I think I care because of the ideas of boycotting and divesting. If I'm buying a product from someone who supports Trump, then that money in my head goes towards that cause. Especially with a small business, it feels like I'm saying yes you can have those beliefs, and I will still give you money. That feels icky to me.
Yesterday I got an ad on Instagram for something that looked cool and I was curious to see how much it was, so I went to the site, and when I got there a banner popped up that said "Flash sale ends in:" with a countdown timer that was all 0s for a moment, then turned into 2 minutes and 39 seconds. I was like, I am not going to buy this thing in the next 2:39, but I feel like this is a random number generator and you're just trying to pressure me, so let's wait and see what happens when the timer runs out. The timer ran out. Flash sale over. Bummer! The sale price didn't immediately change, though. I refreshed the page. The exact same banner popped up, all 0s for a moment, then turned into 32 minutes and 12 seconds.
My point is that we're all being we're all being lied to constantly. 75% of my incoming phone calls are scams. Corporations say and do anything to get us to sign up for things then make it impossible to cancel. Republicans lie and lie and lie and the major TV networks and newspapers just nod along and agree with every single lie, no matter how brazen, no matter if the lie is the opposite of the lie they agreed with last week.
I am angry at everyone who contributes to this culture of mistrust, and that includes every single influencer that hems and haws about "what even is a feminist? politics? what's that? I just really like living this way and my choices are made in a vacuum and have absolutely nothing to do with any religion or worldview that wants to oppress everyone" is the same g-damn problem as "alternative facts" and "minimum national standard".
Kelly Havens Stickle doesn't have nearly the reach of Ballerina Farm, and that's 100% because she's not lying about why she lives the way she does. And I really hate KHS's worldview, but at least she's fucking honest about it! It's morally reprehensible to me the way Ballerina Farm (and others) present this vision of life as completely neutral and and politics-free.
And somehow, as a society, we've all just decided that it's not even the influencers' fault! (Not here, obviously, we know what's going on (https://sarapetersen.substack.com/p/the-warrior-moms-who-elected-trump). But there are so many people out there who will just brush it all off, like "well, you should just think about what you consume more! it's your fault if you fell for the sophisticated and coordinated propaganda" and give a pass to every single person who spends their life lying to us.
oh man yes the blaming it on the consumer thing is so real. also the social media companies could afford to do LITERALLY ANYTHING in terms of consumer interest and protections.
I’m going to preface this: I’m a Democrat who voted for Harris. I also live in the red state of WV and am surrounded by people who voted for Trump. I have seen that some people vote for Trump out of bigotry and hatred. But not everyone. My community is working class and Appalachian. Many of us feel barely-disguised contempt from elites, and yes, that means people who usually vote Democrat.
These experiences have taught me this: people’s politics are complicated. You can’t reduce a person down and say that you “know” what they are like (or even that you know what they believe) based upon who they voted for.
So, re: influencers — I care about their politics if it affects what they promote. So, if they promote taking away human rights? You bet I care. But I don’t think that you can always predict who is a force of good or bad based upon how someone votes. And I think that people who vote liberal also have the capacity to spread hatred and contempt for others, all of which is wrong.
I live in Boston which is the deepest blue and I also voted for Harris/Walz. I can vouch that yes, absolutely, people who vote liberal have ample capacity to promote hatred and contempt for others and I absolutely cringe at the lack of empathy.
I think the only caring I have about it is the reach these people have. If they have a big and superfan audience, and they themselves are MAGA, they're exerting their influence (consciously or not) in a direction that I don't like. Doesn't affect me personally, because I'm not a superfan. And I would love to know to what extent they DO influence people politically, besides moving the Overton window.
I will be wondering this, as we walk away from an election where celebrity endorsements didn’t matter but influencers involvement and podcast appearances did…
As feminists we sure as fuck care what these women and their families are doing politically. When they vote right wing ding it communicates that they (the wing dings) pose no existential threat to women and their/our rights. And yet, as we know, they most certainly do. Also Gen X FWIW.
Influencers have massive platforms, and they have influence. And probably the biggest reason I care (even though I am not active on social anymore and don't follow influencers, I used to be one) is because these women almost always have followings that are predominantly women, and they are profiting and benefitting in huge ways from these women, and then turning around and actively choosing to support policies and people that are causing harm to women. And I don't care if you're outwardly promoting policies and people that harm women or just not saying anything at all, both are detrimental to our freedom, bodily autonomy, and safety. They are selling a lie, and women (and other marginalized groups) are suffering from it.
