In re: How to Win at Feminism: etc., both the linked review and the book under review:

When review author Becca Rothfeld writes that “a straightforward acknowledgement of investment is the least forgivable gaffe,” she–inadvertently?–cuts to the heart of why parody and irony are ineffective as tools for social change: it is the essence of parody and irony to call attention to phenomena without acknowledging investment.

As Rothfeld is certainly aware, “8 Brands More Responsive Than Your Boyfriend” can be read as an incisive take-down of the ways in which women involute their emotional lives in response to societal pressure, sublimating their human needs for affection and recognition into a consumerist sphere that offers products to  enhance their lovability, and finally trapping themselves in an approach/retreat cycle with–not the male object of affection directly, but rather–their own sexuality, or (worse) a reification of gender anxiety that replaces their authentic sexuality, as they pursue a false idol of The Relationship that exists only as an artifact of a femininity constructed to satisfy the strictures of a patriarchal mainstream culture.

Of course, “Your Bra Insert Is The Only Makeup Sponge You’ve Ever Needed” can be read in the same way. But I venture to guess that it generally isn’t.

It’s widely noted that parody highlights problems, rather than proposing solutions; it tears down, rather than building up. Parody, by its nature, lacks “a straightforward acknowledgement of investment” of the author in the author’s intended reading of the text, or indeed in the subject matter as a whole. Parody stands apart, pointing and laughing.

There is, however, a deeper issue with the pragmatics of parody. In parody, the author says one thing but means another. She uses the device of asserting the ridiculous to signal that a subtext is present, and the nature of the ridiculous content to imply the content of that subtext. However, as parody crucially omits assertion of any authentic opinion or worldview, the assumption that the reader can recover the author’s intended subtext relies on the assumption that the reader will accurately identify what the author intended as a ridiculous, and why. That is, the success of parody–taking “success” in the sense of conveyance of the author’s intended message to the reader–relies on the assumption that author and reader share the same opinions and worldview.

Parody, then, assumes an audience of “us.” Parody not only eschews persuasion; it is not only incapable of persuasion: it is hostile to the very possibility of persuasion, or of dialogue more generally. Parody is the walking-three-steps-behind-your-parents-rolling-your-eyes of political discourse. We all know what the right answer is, it says, and if you don’t know we’re certainly not going to tell you.

But, you know, it’s not the seventies! Feminists don’t have to be shrill and ugly anymore, amirite? I don’t want to come across as some humorless “you’re-oppressing-me-with-your-penis” feminazi deploying reasoned, supported argument in grammatical complex sentences. Then he definitely won’t text me back.


Cf. Charles Krafft. Also, I recall reading a similar argument about ironic racism in The Stranger a while back–essentially, that if it’s indistinguishable from actual racism, it is in practical effect just racism–though I couldn’t find the article in a quick search.