The History and Complicated Rhetoric of the Sentiment of “Women Supporting Women”

 If you spend any time with a third wave feminist, you will probably hear or see the phrase “girls supporting girls” (or “women supporting women”) at some point. This statement has become a pillar of the third wave, such that it’s become more of a platitude than a call for action as it was originally intended. It’s written in Instagram comments, on “feminist” merchandise” (quotes because I'm skeptical of any commercialized feminism), and used in casual conversation when women discuss other women. In case you doubt the prevalence of this phrase, I’ve included a screenshot from redbubble’s website; under the “stickers” category, I’ve searched “girls supporting girls” and as you can see highlighted in yellow, there are over 1,000 results! Apparently, a lot of women just really want to uplift each other! I’d argue that in theory, and usually in practice, this is a great thing—though I would also argue that sometimes the execution of this idea is misguided. However, what is of importance for this post is that this rhetoric isn’t new—the sentiment can be traced all the way back to 14^th century—and the comparisons between proto-feminist and modern feminist thought reveal some important truths about the rhetoric surrounding social movements. 

   Before we talk about the history of feminist rhetoric, however, we should ask: why exactly do women need to support one another? That’s not really a question I want to answer in full right now because I don’t think it really adds to this course’s focus; however, I think it is important to at least have some context in order to explain the differences and similarities between de Pizan’s and today’s rhetorics. In most places, women are a marginalized people, and as such, one of the most powerful forms of strength they can find individually is by coming together as a group. This is a common theme among marginalized peoples—for example, we really never say “the straight community” but we do say “the LGBTQ+ community.” When you already have a large amount of influence within society, there isn’t as much of a need to single out yourself and the people like you in order to find power. Women should, then, support each other to ensure the liberation of all women, for, as solo individuals, the same social power cannot be found. Of course, there is more nuance for each specific group of people, but the concept of coming together to find strength when society seeks to strip it away from you answers the question surrounding the need for women to support each other well enough for the purposes of this discussion.* Now, onto rhetoric.

   After reading the excerpt from Christine de Pizan’s work for class, particularly the section entitled “How it is unbecoming for women to defame each other or speak evil,” it occurred to me that women, at least some who are progressive, have felt and encouraged some form of sisterhood among women for at least hundreds of years. De Pizan wrote that “ladies and women of the court ought to love and support each other like sisters. They ought not to quarrel with one another in the ladies’ apartments, nor betray each other behind their backs like fishwives, for such things are extremely unbecoming at the court of a Princess, and they ought not to be allowed,” (The Treasure of the City of Ladies). De Pizan insists that women love and support one another—which very closely mirrors the third wave notion of “girls supporting girls.” Despite three waves of feminism since de Pizan’s time on earth, American feminism is still trying to normalize the same social bonds she wrote about.

   There are differences between the old and new philosophies, however; for many feminists, the motivation behind “women supporting women” diverges from de Pizan's motivation. If the quote ended after “like sisters,” we might be able to say that de Pizan could fit right alongside the third wave feminists. However, she continues, giving more detail for the reasoning behind her stance—this is where we can see these differences. She writes that women should emulate or seek to behave as princesses, not fishwives. Hmmm. She then attributes very different qualities to these two types of women. First, she writes earlier in the book that princesses are “mild” and “pure.” The lower-class woman, however, is quarrelsome and not to be trusted because she is apt to betray others.

   Why draw this line between them? The main difference between a princess and a fishwife is social standing. We all know what a princess is—a royal and rich woman, among other things. A fishwife, on the other hand, sells fish, so she is probably not rich, and she is certainly not royal. The morality and worth, then, of these women are determined by their standing within society, not their personhood. This is the main difference between the implications of de Pizan’s rhetoric and the goal of the feminist rhetoric of today. In modern words, de Pizan’s writings are not intersectional. Today’s intersectional feminists, on the other hand, seek to liberate all women when they use the phrase “girls supporting girls.” They, especially younger women, seek to support and find community with other women regardless of background by invoking this phrase.

