Gillian Schutte
In a recent incident, a post on Richard Poplak’s X (formerly Twitter) account, featuring a close-up photograph of Independent Media Editor-in-Chief Adri Senekal De Wet, a close associate of Iqbal Survé, became the focal point of a heinous display of cruelty and face-shaming on social media.
The attack, as noted by a colleague, represented a new level of bullying. The post elicited a torrent of laughing emojis, cruel commentary and disparaging remarks about Senekal De Wet’s appearance, including drag references and Chuckie comments. Poplak himself seemed to take pleasure in the response, clearly viewing it as a successful demonstration of his intent.
What should be surprising is that Marianne Thamm, an editor from the Daily Maverick, not only ignored this blatant shaming but also participated in it. Her involvement contradicts her professed feminist values.
The disregard for the manipulation evident in Poplak’s choice to use a close-up snapshot to distort Senekal De Wet’s appearance exposes a disturbing acceptance of Poplak’s phallocentric attempt to assert dominance on the other and render her abject. The unfortunate incident underscores a broader problem: the apparent enthusiasm of liberal feminists participating in the online shaming and harassing of women whose ideology opposes theirs.
The hypocrisy within feminist circles, particularly among liberal feminist journalists, demands a psychoanalytic examination. It is this framework that I look to in uncovering the underlying contradictions and unconscious desires that manifest in the behaviours and discourses of the journalists. How else could one explain the unreasonable actions of those who, while publicly advocating for inclusivity and equality, simultaneously engage in brutal body shaming and dehumanisation of women who have differing ideologies?
The recurring denigratory articles in the Daily Maverick targeting prominent woman like Lindiwe Sisulu, Busisiwe Mkhwebane and Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma reveal this disturbing agenda as one that is centred on dehumanising their ideological adversaries. The articles, often written by self-identified feminists, use harsh language and invectives to shame and tarnish their targets, manufacturing public scorn and derision. The lack of accountability and sanctioning for such behaviour is alarming. Despite my numerous articles criticising the trend, the critiques have been strategically ignored, amplifying the hypocrisy within liberal feminist circles.
In seeking a psychoanalytic feminist framework to adequately deconstruct the issue, I found only Slavoj Žižek, the Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic, approaching my perspective. Liberal feminists may critique this choice, but their feminism appears to be more about ideological deception than genuinely advocating for women’s rights. Liberal feminism has illustrated this penchant in its susceptibility to masculinisation and weaponisation in the name of Western expansionism and geopolitics. In addition, from my experience as a social justice feminist, liberal feminism most often fails to consider the collective good.
Through a Žižekian lens, the symbolic violence in the denigratory articles reflects broader ideological mechanisms. Žižek's critique of ideology reveals how such rhetoric reinforces power structures and maintains the marginalisation of women who challenge the status quo. The strategic ignoring of my counter-criticism by the Daily Maverick and other outlets, highlights a systemic resistance to confronting the ideological underpinnings of the dehumanisation. It is this ignorance that reveals a deep complicity in preserving oppressive discourses within feminist and media circles.
The act of public shaming by liberal feminist journalists, scrutinised through a psychoanalytic lens, can be understood as a disavowed form of aggression. This mechanism allows subjects to mask their insecurities and contradictions by projecting them onto a scapegoat. It upholds the illusion of ideological purity and moral superiority while reinforcing power structures.
The implications of the analysis are profound. It suggests that the double standards and hypocrisies within liberal feminist circles are not mere individual moral failings but are rooted in the structural and psychological dimensions of ideology. Addressing the issues seems futile because it would require liberal feminists to confront and critique the contradictions sustaining their hegemonic perspective.
This would necessitate a more self-reflective and critical feminist practice that acknowledges its own limitations. However, liberalism itself is not inherently self-reflective; rather, it is self-serving.
One might argue that liberalism, as an ideology, is fundamentally anti-feminist and racist. After all, how can liberalism be anything other than a system designed by white men to secure their privileges? Perhaps the true shame for liberal feminists lies in adhering to values that are intrinsically misogynistic, individualistic and masculine —not for the collective good. In contrast, socialism presents itself as a feminist ideal, prioritising collective well-being over individual gain.
A Žižekian perspective reveals that the contradictions within liberal feminism are not accidental but inherent to its ideological framework. The aggressive dehumanisation of women with differing viewpoints is not merely a lapse in ethical judgement but a symptomatic expression of deeper ideological and psychological processes. The double standards expose the fissures within the liberal hegemonic framework.
The enjoyment derived from shaming and dehumanising others – what Žižek terms “jouissance” – is a transgressive pleasure that reinforces the subject’s ideological righteousness. The pleasure is intertwined with the pain and prohibition that come from violating proclaimed feminist values.
Shaming and dehumanising others serve as a mechanism to realign oneself with the symbolic order of the liberal hegemonic perspective. By projecting their own anxieties and insecurities onto a scapegoat, the feminists temporarily resolve the dissonance between their ideals and actions. The scapegoating externalises internal conflicts, creating a sense of cohesion within their ideological framework.
Žižek’s concept of “ideological fantasy” explains how the double standards operate. Ideological fantasy masks the inconsistencies of the symbolic order, offering a coherent narrative that sustains belief in the ideology. For liberal feminists, the fantasy is one of a just and inclusive society free from oppression. Yet the reality is fraught with contradictions. Shaming and dehumanising others helps maintain the fantasy by displacing contradictions onto an external figure.
The persistence of the double standards can also be understood through the psychoanalytic concept of the “return of the repressed”. Repressed desires and conflicts inevitably resurface in distorted forms. For liberal feminists, the repressed elements are the gender inequalities and exclusions their ideology seeks to eradicate. When the repressed elements resurface, they manifest as aggressive acts towards those who challenge or differ from their ideological stance. The return of the repressed is an unconscious compulsion to repeat the forms of domination and exclusion that their ideology aims to eliminate.
Given the analysis, one might hope that the Daily Maverick, particularly Thamm, would reflect on their double standards, offer an apology to Senekal De Wet and hold Poplak accountable for his actions. However, such an outcome seems unlikely. The ingrained hypocrisies within the circles are deeply rooted in the ideological and psychological frameworks that sustain their power structures. True change would require a fundamental shift towards a more self-reflective and critical feminist practice, one that genuinely prioritises collective inclusivity and equality over ideological conformity. Until then, the cycle of dehumanisation and shaming is likely to persist, exposing the profound contradictions at the heart of liberal feminism.
* Schutte has a degree in African politics, an MA in creative writing and a film director’s qualification from the Binger Institute, in the Netherlands.