would be to miss the point.

I am going to spoil the rest of the op/ed for you: You can absolutely dismiss this corner of the internet as totally backward. What you shouldn’t do is dismiss it as irrelevant.

A significant number of young women are seeing this version of “feminism” peddled as new and edgy on social media, when really it’s just very old and boring conservatism. The bimbo, the stay-at-home girlfriend, the tradwife — these are retrograde stories, and they are being sold as liberation.

This new leftist anti-feminism sells the idea that female ambition or women aspiring for anything other than hotness, male approval, and dependence is problematic and worthy of scorn. This is something I’ve observed in my own conversations with young women, even in feminist spaces: They are hearing (and arguing) that any opting-out of work, including making oneself reliant on rich men, is simply about rejecting capitalist demands; they hear (and argue) that the real misogyny comes in pointing out the problems and dangers of being wholly financially reliant on men who don’t see you as an equal, and in questioning whether it’s responsible or even possible for most women to follow a path to financial reward based primarily on fitting a narrow cultural ideal of hotness. In the meantime, men aren’t hearing any of these messages — they can be socialists and earn obscene amounts of money on their podcasts and patreons and newsletters, or they can simply strive for professional success and aren’t treated as avatars as some bigger problem of exclusivity and political bankruptcy.

Ms. Chlapecka’s videos would have been unimaginable in 2016, when liberals were mourning Hillary Clinton’s loss and joining Facebook groups with names like “Pantsuit Nation.” Bimboism is the antithesis of the mode of feminism that was dominant in the 2010s, a kind of hyperambitious you-can-have-it-all feminism that can be summed up by the label “girlboss.” The girlboss was striving and succeeding in a male workplace; she was a female founder who also went to 6 a.m. yoga classes. She wore a chic dress and looked coiffed on Instagram. She was liberal and outspoken about her gender.

BimboTok came about at a time when the girlboss had more or less faded as a trendy cultural type. Amid the resurgence of leftist politics, and the disillusionment with capitalism among millennials and Gen Z, the framing of careerism and individualism as feminist rings hollow. That girlboss model was critiqued for its lack of inclusivity — its overwhelming whiteness and its focus on a level of economic success that was never attainable for a vast majority of women. Not to mention, girlboss aesthetics are simply cringe, for a generation steeped in internet irony.

For all of the problems with so-called #GirlBoss feminism — an insulting caricature of female ambition, and a term feminists never embraced but that has somehow been used to deride an entire once-vibrant resurgent feminist movement only tangentially connected to the “female founder” and that never promised anyone could “have it all” — it was a hell of a lot better than the kind of franken-feminism that claims to be anti-capitalist when it’s not about creating new ways of living or mutual dependence, but rather… making sure men maintain a monopoly on economic, political, and social power, and a small handful of women can benefit if those men deem those women worthy. (The women deemed hot and young enough to be worthy, I should note, will at some point no longer be hot and young enough to be deemed worthy of individual male largesse, an inevitability the bimbo-proponents aren’t particularly interested in addressing).

And it’s a feminism that encourages female ambition that was “never attainable for the vast majority of women”?

And so: No more Instagrams about rising and grinding. No more The Wing. No more straining to be smarter than the boys. Bimboism offers an opposing and, to some, refreshing premise: Value me, look at me, not because I’m smart and diligent, but for the fact that I’m not. It’s anticapitalist, even anti-work. (In one video, another BimboTok comedian, @brattybarbiana, dances behind text that reads, “Rule of thumb: All relationships should be 50/50 … He works for his money, I spend it!”)

Let me first say that women were never “straining” to be smarter than men, and that characterization says a whole lot about the presumed abilities of women vs. men. And perhaps I am old and cranky, but “Value me, look at me, not because I’m smart and diligent, but for the fact that I’m not” is not new or refreshing or anti-capitalist. It’s just patriarchal and objectifying. And it relies very deeply on capitalism — how else is that money being earned and spent? In a socialist paradise, is there a place for scores of feckless women with expensive wardrobes reliant on rise-and-grind rich boyfriends for their hyper-consumerist lifestyles? Or is that instead the picture of late capitalist patriarchy?

It is totally fascinating to watch this calculation (although lol women are bad at math!!!): Female-focused workspaces, women who emphasize their intelligence, and women who push for political representation = cringe unrepresentative girlboss feminism. Valuing women based on their youth and physical hotness as determined by misogynist men, and compensating them according to the ever-changing whims of rich sexists: Socialist anti-work all-inclusive feminism.

In reality, this is just the same old conservative patriarchy, retooled for TikTok.

The rise of the leftist bimbo is not an isolated TikTok trend. It’s part of a greater backlash against women competing with men, and of women claiming an equal right to political, social, cultural, and economic participation. Is equality with men in a hyper-capitalist and hyper-individualistic hellscape the feminist dream? No, it’s not. But given the world as it is, why is it women who are suspect for participating and trying to thrive in the society we actually live in, while men doing the same are ignored, justified, or lauded? And how on earth is it “socialist” for men to accrue wealth, power, and status by participating in a capitalist economy, while the most politically acceptable option for women on the left is to compete for male approval and some small piece of a man’s pie — and only for as long as he’s interested in giving you a slice?

Socialist feminists make a good point when they argue that independence isn’t just over-rated, it’s an impossibility, and it’s a concept created by men who make women’s work invisible. But that doesn’t mean the answer is that men occupy the public, political and economic spheres, while a woman’s worth is in her sexual appeal, and women writ large depend on men for financial support and public representation. The idea of a society structured around interdependence is starkly at odds with one structured around patriarchal gender roles — a false ideal of male independence, enabled and beget by female reliance.

I would also argue that the progressive policies feminists want to see — universal childcare, paid parental leave, broader workplace protections including more robust anti-discrimination laws — aren’t going to happen through the benevolence of a male-controlled political system. They’re going to require that women have power and influence, including political power, and including financial power. Is this an ideal system? No. But if we want to change it, women receding from public life and relying on men is not how it’s going to happen.

“There is something compelling in the idea that women shouldn’t have to prove their economic worth or intelligence as a way of arguing for their self-worth and independence,” the Times writer argues. It is indeed a compelling idea that women — and frankly anyone — shouldn’t have to prove their intelligence as a way for arguing for their self-worth or independence. But trust that the bimbo is making quite an argument about her economic worth: She is arguing that her economic value is high for a period in her life when men deem her young and hot and worthy of spending money on; she is competing in an informal economy where the values are determined almost entirely by rich, capitalist, heterosexual men. This is not new. This is one of the oldest possible paths for women to find financial stability, cultural value, and social recognition.

It’s a raw deal — and it’s why feminism came into existence in the first place.

xx Jill

This newsletter is 100% reader supported, and this is the weekly free edition. If you are enjoying it and want more, consider upgrading to a paid subscription. I appreciate you and your support.