   However, not all feminists are on the same page—liberal, middle class, white feminists, often dubbed simply “white feminists,” are still in de Pizan’s mindset when they appeal to sisterhood. They seek to liberate the women who look like them, and they twist the meaning of third wave feminism to do so. A specific example of this can be found in the reaction to the announcement of Amy Coney Barrett’s supreme court nomination. Many leftist activists were against this choice—she has a history of regressive views, so if she were to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, important rulings such as Roe v. Wade could be overturned. Many centrist and liberal women were upset by this reaction, claiming that women need to “uplift each other” no matter what. This rhetoric essentially co-opted the phrase “women supporting women,” because the need for women to support each other doesn’t mean blindly extending approval to every woman. Rather, it means all women need to come together and unify against oppression, no matter their race, sexuality, occupation, etc.. When a woman participates in extending oppression, as in Barrett’s case, her agenda should no longer be supported—it doesn’t matter that she’s a woman, she still seeks to do harm, rather than good according to feminist thought.

   So, that brings us to the problem with the phrase “girls supporting girls”: it is entirely too vague to be the motto of the movement. It is incredibly easy to bend the meaning of the message to support an agenda it was never meant to support. Conservative women are able to call feminists hypocritical because they can purposefully misunderstand the phrase. Their argument becomes, “well, if you’re not supporting me, a woman, how can you say your support all women? You feminists are oppressive after all!” Such rhetoric weakens the feminist movement by persuading centrists, who otherwise might be interested in feminist thought, to believe that feminists are indeed the angry, bra-burning women the second wave warned them about (side note, why do people hate that image? Seems badass to me—but I digress.) It’s also very easy to do the bare minimum and still say you’re living up to the expectations set by feminism if this is the phrase by which you judge your own activism. Did you compliment a woman today? Yes? Wow, you must be a feminist queen! “Girls supporting girls” as the cornerstone of third wave philosophy allows feminists to avoid deeper thought and meaningful, community-driven action. Thus this motto is perhaps doing more harm than good as one of the main ways feminism is being marketed to the masses.

  That’s not to say the thought behind the phrase is bad—it’s a good notion for women to support one another, even if the action is as small as complimenting one another. Sisterhood is important for the movement’s future. However, not everyone reads into subjects before forming opinions about them—people read the headline or watch the first few seconds of a video and continue with their day. This means that people outside of social movements such as feminism can easily misunderstand what the movement is about, especially if the rhetoric surrounding the activism is unclear. For this reason, a movement’s rhetoric needs to portray the goals of the movement accurately and specifically. For example, many of the Black Lives Matter protests which happened this summer (and continue to happen even now) use(d) the phrase “no justice, no peace.” This is clear and specific—if there is no justice for those who have been harmed, there will never be peace within society. If feminists want to continue to make political progress, they need to develop the rhetoric which is seen by the masses to a similar state of specificity. Otherwise, women with views like Christine de Pizan, such as Barrett sympathizers, can continue to co-opt the movement. It’s not enough to say “women should love and support one another”; there are too many potential meanings to be had in this phrase. If you are Christine de Pizan or a “white feminist,” this means women in the upper class should stick together to behave in a way which is acceptable to the patriarchy, whereas, to intersectional feminists, this sentiment means unifying to end oppression. These are two completely different goals, so it is important for modern feminists to create a new face for our activism if we are to continue to progress an intersectional feminist agenda.

*I want to quickly point out that there is a history of division between Black feminists and White feminists in this ideology. White feminists, as people with privilege in regard to their race, have not done a good job of including Black women in the movement for women’s rights at any point within the feminist struggle. This has caused many Black women to feel alienated from the “sisterhood” White women champion as being one of feminism’s greatest goals. This is one of the pitfalls of the vague phrase “girls supporting girls” I was referring to when I said the execution isn’t always beneficial. Moving forward, White women need to do better to include Black women, as well as all women of color, in feminist circles, where White women still hold quite a bit of power despite the emphasis on intersectionality and equality in the modern movement.