Disentangling Antifeminist Paradoxes: Alternative Organizing in Antifeminist Online Spaces

Organizing Paradoxes

Irrationalities exist at the center of the organizing process, as members navigate competing identities, interests, and perspectives (Ashcraft & Trethewey, 2004). During organizing processes, members experience an array of constraints and stressors that influence decision making, behaviors, and norms and that manifest into a variety of enduring contradictions known as paradoxes (Putnam, 1986; Putnam & Ashcraft, 2017). Paradoxes occur when “in the pursuit of one goal, the pursuit of another goal enters the situation (often without intention) so as to undermine the first pursuit” (Stohl & Cheney, 2001, p. 354). Because they include the added element of interdependence, paradoxes are complex, persistent, and deeply embedded within an organization (Stohl & Cheney, 2001; Putnam et al., 2016).

This study is concerned with the organizing paradoxes of women enacting and supporting the antifeminist (and seemingly anti-women) goals of TRP through reliance on postfeminist discourses (Hirschmann, 2010). The antithetical nature of RPW is ripe for inquiry as it integrates both gendered and feminist paradoxical organizing. Paradoxes are a natural consequence of organizing processes when two mutually exclusive, contradictory goals persist over time (Putnam et al., 2016). Smith and Lewis (2011) argued that these organizing paradoxes frequently include the conventional versus feminist organization themes of competition versus collaboration (Murnighan & Conlon, 1991), authority versus empowerment (Denison et al., 1995), and control versus flexibility (Adler, et al., 1999). Relatedly, Putnam and Ashcraft (2017) suggested gender, organizations, and paradoxes as interdependent and mutually evolving through the communicative practices and actions that define organizing.

Data Collection

The data were collected on January 15 to 16, 2020 by copying both the texts and comment/reply threads from the Top 50 posts of all time on r/RedPillWomen. Top posts may have changed since this time and/or comments may have been added or removed, but top posts are generally stable and indicative of the most popular topics of conversation on the subreddit since its creation in 2013. Top posts are calculated by upvotes, which are markers of approval on Reddit. The conversations occurring in the Top 50 posts produced a text corpus of 2,603 comments and 1,094 total pages of text.

Data Analysis

To analyze the data, we engaged in three phases of analysis: text mining, semantic network analysis, and constant comparative method. Through this ongoing and reflexive process, we sought to understand and disentangle the discursive paradoxes of RPW.

Feminism ↔ Antifeminism

The first, most enduring, paradox across all networks involves the tension between the d/Discourses of F/feminism (Gee, 2015). Discussions on RPW organize against the Discourse, or the ideology, of the feminist movement, and organize around the discourse, or everyday talk, of feminism. Members distinguish between the historically-informed ideology of the feminist movement—which the community and individual members reject by identifying as antifeminists—while embracing the everyday practice of feminism (e.g., the right to determine how they live their lives or choose to maintain traditional gender roles and norms). This tension becomes most apparent in analysis of the two largest clusters. Figure 1 illustrates the prevalence of “modern feminist,” “classic feminism,” and “legal feminist,” suggesting that a substantial amount of the conversation on RPW is dedicated to defining and distinguishing feminist systems of belief. ²

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Semantic network illustrating paradoxical tensions between feminism and antifeminism on r/RedPillWomen.

Our analysis suggests that members organize around what they call “classic feminist” and organize against “modern feminism.” As this comment illustrates, “modern feminism” is ideological, and consequently corrupt, whereas “classic feminism” is located at the individual level, through which members utilize feminist theory to advocate for individual choice:

Real feminism supports women’s choices; whether they want a career or to become a stay at home wife or mother. Classic feminism was important, women were abused and were treated like subhumans. I am thankful to the suffragettes for fighting for our rights, but this is why it is so frustrating when idiotic snowflakes misuse feminism.

