[These outrage-a-thons] are ignited by writers who are pushing readers to feel what the writers claim is righteously indignant rage but which is actually just petty jealousy, cleverly marketed as feminism. These firestorms are great for page-view-pimping bloggy business. But they promote the exact opposite of progressive thought and rational discourse, and the comment wars they elicit almost inevitably devolve into didactic one-upsmanship and faux-feminist cliché.
On one hand, I’m like, it is true that totally unfounded scandals erupt because of how the internet continually reports on itself. The Daily Show women’s recent repudiation of Jezebel’s thing about them seems to confirm that, in fact, this was a faux-crisis or at least a not-very-well-reported one. On the other hand, there’s something about Emily’s article that seems very anti-complaint (complaint being very ’90s woman) and very anti-the reality of needing to make money (anti-consumerism being very ’90s woman).
Which makes this a very ’90s-Woman conversation, I think. Outrage is very ’90s woman. So is learning not to tell other people what to think. So is learning that people can be sexy like Olivia Munn and still be feminists. So is this kind of idealistic, maybe naive, desire that everything exist in a commercial-free vacuum to count.
Anyway, I say: fun fight. Kara?