I care about an influencer's politics--I'm not going to give someone clicks or views who was telling their followers to vote for Trump. But I also want to question whether someone's associations really do reveal their politics. I think assuming Hannah voted for Trump, or that her followers are more likely to move toward voting right wing because they like her, could be counterproductive for movement building to ever be able to elect another non-right winger.
Objectively, Britteny Martinez Hugeboom (Evie founder) is “in on the bit” [the political right wing movement]. I’m still wondering, though, whether Nara and Hannah are themselves, or if they just see the brand partnership with Evie as a business decision. And this matters because they have droves of self-described “apolitical” or “moderate” or “open minded” followers who could maybe be persuaded to vote differently depending on the candidates. Who might be interested in Evie magazine because they like Hannah and might keep reading because they didn’t like how they felt on hormonal birth control, but who could still be pulled toward a non-right wing candidate if the right case was made. If Hannah is labeled a right wing political figure because of her business decisions to associate with Hugeboom, are those followers more likely to start to self-identify as right wing vs open minded? And is Hannah herself more likely to become more politicized because what she perceives as the other side is telling her she already is?
I want to be able to defeat Peter Thiel and his minions in future elections, if we can preserve the ability to have more elections over the next 4 years, so I’m trying to consider how to swing the broad mass of women away from the next Trump. And I’m pretty sure that path doesn’t include telling them they’re on the bad side for liking to look at the pretty things that conservatives are using to veil their anti-trans, anti-women’s rights agenda. I do want to be clear that in my real life I put time and money into protecting trans rights—this idea is not to embrace Seth Moulton anti-trans virtue signaling. It’s to reject the conservative attempt to identify anyone who likes the aesthetics of high femme cosplay or sees themselves and their dreams reflected by BF as right wing, pro-life and anti-trans warriors.
We can't build a movement by shaming people for what they like, is where I'm currently sitting.
This is so well put Cait - it's such a vicious cycle in terms of who becomes radicalized first and for what reason (is Hannah the chicken or is she the egg lol). Although I can't FATHOM how anyone partners with Evie without also making a political statement? But you're right - there's no real way to know for sure.
I kind of can fathom it, is the thing--having a magazine fawn over her and celebrate her following the skeptical press from the Times of London, plus what I'm assuming she sees as an overlapping audience for their marketing makes it a no brainer business decision to work with Evie even if she's a non-voter or a non-party line voter. Her internal political right/wrong spectrum is clearly limited by having been raised in and still part of a devout Mormon family in Utah. I'm thinking of Design Mom's take on BF when the Times of London article came out.
I do believe she has been personally largely apolitical (I would not be surprised if they voted for Trump but I would be surprised if they are passionate MAGA). And where the tradwife trend has become increasingly political I’ve really appreciated that they have seemingly decided to stay out of it (because I also love pretty aesthetic farm things while considering myself a Bernie Sanders liberal 💖) I think it is possible that they are not fully aware of Evie’s politics and intentions and thought there was a good audience crossover and on the face of their current content, didn’t see anything they disagreed with. Also agreed with most of Design Mom’s assessments on Hannah. Anyway, it all matters to me because she has such a large following. What you said in your initial comment is my same concern—if she’s getting pulled into MAGA bc the Times article made her feel called out for ideals she doesn’t even espouse but doesn’t feel confident or capable talking about because she’s by nature apolitical, and the Evie community is fawning over her, making her feel safer and more welcome there? And then just as you said, her similarly apolitical, undecided followers see her moving right and want to be a part of the community? I just… hate what’s happening here.
If you spend even a passing minute on Evie's instagram page (or their website) it's impossible to avoid their politics, so I have a hard time believing the Neelemans didn't know what they were doing by aligning with Evie. But I DO agree with you that Hannah in particular has really tried to be (in her words) "neutral," which is obviously not possible in today's politically climate.
I disagree that Evie politics are obvious just based off content. When the Evie feature post went up on BF I raced to the comments to call Evie a POS publication using concrete examples from recent content but when I passed their IG and website I saw headlines and topics that my conservative Mormon girlie friends would not find political or possibly would even consider female empowerment 😅I’m trained in media, marketing and politics, so I see the bs immediately but for my apolitical friends they would not see it. If they jumped over to the founder’s IG they would feel like oh this is apparently house in habit’s friend who runs a magazine and then… wonder why they even cared to look 😂 because they don’t care about politics! (Except when it’s making them feel like they are a bad person and then they run to whatever political figure reassures them they are a good person)
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, so please let me know if that is the case. But even if this is a business decision. . .there are many other outlets where she could be photographed in a prairie dress on a horse that DON'T espouse outright wrong and dangerous viewpoints on birth control, gender identity, and many other issues that have enormous implications for all of us. And I also feel like this take sort of infantilizes women like Hannah Neeleman. Regardless of what you personally think of her (I am not a fan, to put it mildly), I feel like this take assumes she may not know the spin of a magazine like Evie and I have a hard time believing that.