As exemplified in this quote, real feminism is the everyday experience of feminism, highlighting the discursive construction of feminism. On the other hand, modern feminism is rooted in the Discursive ideology of feminism. Members often rely on a false dichotomy of choice to justify their engagement with antifeminism: “Classic feminism aims for women to have a choice between having a career and being a stay at home mom.” Here, users embrace postfeminist logics that feminists should advocate for women’s choices, and not pass judgment if, or when, those choices support the patriarchy (Hatton & Trautner, 2013; Snyder-Hall, 2010; Thwaites, 2017). While choice feminism has been extended to sexual liberation, RPW members most frequently emphasize their choice to participate in the TRP in terms of a desire to accept some feminist claims while rejecting others. For example, one user positioned her choice to adopt The Red Pill philosophy as “the ultimate feminist act.” RPW’s postfeminist organizing is in line with past research suggesting women tend to reproduce, rather than challenge, problematic gender relations on social media (Duffy, 2010, 2015). Despite its pseudonymous nature, RPW’s reliance on choice feminism—centered on the working vs. stay-at-home wife and mother—reproduces the postfeminist assumption that womanhood is white, middle class, and heteronormative (Genz, 2009). That is, there is a long-held implication within antifeminist discourses that stay-at-home mothers are white, middle class women who oppose equal rights, yet paradoxically it is only women who embody these assumed subjectivities who are able to access the privileged choice to stay home (Marshall, 1991).

By organizing around postfeminism, members accept the benefits of feminism while continuing to support and engage with RPW as an antifeminist network. The women of RPW feel abandoned by a feminist ideology which has demonized traditional gender role choices: “I am a classic feminist, this new feminism is ridiculous. I believe in choice. If a woman wants to be single, working, and have no kids, or if she wants to be a homemaker with her husband working, that’s her choice.” This comment further cements RPW’s paradoxical entanglement between the discourse of the classic feminist movement and the Discourse of the modern feminist ideology, in that it relies on a postfeminist assumption that feminism was successful and is no longer necessary (McRobbie, 2004). In other words, participants on RPW advance “legal feminists,” while denouncing “liberal feminists,” which, if tracing the connections of “liberal” in Figure 1, can be seen as connected to nodes such as “current,” “social,” and “problem.” RPW constructs classic feminism as legal feminism. Comments call attention to the late 19th century and early 20th century to highlight the vulnerability of the past and, in so doing, discount the vulnerabilities of women in the present. Postfeminism is organized around the notion that women hold active political agency and subjectivity, yet the primary place in which this agency is recognized and legitimized is in the marketplace (Banet-Weiser & Portwood-Stacer, 2006).

Postfeminism seemingly endorses and promotes individualism, and RPW members organize around these logics of individual liberties, choices, and rights while labeling the RPW subdreddit as an antifeminism network. Comments discussing feminism reflect this organizing tension, as participants seek to negotiate the postfeminist dichotomies between freedom of choice and boundedness (Genz, 2009; Gill, 2003):

Feminism has made women unhappy. Feminism made us forget what femininity means and forget the true nature of masculinity. This makes it so much harder to date because it creates a power imbalance. Feminism has created the idea that unless you’re working outside the home you are not a valuable member of society. Even though “true feminism” is the right to choose, feminists look down on being a housewife. And who pays for both parents wanting to be the dad? The kids.

This comment argues that current feminism is damaging for both men and women because it ignores the biological differences between men and women, leaving men with less responsibility and diminished power. In turn, feminism has made men less sexually appealing to their (presumed heterosexual) partners. In line with TRP’s goal of liberating the public from deeply held feminist ideologies, the antifeminism argument of RPW is guided by the belief that feminism is a hegemonic force throughout society. It is because of this belief system—juxtaposed against the praise of postfeminism—that RPW develops an antifeminism ↔ feminist paradox.

Feminism ↔ Femininity

The second paradox develops out of the tension between institutionalized feminism and traditional femininity as members negotiate their networked conception of womanhood. In this sense, we refer to institutionalized feminism as contemporary, ideological feminism, which, within the context of RPW, is believed to be pervasive and corrupt. Unlike modern feminism, which is frequently used in juxtaposition against classic feminism, institutionalized feminism is perceived by RPW as the hegemonic and socio-political system of support for feminism. Within the largest cluster (see Figure 2), nodes like “strong,” and “independent,” contrast with nodes like “feminine,” and “attractive.” These nodes showcase a larger pattern of discourse within the RPW network that constructs a masculine characterization of liberal feminists juxtaposed against the feminine women of RPW. Specifically, RPW wrestles with the concept of independence as a threat to the idealized presentation of white, middle class, heteronormative femininity. In RPW terms, an independent woman is often single or unmarried, a man-hater, and believed to be hypocritical for her denouncement of RPW’s postfeminist logics of choice.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Semantic network of r/RedPillWomen, illustrating competing paradoxes around femininity and feminism.

