Isn’t it ironic? Misogynist feminists and MAGA face

 

    

    Feminist ideology has taught for decades that patriarchical hegemony is to be ‘challenged’ and ‘critiqued,’ or in more recent colloquial terms; ‘smashed’ or ‘abolished.’  The first two waves of feminism proved to be functional, as change in policy and society occurred because of it.  Women got the rights to vote in the first and most literal, political wave.  Next, women were intermixed into economic production through paid work, access to debt and financial systems, and education.  Now, “women’s educational gains have occurred alongside their growing labor force participation as well as structural changes in the economy,” as per Pew Research.

    Women are outpacing men by about ten percent in college graduation, showing a steep rise since 1970.  This trajectory couches the third wave feminism well, as now the ideological progress of feminism is in its perspective, which is taught.  We are now in the ideology of intersectional feminism, where we receive our oppression or empowerment from our individual “standpoint” at the intersection of race, gender, sexuality, ability, nation status, etc.  However, this intersectionality has its origins from when perspective was first considered, with works like Mulvey’s “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” bringing concepts of the “male gaze” into discourse in 1975.  Women as the subjects of the male gaze, reinforcing a patriarchal visual narrative, has become well discussed in feminist discourse.  The gaze reinforces the patriarchal heteronormativity and identifies the “ideal” female aesthetic.  This gaze can be seen as either perpetuated or challenged in all media, according to the hegemony claimed by critical theory.

               After nearly 30 years since the academic declaration of patriarchal hegemony and the rise in numbers of educated women, is society more feminist? Yes, in terms of self-identification.  Women, now being more educated than men, also mostly identify as feminist.  Especially Democrat-leaning women, with a net %75 of them saying feminist describes them at least somewhat well compared to a net %42 of Republican-leaning women.  The highest percent of self-identified feminists have at least a bachelor’s degree and are of ages 18-29; this provides correlation between education, political affiliation and feminist ideology.  (This data is now 6 years old, so potentially these numbers have grown).  Has this last wave of feminist ideology changed the hegemony significantly?  Are women more empowered as feminists?  Has the male gaze been averted, and the patriarchy challenged? 

Let's look at how these two demographics see one another; How are MAGA women viewed through the media apparatus (of patriarchal hegemonic oppression, if it still stands) and how are liberal women viewed? Is there a clear sign that feminism has changed the narrative of how women are viewed through media and social media, or popular opinion?

   Colloquially, MAGA is the term for the contemporary conservative, with Donald Trump being the figurehead for the popular understanding of Republican ideology.  There is no equivalent liberal alternative, though progressive is becoming more commonly used, liberal seems to still fit as the nomenclature for the popular understanding of Democrat ideology.  Through search engines and social media, I researched popular critiques about each political camp’s women to see if feminism has succeeded in changing the patriarchal normativity; has feminism produced a more feminist culture, especially, for the culture of self-identified feminists?

    Originally, I searched "critiques of MAGA women" and "critiques of Liberal women" on Google.  For the MAGA results, a coined term of an aesthetic appeared in multiple results; the "MAGA" and "Mar-a-Lago" look, or aesthetic.  I actually had to modify the question for the Liberal critique, for this search only brought academic papers about liberalism and aesthetics, with just one article from MSN claiming that the right has a new acronym for liberal women: AWFUL, or Affluent White Female Urban Liberal.  The acronym itself is read to be derogatory but note that the name consists of demographics rather than aesthetic comments or anything necessarily derogatory or in critique. However, since this search did not supply more than one relevant result, I adjusted my search terms for "MAGA aesthetic" and "Liberal aesthetic." The term “aesthetic” does not inherently denote women and looks, though it does encompass that.  It is something that in critical thought would represent the hegemony, or a challenge to it.  In the results for “MAGA aesthetic” are images, articles, and videos featuring the term “MAGA face” and the adjacent “Mar-a-Lago face.”  As recent as the 16^th of this month, HuffPost produced an article “’Mar-a-Lago Face’ Is About More Than Just Looks-It’s About Power.”  USA Today wrote one week prior; “’Mar-a-Lago face’ going out of style in 2026?” Last May, the New York Times produced an opinion interview, “Kristi Noem and the MAGA Beauty Aesthetic; Republican women know what they’re doing.”  Last March, from Mother Jones: “In Your Face: The Brutal Aesthetics of MAGA.”  Or last year’s “The MAGA Aesthetic is AI Slop,” from the Atlantic.  I won’t bore you with the other 7 articles that include “MAGA” or “Mar-a-Lago” face in the title that also come up on the front page of my search.  

    I did another search, simply for “MAGA face,” since it is a colloquial term, to receive a similar listing of critical remarks via news outlets and popular editorials.  Interestingly, a search for “liberal face” comes up only with articles that claim political physiognomy can happen; that you (with the help of AI, of course) can tell someone’s politics by their facial structure and expressions.  According to the front-page results of Google there is an identifiable Republican face, specifically for women, and there exists no such popular concept equivalent for Liberal women.  I suppose you’d need AI to determine it; thankfully, the search for “Liberal Aesthetic” comes with an AI overview that the “MAGA Aesthetic” search didn’t.