I would point to Lizzi's comment above--if someone considers themself apolitical or moderate they could absolutely miss the insidious nature of Evie based on their website. And/or see value in "different sides" to a debate having a voice. What I'm thinking about is whether the non-MAGA tent should be open to these people. And if it is, whether telling them something they like or see value in is "dangerous" is the right approach. As for business decisions, the nature of capitalism is absolutely going to drive BF to work with Evie even if Hannah isn't MAGA herself.
For me, the politics of an influencer matters for a number of reasons, but the main two are: I don’t want to give internet oxygen to people whose worldview is (in my view) harmful to me and the people and communities I care about and I am deeply concerned about how these accounts help feed into various online pipelines to the alt-right. There are plenty of smaller accounts that showcase the aesthetics on display here that aren’t regressive in their politics, so why do these already-big accounts that dabble with this crap need my attention? To have a large platform and to be apolitical in the year of our lord 2024 is a level of ludicrous privilege that I cannot abide, much less one that is happy to play footsie with the alt-right as this whole Evie collab demonstrates.
What has been interesting to observe in the post-election aftermath is seeing some of the conservative women I know (who have since been muted because I’m not really interested in giving them internet oxygen right now) post memes about how they like doing crafts and whatnot but don’t want to take away women’s right to vote (so please don’t unfollow uwu) and it’s infuriating. These are the same women who fetishize reading and talk about how they love escaping into books and TV and whatnot when the world is difficult, and that they cannot examine the ridiculous level of privilege they have to do that is why I’ve stopped paying attention to them. That they think that they deserve headpats and handclap emojis for not being blatant misogynists (while often being quiet misogynists as well as being racists and homophobes and transphobes) and it’s utter bullshit.
As someone who was raised in a conservative household (and whose parents only got worse in recent decades), the final tipping point after an excellent Jesuit collegiate education was being told to fuck myself in a Jezebel comments section. It (seriously) sparked an introspection that actually led to my feminist awakening, and I’m so tired of trying to be kind to our would-be oppressors in the hopes they might get it, because that keeps them in their current level of comfort. Fuck that shit.
These influencers are now part of a much larger right-wing machine that is looking to grease the slide back to a time where women had no career options outside the home and were completely dependent on men. We should all be very aware of this as we consume their content. They may not have started out that way, but they clearly are now.
Also, cos-plalying as living off the land when you actually have the comfort and privilege of being an heir to a multi-milliondollar fortune is just weird and manipulative, especially given that many young women consuming their content likely don't know that about them (ie, Neelemans/JetBlue heirs).
I do care. And the reason I care is because they have huge platforms and whether there is a conscious attempt to exert their influence or not, it matters that they are able to reach so many people on social media. I have never felt like I personally have changed any of my beliefs because of something I saw on social media (I have been a lifelong Democrat), but I would be curious to know what percentage of people felt influenced by their social network.
I talk to a lot of people (my job as an infant teacher means that it’s a requirement for me to talk to parents of many backgrounds and income levels- we have babies whose parents receive government vouchers and babies whose parents are doctors in my class). I do have some influence. But influencers like Hannah Neeleman have the ability to influence so many people that it absolutely matters what her politics are. We don’t know how many people following her are casual fans and how many are super fans, but she could theoretically be influencing people politically more than we know.
I care in the big picture because of how much of a reach influencers have. I think I’d only feel personally disappointed if I connected with an influencer, but I also don’t really follow any like that.
I’m a younger millennial who has backed the Democrats since before I could vote. I also work in a blue collar field and live in a red state. While I’m not surprised about how Hannah voted, a lot of folks with way less privilege than her would easily take her seriously.
Some will laugh off less polished right-wingers, like the sixty-something dock clerk who drinks too much and assumed I watched the GOP convention (thankfully that’s very rare at my job), but savvier people with the same beliefs and substantial platforms aren’t as as pathetic.