The “strong independent feminist” is a frequent caricature within RPW discourse. The following comment aptly summarizes many of the RPW’s critiques of the prevailing form of feminism:

Modern feminists don’t love women, they just hate men. If they loved women, they wouldn’t encourage rampant promiscuity as ‘empowering,’ fat acceptance, abortion on demand, under the guise of ‘Strong Independent Women.’ Feminism is all about deluding you into thinking these things will make you happy, right up until you kill yourself from cognitive dissonance and actual despair.

In this sense, RPW admonishes feminists as unhappy, repulsive to men, and unenlightened. Additionally, RPW seemingly critiques “independence” as an immoral way of living (e.g., references to “abortion on-demand” and “rampant promiscuity”) that threatens a woman’s femininity. For this reason, many members of RPW view independence as antithetical to women’s interests. Consider this comment, in which the user contends that women have adopted an attitude of independence as a misguided attempt to attract men:

Women portray themselves as strong, independent, accomplished, well-traveled, successful, and somewhat unavailable to attract men. Women reflect what they find attractive in men, but men do not find those qualities attractive in women. If you look at online dating profiles, you will see a lot of examples of women displaying exactly these types of characteristics.

Independence is essentialized as a trait of men, not women. RPW strongly imposes a gender binary of traits, leading to a reverence of femininity.

RPW conceptualizes femininity as a challenge against the institutional feminist movement, while organizing femininity through recognizable postfeminist and conservative traits, namely materialism and motherhood. This comment illustrates this belief system:

I could eat ramen every night and live in a grungy apartment, but I don’t want that for my children. I want my kids to grow up in a safe area, eat healthy food, go to college, so I know I will need money. Money isn’t just for designer clothes; it means being able to afford a high-quality life. It’s natural to want to marry a wealth man because it stems from our maternal instincts. Money is an important consideration when you think about starting a family with someone. Feminine women have a natural maternal instinct, they exude feminine serenity, which is hard to do when you’re poor or stressed. With men as the providers, natural femininity is going to thrive.

Significantly, materialism is often heralded as a distinguishing feature of postfeminist discourse. Materialism as a feminist act is critiqued by researchers for equating consumerism with self-expression (Arthurs, 2003). RPW, however, frames materialism as a biological imperative of womanhood which assumes women have a natural inclination to shop, acquire material possessions, and secure a stable financial future for themselves and their family.

Despite the rejection of the “strong independent woman” identity, a paradox develops as RPW subverts the feminist enactment by creating their own alternative ideals of the “strong independent woman.” Within RPW, independence is used to navigate traditional gender roles, norms, and relationships. As this comment explains, independence can be useful for creating a happy marriage:

Men like women who can be independent, but they don’t like finger snapping, independent feminists. Men don’t want someone who is always seeking attention, men want a woman who can be alone happily. Men need downtime, it is not your husband’s job to keep you entertained all the time. You should have your own hobbies, friends, exercise, reading, this will help you and your husband grow separately but together.

While the comment clearly rejects the stereotype of the “strong independent feminist,” the advice—to develop your own social network, to engage in your own hobbies, to develop and evolve on your own—promotes the idea of independence as nonetheless critical for women. Within RPW, there is a clear tension between institutionalized feminism and traditional femininity as members seek to define womanhood in the context of their antifeminist network.

The paradox of feminism ↔ femininity resulted in identity tensions for some women in RPW. This comment, in particular, illustrates the feelings of liminality members of RPW can feel when told to be both independent and dependent: “I have struggled with my two selves; I am a strong, independent woman, who knows what she wants in life and in the bedroom. But, I am also a caregiver and I want to be appreciated for my homemaking skills. I shift between these two selves, but never feel like I am fully on one side.” Liminality—the state of in-betweenness when an individual is transitioning between two identities yet occupying neither—creates a paradoxical tension (Beech, 2011; Greco & Stenner, 2017; Turner, 1967). Liminality is most frequently guided by symbolic rituals which prompt an individual to adopt an identity. This comment reflects symbolic acts to distinguish between locations of independence (i.e., empowerment in the bedroom) and dependence (i.e., homemaking). Identity tensions are further discussed in the following section.

