Sir, – I refer to "Lord protect me from easily offended snowflake girls" (Life, October 17th). Although I am in agreement with the author's disdain for Special K's "Strength Is . . ." campaign, I found the article condescending and lacking in cultural context.
Campaigns like the one outlined are clear examples of postfeminist advertising that seek to use feminism as a marketing tool to “empower” women. This is problematic because of how it shuts down meaningful conversations about feminism.
However, Arlene Harris seems to take most issue with the concept of women, or should I say “snowflake girls”, feeling offended by words like “bird”, “bitchy” or “hysterical”, making the point that men also have to suffer similar linguistic sleights through being called a “hunk” or a “stud”.
The author’s point seems to be that men don’t complain, so why should women? Language is a powerful tool, and, historically, has been used to keep women in their place.
Words like “hysterical” forced creative women during the Victorian era to be shut away, their pens and books taken from them lest their intelligence ruin their capacity for bearing children.
Of course offensive language is also used to stereotype men, and that’s an issue in itself. But perhaps women feel more compelled to complain because the language they deem offensive is the same language that stops them from entering the workforce, walking alone at night, getting involved in politics, or even enjoying the same pay as men. Men are not – and have never been – treated as the “inferior gender”, as the author asserts.
Campaigns that espouse pretend feminism for monetary gain should always be derided. However, to dismiss the implications of language, and to ignore the cultural context from which such anger arises, amounts to no more than a “snowflake” argument – it holds no weight and is of no real value. – Yours, etc,
HEATHER BROWNING,
Templeogue,
Dublin 6W.
A chara, – I was angered and disappointed to read Arlene Harris’s article on so-called “snowflake girls” . She states that she is not bothered by language that other women find offensive and implies that she, unlike these other women, is strong and empowered. But a truly strong and empowered woman would not use her position to denounce an entire generation of women as “fragile”, “pitiful”, “weak”, “pathetic” “oversensitive”, “feeble”, and “ridiculous” “girls”, whose calls for gender equality and empowerment are mere “shrieking” and “bleating”.
Arlene Harris demeans young women in one breath then berates them for feeling demeaned in the next. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. – Is mise,
CADHLA McDONNELL,
State College,
Pennsylvania.