It’s complicated for me to unpack- but generally I think I don’t want to be giving time or money to people I don’t align with- and BF isn’t a great example because I can’t afford her clothing and don’t like the prairie dress vibes anyway. But I use affiliate links to buy some items and even if that amount of money isn’t much, I feel better if it’s going to someone who id promoting progressive politics. Ash Brandin’s platform is about educating people about gaming and screen time in general from the perspective of an educator but as a nonbinary person is also currently getting people to donate for gender affirming items for LGBTQ youth- some influencers are using their platforms to further progressive policies and some seem to be perpetuating these individualist mindsets and glorifying the nuclear family. And we also know there’s a lack of transparency and we can never fully know anyone who we only see online- we are projecting our own experiences onto the people we have parasocial relationships with to fill in those gaps.
Sara!! I just listened to your Code Switch ep and it FLOORED ME. And it does make me totally understand why this whole thing is so toxic/sticky/shiny. I think we do care about influencer politics here b/c they abso-fucking-lutely put homemade sourdough + prairie dresses on the bigger issue of systemic oppression of moms and parents. It’s an easy out to create this fake narrative and imagery of how women can be perfect models of domesticity instead of like…overhauling the fed government to focus on things like paid parental leave and subsidized childcare. It’s easier to perpetuate this as a society than focus on solving the actual problems, and I just refuse to not call that out.
I'm a Democrat who voted for Harris and who dislikes cooking and cleaning. I'm not a trad-wife demographic. I find McDonalds gross (not a value statement for those who like it, but a physical stomach statement personally), so I wasn't Trump's target when he "worked" there for a day. BUT both tradwives and Trump are so good at, to quote the Wizard, giving people what they want. The Democrats shoved abortion issues and DEI stuff out there when people just wanted to know what they would do about grocery store prices (their everyday lives) - Hannah and Nara show people that you "could" grow your own food and get eggs from real chickens... never mind they are both filthy rich. The Democrats should have acknowledged that people were out there with lackluster lives and struggling to pay for goods and they felt ignored. So of course they'll gravitate towards "wo/men behind the curtains" like Nara, Hannah, and Trump. It's Bread and Circuses too! It's all super disturbing. Few can see past the curtain, which is why I LOVE your newsletter... but I still get disturbed by how large the tradwife audience is.
Ooof yup. I think I mentioned this before in a comment section, but some of the most revealing political signs near me said "Trump low prices, Kamala high prices."
Should clarify *lackluster lives* meaning anyone, even me, can feel insignificant when you see a supermodel make cereal from scratch or a blonde ballerina ride into the sunrise with her "cowboy" man with her strapping young lads with lassos... and I don't own a single corset.
It's in the name. A synonym of influence is power. To be an influencer is to wield some (however nuanced or limited) power. In the case of an influencer like BF, you have someone who has every type of power afforded to someone in this country minus a penis -- THOUGH she reminds us often that she is married to one. She's beautiful, thin, white, healthy and able-bodied, cisgendered, heterosexual and of course, extremely disgustingly rich BEFORE her influencing gig. Now, on top of the generational familial wealth she's got through her marriage to Jet Blue Jr., she's got this sprawling empire based on her internet videos. The internet videos and photos make her more money, of course, but more importantly they give her the one kind of power she didn't have as a cisgendered, heterosexual, attractive, wealthy, white woman in this country: influence. She can tell and sell a story that we all know is not true but is aspirational in many ways to many people. She can tell everyone that it's so wonderful and lovely to have everything she has and make many of those people wish they could have what SHE'S HAVING (a la When Harry Met Sally). It's a big farce, but she doesn't care, because the check clears and with every headline, every "like" from a celebrity (Jennifer Gardner, WHAT?!), she gains more and more influence (power). What will she (or her family) do with that power? Clearly just having money is not enough, or else there'd be no reason to do what she is doing. So. There's more to the story, I think.
I actually would care a whole heck of a lot less if another influencer I followed turned out to be a Trump voter (and, let's be honest, donor), if they were honest about it. And, I know Trump voters who believe what they believe because they have had hard lives with no one (including their government) trying to help them or make life easier. These are, I believe, the people who are actually really struggling financially, and have been taught to blame the 'other' for their problems and that life is a zero sum game. These are the illusive 'blue collar voter' that the Dems have all but lost. If an influencer with that story came out as a Trump supporter, the whole thing would sit differently with me. But BF, and her ilk, are in on this (gestures wildly). They know how much they have to gain from the next 4 years, and literally do not care about anything but obtaining and maintaining as much power (influence) as they can. The worst. I care and I just went through and unfollowed every person who has liked a BF post in recent weeks.