Subordination ↔ Empowerment

The final paradox identified is the subordination and empowerment paradox. Figure 2 illustrates the strong, central role “red_pill” serves in connecting the “women” and “men” clusters. Nodes connected to the “men” cluster (e.g., “want,” “allow,” “sexual”) when compared to nodes connected to the “women” cluster (e.g., “help,” “hot,”) suggest that women are acting in service to their husbands. RPW, as a self-proclaimed antifeminist network, advocates for women to be submissive to their husbands. The following example defines RPW’s conception of submission, situating it as a core value of the community:

Submission is a foundational ideal of RPW, but it can be hard to understand if you’re new here. New members come here and think we advocate for women to bend over backwards for men, but we are attracted to a man we can submit to. Saying ‘women date across and up’ means that women are attracted to men who are better than us in some ways. Men might be stronger, smarter, of a higher social status, or hold a more impressive job, but women are attracted to confidence. Submission is how we show men that we respect and admire them; men crave that response. In the West, people hear submission and are troubled, but everyone submits all the time; we defer to our bosses, our teachers, to experts. You defer to your partner out of love, but not because you can’t survive without him. Submission is a tactic that anyone can use to show respect for their man, it is how they love.

RPW rationalizes women’s submission by suggesting men hold more knowledge and experience and are more capable of taking on responsibility. A discourse of submission is evidenced throughout the community. As one commentator wrote, TRP and RWP’s philosophy on submission promotes clear gender roles that are perceived to ultimately make each partner happier: “A woman who is submissive to a man who feels no urge to take care of her, or a man who is protective of a woman who does not submit to him, will end up being harmed.” The discourse of submission within RWP—when drawn in contrast to the agentic authority women hold not only in their household but also over their men—creates a paradoxical tension. If men are driven by their biological urge for sexual conquest, as TRP suggests, then the women who can “tame” such an urge are, in fact, the empowered authority in a relationship.

While TRP philosophy generally frames men as empowered and in control of a woman, many of the comments of RPW frame men as de-humanized and animalistic. The following comment illustrates the many tasks a woman takes on to appease and satisfy her husband:

It takes a lot of hard work to be a woman worth committing to. When I get home from work, I’m so tired and I just want to relax on the couch, but I know I need to prepare dinner and look presentable. My biggest reward is his happiness: belly full, feet rubbed, sexually satiated. Why else would a man of high value want to commit?

In this comment, the woman describes all of the home work she completes—cleaning, cooking, taking care of her appearance—but her description of her husband’s actions is extremely passive; her husband is described as having his belly full, his feet rubbed, being sexually satisfied. A paradox develops, however, as men are frequently discussed and presented within RPW as empowered and in control, while simultaneously dehumanized through discourses of an animal nature that can easily be fulfilled through a woman’s actions.

The dialogical tension between men as in control and men as subordinate is an unacknowledged paradox within RPW discourse. As this comment explains, men are seen as frequently enslaved to their biological drive for sex (Eddington, 2020):

I am so sad for young women today, who are looking for traditional love and marriage in a sea of feminism, immature boys, or serial daters. I see you. The real men exist but they are rare, and many of you have had to choose less-than-ideal men that you think you can fix, which is often disappointing. Biologically, men have two evolutionary mating strategies, and women should know this. First, men are designed to want to seed as many women as possible, in the hopes of reproducing. This is the older, animalistic strategy. The second strategy is more ‘evolved.’ Men look for a woman with the best genetics possible, and then he will have children with her. In this instance he will stay to ensure their safety and survival.

Through situating a man’s agency within his desire for heterosexual sex—especially with reference to mating strategies, survival, and safety—this comment de-humanizes men, removes their agency, and suggests men are animalistic. This logic also prompts RPW members to make excuses for men’s behaviors: “I am not so insecure to believe my man does not look at attractive women. I understand testosterone and I understand men, and men have been looking at women for millennia.” Throughout RPW discourse, men’s agency is removed in favor of his “biological drive” for sex.

Because of this discourse, women are often framed as holding control over men’s desires. This comment, for example, typifies men as “simple creatures” who are easily satiated:

Men are simple creatures, they need respect, admiration, and a lot of sex. Men might be different in their specific needs, but these character traits are found among most men. Men want a woman who takes care of herself, is full of sexual desire, is useful, and sees her husband as her hero. These are the basic things that are critically important, everything else is irrelevant.

