Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tembe Denton-Hurst's avatar

I can appreciate that this post has tapped into something for a lot of people: being criticized instead of being celebrated, interpersonal violence among friends, feeling alienated as a result of success, the fear of being mocked for wanting things loudly, boldly, being criticized when you do. I can understand the desire to discard shame and fear and bend the world to your will in the hopes that you can finally bask in your deserved glory with zero questions about whether you deserve to be there. But this essay isn't just saying that and should not be consumed uncritically. There are three things you tap into that are true, Ali. That you can go for what you want and lose it all in the blink of an eye regardless of fault. We’ve seen that unfold over the past week with the fires devastating Southern California. Also that the blanket of success is not safety. At least not socially. Doing better than everyone else will not make them like you. It could potentially be the opposite. Lastly, that preying on another person’s demise will not change your fate. But these truths are not an excuse to veer hard into a zero-accountability mindset where everything you want is acceptable and everyone who criticizes that is jealous and out to cut you down. There’s another truth that you’re arguing for—albeit more subtly—that aspiring to white masculinity as you see it: winner-takes-all, shameless, an absence of accountability, is a noble, righteous thing to do.

To contend specifically with your point around the Wing and the idea that white female founders were being hunted down and canceled en masse, the logic here is confusing. Part of the reason The Wing was successful was because it was a feminist utopia. That wasn't true. Should that not be addressed? The Wing purported to be a feminist safe haven, should that experience only extend to the women paying to be there? Did the employees, most of whom were Black and Brown and working class, deserve what they experienced? If so then feminism is a commodity, and identity is something to be traded, parceled out to the beautiful ones, the white ones, the ones who can pay. Your point that Audrey’s look and wealth got her so much press is true. No one would’ve cared if she wasn’t a beautiful white woman. By your admission, you wouldn’t have either. The story surrounding its demise was not focused on the people who were mistreated but the woman who would have to build something new. As you stated, you don’t care about who she harmed because that’s par for the course. The cost of doing business. But why? It’s telling that after witnessing that entire fiasco, the takeaway was that they were mean to the founder and you linked that to your personal experiences.

There’s also a fundamental misunderstanding of the power structure here, regardless of gender. The employees are by nature subordinates, and don't hold the same role as journalists, whose jobs are to report on the people in power, or the general public. Everyone has their role. Everyone is not a “jealous girl out to get the beautiful white woman just trying to make a way.” Living under late stage capitalism and asking to keep a job when the job market is hard isn’t some kind of paradox, it’s survival. There are very clear differences between social shunning for attaining success and criticism incurred for bad business practices, we cannot conflate the two.

That there is a double standard is true. But that is not imposed by women but by a society with patriarchy at its core. I'm curious as to why there isn't a call here to dismantle that system rather than asking everyone to be quiet or cheer for the women attempt to navigate it.

But to follow your logic to its endpoint—white women should be held to the same standard as white men, and celebrated for when they dominate and conquer, regardless of who is harmed in the process. They should be given the same level of forgiveness and given more money when they mess up. Not only is this unsustainable, it’s harmful and regressive. As you said, without the supposed guardrails of womanhood and fear of criticism, you noticed that male founders were more narcissistic, and more racist—and these are qualities to aspire to? You seem to be calling for more individualism at a time when we need to be leaning into the collective and pooling our resources to create a world our children will be able to witness, not utilizing our childhood experiences as fuel to create businesses and products that prioritize high growth and personal brand-building at any cost.

That little girls are socialized to be more egalitarian is good. Everybody should eat. It’s the only way we survive. To celebrate a value system where winner-takes-all and the strongman wins the day is to worship at the feet of the system we already have. And that’s fine if you continue to, but it’s not at all revelatory or different. It’s the status quo.

And last thing, because I know this has gone long. Boys gossip about other boys over mediocre martinis too. They just don’t do it where you can see it.

Expand full comment
Chris Jesu Lee's avatar

I enjoyed reading this. This also explains why online-style social justice movements are so popular among women. Such movements let women openly aspire for power, attention, and money while also having a natural shield against the usual attacks you speak of in your piece. By claiming some personal or group victim status, the would-be-loathed girlboss is no longer a girlboss to be cut down, but a saintly heroine who cannot be criticized. Of course, that only compels critics to go on some supposedly morality-based cancel inquiry anyway.

Expand full comment
144 more comments...

No posts