 “The concept of liberal aesthetic encompasses a range of ideas and inspirations that promote a sense of freedom, individuality, and a commitment to a more humane and equitable society, often associated with the idea that beauty and art can inspire political action and social change.”  AI was the only one, however, to give me a description, as the articles to follow were still on “aesthetic liberalism” and “liberal aesthetics” in a critical, academic way.  No front-page results were dissecting the looks, make-up, and style of Liberal women, attributing and scrutinizing them for “power allegiance” and the “Authoritarian Spectacle” as a Substack article proclaims.  The critiques of the MAGA aesthetic from these articles include the following:

“The women of the Trump movement, their facial disfigurations signal loyalty and a willingness to submit” said Laurie Essig, a professor and chair of gender, sexuality, and feminist studies…and producer of podcast “Feminism, Fascism, & the Future”-Huffington Post

“MAGA women with cosmetically altered faces…as a sign you’re part of the club,” “a caricature of femineity…” and commenting on makeup, that “almost feels drag-adjacent…” likening “Mara-a-Lago face to gender-affirming surgery and drag performances because it’s so exaggerated in its femineity," and that it's about “how expensive I look” -Huffington Post

While the Huff Post article called the makeup drag-adjacent, another opinion piece from the NYT claims that the “MAGA look” “comes from southern culture, from pageant culture…it is a way to hold themselves in opposition to people that they feel are not gender conforming.”-NYT

So, the “MAGA look” is both drag-adjacent, and anti-trans...

“…they have such a narrow vision of appropriate femininity…part of the liberal ethos is like, wear what you want or have more sort of individuality in terms of your fashion or gender expression.” Jessica Grose, -NYT

    

     Let’s track this inquiry through two more search engines; Grok AI and Instagram’s Meta AI.  With Grok, I searched “Top Critiques of MAGA Women” which were found to be “associated with Donald Trump and conservative politics, critique of this group often come from liberal or progressive sources, as well as some internal conservative voices, and tend to focus on themes like appearance, behavior, political complicity, and cultural implications.”  Grok then lists the “most recurrent critiques based on recent discussions (post-2024 election era):”

1.)    Overly Artificial or “Brutal” Aesthetics

2.)    Complicity in Misogyny and Internal Betrayal

3.)    Aggressive or “Unfeminine” Behavior

4.)    Hypocritical or Fractured Womanhood

           5.)    Anti-Christian or Divisive Values 

     A critique of a Republican woman’s looks comes primarily, before the feminist reading of their supposed internal misogyny, and the critique likely comes from self-identified feminists.  Otherwise, it would be less likely for someone to use a feminist lens to identify "misogyny" and "internal betrayal." How women look is the top critique of MAGA women.  Following, are critiques of their behavior in reference to femininity and values.  An obvious question to arise from this would be: is feminism showing to be empowering here, intersectional and inclusive?  The argument that the male gaze is dominant in not only the looks of these women, but in the reading of them by feminists who allegedly have the ethos of “wear what you want” brings evidence that feminist ideology does not equate to feminist practice.  This Republican sect of women has not seen empowerment, according to the liberal media and feminist ideology; they remain in the scrutiny of the male gaze and are criticized for continuing their own oppression. 

Creator describes filming with her boyfriend at a protest, protester calls her "MAGA face."

    The “Top Critiques of Liberal Women” according to Grok AI refers “to women who align with progressive or left-leaning politics, often emphasizing issues like feminism, social justice, environmentalism, and reproductive rights.  Critiques of this group predominantly come from conservative sources…and highlight perceived patterns in mental health, lifestyle choices, and ideological impacts.”

1.)    Lower Happiness and Life Satisfaction

2.)    Higher Rates of Loneliness and Mental Health Issues

3.)    Negative Impact of Liberal Feminism on Society

4.)    Hypersensitivity to Criticism and Polarizing Behavior

5.)    Shifting Ideals Leading to Broader Societal Issues

    Interestingly, there is no attack on looks or mention of feminine behavior.  The concept of misogyny is also absent, but the ideology of feminism does enter at item 3 as compared to item 2 in the MAGA list.  In this context, feminism is critiqued, and not the female person via feminism.  Overall, these critiques are about lifestyle and mental health.  Though in the Pew study, Republican-leaning women were the lowest associated with feminism, their critiques of their political opponents do not assert the male gaze or internal misogyny but rather focus on the health of the person in relation to society.  Deducing the findings of Grok AI, feminism creates a misogynist read of women in political opposition (non-feminists) and creates the appearance of unhappiness and dissatisfaction.  

Instagram's Meta AI summarizing trends for "MAGA" and "Liberal" aesthetics.

    My last search was a simple visual search on Instagram’s Meta AI for #MAGAaesthetic and #Liberalaesthetic, #MAGAlook and #Liberallook.  In comparing the first page of visual results, the same bold message appears in both MAGA results; “IT’S A CULT.”  Clear critique that is not seen in the liberal results.  Images from some articles referenced earlier appear, along with the second result being a man dressed up as “Lady MAGA USA.”  Overall, the MAGA results feature the image more predominantly as compared to the liberal results which feature more text, and feature men in 2 of the 3 top results of one search.  This echoes the Google search, where women's looks were the hot topic for MAGA women while the concept, the AI summary was primary for Liberal women.

    What can we infer from these search engine results, as pop-culture texts, in relation to the critique of the female in the political context?  While they may not be full controllers of all media, the demographic most likely to be educated in feminism and feminist critique, and self-identifying as feminists seem more likely to critique the looks and femininity of those women they politically oppose.  In feminist terms, this continues the patriarchal hegemony through consistent preferred readings of MAGA women and the centering of the internalized male gaze through the creation and critique of an alleged political female aesthetic. Overall, the liberal perspective has an oppositional ideology from the ‘patriarchal hegemony,’ but has an inflected tone when it comes to viewing their political female adversaries; the hegemony prevails in feminism, but with political fervor.

A juxtaposition? 

    If feminism is “the radical notion that women are people,” then why are the women who are more likely to be educated in feminism perpetuating the critique of women for their looks and behavior in relation to femininity?  Did you have a different idea in your head about who would dominate typical misogynist critiques of looks and femininity? Do you think feminism (especially regarding the third wave and beyond) has brought us a more feminist society, and are we better from it? Or, do you think this is all media spin, and if so, does it favor one side over the other?