The lack of agency prescribed to men is in dialogical contrast to the agency assumed by women. Returning to Figure 2, where men are connected to nodes like “sexual” and “want,” women are connected to nodes that suggest authority, such as “energy” and “teach.” In Figure 2, “women” and “men” are connected by nodes like, “strong” and “help,” which suggest that RPW views women as simultaneously subordinated (as they are meant to be protected by men) and empowered (as they are ultimately able to control and have power over men). The following comment further suggests that women’s role is to help men: “The secret to any healthy relationship with your man: respect him (no shouting, no orders, listen to what he says, no complaints), and take care of him (cook, support, help him when he asks). Not that hard.” Other comments indicate that a woman’s role should be to help a man achieve his goals.

Ultimately, the subordination ↔ empowerment discourse provides RPW members with an understanding of sex as an agentic act. Where TRP posters view sexual activity as agentic insomuch as they can rebuild their identities (Eddington, 2020; Van Valkenburgh, 2018), RPW constructs sex as a way to retain status quo. For example, consider this women’s narrative in which she relays how she uses sex in her marriage:

In our bedroom, we have a large whiteboard where we coordinate errands, plans, and any reminders. Having this list means I don’t need to remind/nag him. We only discuss the whiteboard after sex, so about twice a day. We don’t often have long verbal conversations because after more than a decade we developed a ‘shorthand’ language together since we share all the same references and history.

Sexual activity is a tool used in a relationship to push men toward responsibility and, in turn, the women gain agentic control of the relationship. Sexual activity, according to RPW, is the primary way in which women display their love and respect for their partner, but so too does it allow women to reinforce control over a man. In sum, where sex, according to the TRP, is an agentic act of identification, sex within RPW is designed to reinforce status quo.

Alternative Feminist Organizing

Through analyzing RPW, this study extends current theorizing on alternative feminist organizing by considering the complex organizing discourses of an antifeminist online community of women. Alternative organizing occurs counter to mainstream organizing and organizations and is structured through “opposition to conventional thinking”—namely perceptions of institutionalized, ideological feminism (Buzzanell et al., 1997, p. 291). Whereas organizational communication scholars have begun to consider alternative configurations of organizations/organizing (see Buzzanell et al., 1997 and Cheney, 1995), Ashcraft (2001) made explicit feminist approaches to alternative organizing by citing feminist logics (e.g., equality, collaboration, democratic communication) as central to studying offline feminist organizations. Our study builds upon these considerations by exploring RPW’s paradoxical organizing around postfeminist logics that creates space for antifeminist praxis. Historically, women who participate in antifeminist counter movements have done so in order to preserve the existing status quo and mobilize against social change (Blais & Dupuis-Déri, 2012; Finneman, 2020). Similar assertations have been made with regard to contemporary social media activism where young women have been found to promote the conservation of traditional gender roles (Sorce, 2018). What distinguishes the RPW network from previous antifeminist activism is how the community seemingly embodies postfeminism while adopting a label of antifeminism through a nuanced entanglement of conflicting values. As Jordan (2016) highlights in her analysis of feminist, backlash, and postfeminist narratives, “it is not adequate to see postfeminist ideas as merely a masquerade for an antifeminist backlash perspective” (p. 42). Rather, these concepts are nuanced in their engagement. How members of RPW engage with one another and TRP is centered on networked and alternative representations of postfeminism; that is, participants not only advocate for the right to choose, they so too praise classic feminists for making significant strides in equality. In line with McRobbie’s (2004) argument that postfeminism hinges on the positive invocation of feminism as successful, RPW seemingly embraces an idealized feminist history, while admonishing current feminists as unnecessary. In doing so, RPW diminishes concern for raced and classed power and institutionalized structures that make choice accessible, instead assuming equal access to choose. Because of these logics, choice feminism minimizes any claims of systemic discrimination as victimhood-seeking (Hirschmann, 2010) and participants of RPW function under an unspoken assumption of whiteness.

Postfeminists and antifeminist activists engage gender differently; where postfeminism is ambivalent to gender, antifeminists politicize gender (Jordan, 2016). Through analysis of dominant patterns of communication, it became evident that RPW accounts for gender but does not invoke gender as political. Rather, RPW treats gender as an assumed category of difference, one grounded in biology and nature. Past research suggests that conservative women may act as gender-conscious political actors who organize and speak for women while simultaneously shunning feminism (Celis & Childs, 2012; Schreiber, 2012, 2018). Politically conservative women, like those who align themselves with RPW, emphasize their gender identity by drawing on traditional ideological values of femininity as a way to argue against, or challenge, modern feminist activism (Schreiber, 2018). Thus, in RPW, while gender is accounted for and recognized, gender is an assumed natural category.

RPW perceives feminism as a prevailing institution which harms both men and women. In contrast, through conversation, RPW constructs conventional femininity in opposition to institutionalized, ideological feminism, creating an either/or dichotomy. This construction of traditional femininity is in line with Genz’s (2009) conception of postfemininity which combines notions of (sexual) freedom and agency with consumerism and political/ideological calls for self-improvement. Improving one’s femininity is seen as the ultimate postfeminist success, paving a pathway for working-class (white) women to access social/economic esteem (Genz, 2015). Considering the traditional, conservative femininity promoted by RPW and the conditions of postfemininity articulated by Genz (2009), it becomes clear how RPW’s conception of femininity is influenced by postfeminist discourses. After all, RPW structures economic success as vital to a happy life and healthy family. RPW encourages participants to seek out a husband who can provide material security, further appealing to the postfeminist ethos of commodification (Marwick, 2013). Recognizing the value RPW places with stay-at-home mothers, this economic structure further illustrates the presumed whiteness of RPW members, who operate within a larger capitalist structure that assumes access to the choice to be a homemaker.

As an example of alternative feminist organizing, RPW organizes through antifeminist and postfeminist paradoxes pertaining to gender, equality, and femininity. RPW embraces a vision of achieved equality while simultaneously assuming a subservient position to men. RPW denounces modern feminists for framing gender as political while also utilizing their gender to validate their perspective. And RPW articulates a vision of femininity grounded within a neoliberal attitude of success. These paradoxes serve as a central organizing force, constituted through the d/Discourse of RPW.

(In)Visible Feminist Organizing

A second key insight is the way paradoxes enable RPW to function as an (in)visible gendered network. RPW visibly engages postfeminist discourses within their own community and invisibly weaves postfeminism within the broader network of The Red Pill. Buzzanell (1994) encourages researchers to interrogate how we “communicatively reposition female ‘weaknesses’ such as ‘lack of assertiveness’ and unwillingness to utilize power displays as strength” (p. 367). We suggest that RPW’s use of postfeminism serves as a visible, revisionist feminist act insomuch as members re-write their subordination as empowerment. However, in doing so, RPW invisibly weaves agentic authority into the TRP network. Extending Scott’s (2013) and Stohl and Stohl’s (2011, 2017) theorizing on the communicative constitution of hidden organizations, we argue RPW functions as an (in)visible feminist network that uses gendered (in)visibility to navigate and organize in the broader TRP network. Jensen and Meisenbach (2015) suggest tensions develop necessarily through (in)visible, alternative organizing. Within RPW, paradoxes provide a means to balance the (in)visible agentic authority of women against the visible, conventional gender roles espoused by TRP. Cruz (2017) advocates for a de-Westernized view of invisibility, wherein invisibility is not framed as malevolent, but rather invisibility can offer productive potential. While RPW develops through an unacknowledged veil of whiteness that is wholly situated within a Western, capitalist structure, RPW disrupts perceptions of invisibility as negative. Rather, through normalizing their invisible agency as women and paradoxically weaving postfeminist discourses alongside their antifeminist praxis, RPW members utilize their invisible membership to advocate and advance their standpoint as women within TRP.

As evidence throughout the paradoxes, RPW members communicatively construct narratives of women’s empowerment that are absent from TRP. Where TRP is designed as a sexual strategy for men to combat feminism (Eddington, 2020; Van Valkenburgh, 2018), RPW fosters a sexual strategy for women to regain control and assert dominance in their relationships. For example, sex is used to foster communication in a relationship, which RPW and TRP suggest men are biologically adverse from desiring. It is precisely RPW’s invisible status that allows the organization to covertly transform narratives surrounding feminism, femininity, and sex within an antifeminist community by embracing postfeminist logics. Thus, the affordance of RPW’s gendered invisibility is key to understanding members’ participation in antifeminist movements.

Like second-wave, conscious-raising sessions of the past, the invisible, pseudonymous network of RPW offers feminist affordances for its members. Prior feminist technology studies (Pruchniewska, 2019) have identified the potential of technology to “afford or inhibit the doing of particular gender power relations” (Wajcman, 2010, p. 150). The affordances of gendered (in)visibility offer participants the ability to communicate their ideals about womanhood, critique feminists, and talk openly about their experiences and desires in a relatively supportive climate (Linabary et al., 2020). Additionally, our study found that the members of RPW often utilize (in)visibility to navigate the broader TRP network in which they are embedded. Their hypervisibility as women is made manifest through the enactment of the separate RPW space, but they are also seemingly hidden as agentic actors within TRP (e.g., they are barred from explicitly noting their presence within the TRP main site). Unlike other women who navigate an (in)visibility paradox in professional spaces (Faulkner, 2009), the women of RPW are unfailingly visible as women. We suggest that RPW paradoxically serves as an (in)visible gendered network allowing members to navigate the double bind of hyper-visible women in a broader antifeminist organizational network.

Expanding Feminist Organizing

Finally, we offer feminist organizational communication researchers a unique consideration on the act of studying antifeminist groups and their d/Discourses on- and offline. Schreiber (2018) calls upon researchers to consider the possibility of reframing conservative activists’ adoption and discussion of women’s issues in “feminist positive frames” (p. 76). Our findings suggest that the women of RPW are enacting feminist goals throughout their interactions with one another in r/RedPillWomen. For instance, their reliance on collaboration and personal narratives is a potential embodiment of feminist organizing values in an antifeminist online space (Buzzanell, 1994). Moreover, through RPW’s paradoxical organizing, members represent and showcase the limitations of women’s voices and experiences in modern, mainstream feminist organizing. As Schreiber (2002) notes, scholars often adopt reductive framing of conservative women as lacking in agency for their choices. Instead, scholars ought to consider those women’s “reasons for joining conservative organizations and forming alliances with groups that disapprove of feminist and liberal views and beliefs” (Schreiber, 2002, p. 341, emphasis in original).

We argue that feminist organizational communication scholars would gain much in exploring how, why, and in what ways conservative women’s groups, like RPW, are organizing. In other words, scholars would do well to make a “distinction between making a feminist choice and feminist reaction to a particular choice” (Hirschmann, 2010, p. 275, emphasis in original). This distinction matters inasmuch as it helps to explain and contextualize the discursive realities and perceptions of an important and vital voting bloc in U.S. political institutions both on- and offline. In our introduction, we discussed the prevalence and popularity of the antifeminist white women’s voting bloc, and RPW certainly plays a role in mirroring and echoing the worldviews of this group. As shown throughout this study, RPW adopts and supports antifeminism on the surface; however, their engagement and ideas shared in posts and comments illuminate the presence of postfeminist logics. Our study demonstrated the paradoxical presence of postfeminism within a women’s antifeminist space—whether or not they acknowledge and name it as such. Therefore, we urge scholars to consider the importance of exploring conservative women’s activism and organizing as a situated voice within the future of feminist organizational communication theorizing. While expanding how scholars view antifeminist women’s groups, it is important to look for opportunities for connection, empathy, and understanding. The intersections of these moments may be ripe for illuminating, unpacking, and identifying spaces where continued barriers to gender equity persist (Schreiber, 2014).

Limitations and Future Directions

Through this study we engaged in a three-phase methodology to explore the antifeminist organizing of RPW. However, while we sought to illustrate the communication patterns and organizing behaviors of the women who participate in RPW, we are not able to say with full accuracy that participants in RPW are women, nor are we able to account for race or other identity markers. Rather, it is the reliance on postfeminism that grants us the ability to connect the d/Discourse of RPW to assumed Western, white, heteronormative, and middle-class womanhood. An additional limitation of semantic network research is the over-emphasis on word frequency as indicative of conversation; relying on frequency may negate nuanced ways in which meaning develops within the community.

Although antifeminism and postfeminism challenge traditional notions of feminist organizing, these feminist spaces continue to offer insights into how women organize, network, and share narratives. Within this study we sought to disentangle conflicting discussions of feminism and womanhood. Future research should consider the nuanced patterns in which ideology and everyday experiences contribute to organizing understanding. Further, future studies can investigate how women who identify as antifeminist contribute to D/discourses of womanhood and how antifeminist communities remain resilient despite public condemnation. In particular, advancing our use of (in)visible organizing, researchers should consider the how the technological affordances we identified interact with agency and embodiment to silence or empower women online.

Throughout our study we drew on similarities between the antifeminist mission of RPW and the political rhetoric of conservative women who advocate against feminism. Future research should further consider, through interviews or ethnographic research, the ways in which women profess antifeminism in offline contexts. For though text mining provides many benefits, investigating organizing patterns in an anonymous, asynchronous community inhibits a complete understanding of the women who organize in and throughout the world of The Red Pill.