I think I care because of the ideas of boycotting and divesting. If I'm buying a product from someone who supports Trump, then that money in my head goes towards that cause. Especially with a small business, it feels like I'm saying yes you can have those beliefs, and I will still give you money. That feels icky to me.
YUP
Yesterday I got an ad on Instagram for something that looked cool and I was curious to see how much it was, so I went to the site, and when I got there a banner popped up that said "Flash sale ends in:" with a countdown timer that was all 0s for a moment, then turned into 2 minutes and 39 seconds. I was like, I am not going to buy this thing in the next 2:39, but I feel like this is a random number generator and you're just trying to pressure me, so let's wait and see what happens when the timer runs out. The timer ran out. Flash sale over. Bummer! The sale price didn't immediately change, though. I refreshed the page. The exact same banner popped up, all 0s for a moment, then turned into 32 minutes and 12 seconds.
My point is that we're all being we're all being lied to constantly. 75% of my incoming phone calls are scams. Corporations say and do anything to get us to sign up for things then make it impossible to cancel. Republicans lie and lie and lie and the major TV networks and newspapers just nod along and agree with every single lie, no matter how brazen, no matter if the lie is the opposite of the lie they agreed with last week.
I am angry at everyone who contributes to this culture of mistrust, and that includes every single influencer that hems and haws about "what even is a feminist? politics? what's that? I just really like living this way and my choices are made in a vacuum and have absolutely nothing to do with any religion or worldview that wants to oppress everyone" is the same g-damn problem as "alternative facts" and "minimum national standard".
Kelly Havens Stickle doesn't have nearly the reach of Ballerina Farm, and that's 100% because she's not lying about why she lives the way she does. And I really hate KHS's worldview, but at least she's fucking honest about it! It's morally reprehensible to me the way Ballerina Farm (and others) present this vision of life as completely neutral and and politics-free.
And somehow, as a society, we've all just decided that it's not even the influencers' fault! (Not here, obviously, we know what's going on (https://sarapetersen.substack.com/p/the-warrior-moms-who-elected-trump). But there are so many people out there who will just brush it all off, like "well, you should just think about what you consume more! it's your fault if you fell for the sophisticated and coordinated propaganda" and give a pass to every single person who spends their life lying to us.
oh man yes the blaming it on the consumer thing is so real. also the social media companies could afford to do LITERALLY ANYTHING in terms of consumer interest and protections.
I’m going to preface this: I’m a Democrat who voted for Harris. I also live in the red state of WV and am surrounded by people who voted for Trump. I have seen that some people vote for Trump out of bigotry and hatred. But not everyone. My community is working class and Appalachian. Many of us feel barely-disguised contempt from elites, and yes, that means people who usually vote Democrat.
These experiences have taught me this: people’s politics are complicated. You can’t reduce a person down and say that you “know” what they are like (or even that you know what they believe) based upon who they voted for.
So, re: influencers — I care about their politics if it affects what they promote. So, if they promote taking away human rights? You bet I care. But I don’t think that you can always predict who is a force of good or bad based upon how someone votes. And I think that people who vote liberal also have the capacity to spread hatred and contempt for others, all of which is wrong.
LOL at people being surprised at Hannah's politics
I live in Boston which is the deepest blue and I also voted for Harris/Walz. I can vouch that yes, absolutely, people who vote liberal have ample capacity to promote hatred and contempt for others and I absolutely cringe at the lack of empathy.
I think the only caring I have about it is the reach these people have. If they have a big and superfan audience, and they themselves are MAGA, they're exerting their influence (consciously or not) in a direction that I don't like. Doesn't affect me personally, because I'm not a superfan. And I would love to know to what extent they DO influence people politically, besides moving the Overton window.
YES this makes sense to me.
I will be wondering this, as we walk away from an election where celebrity endorsements didn’t matter but influencers involvement and podcast appearances did…
I worry that young women will believe that they should be Hannah N without realizing that her family is enormously privileged.
As feminists we sure as fuck care what these women and their families are doing politically. When they vote right wing ding it communicates that they (the wing dings) pose no existential threat to women and their/our rights. And yet, as we know, they most certainly do. Also Gen X FWIW.
Influencers have massive platforms, and they have influence. And probably the biggest reason I care (even though I am not active on social anymore and don't follow influencers, I used to be one) is because these women almost always have followings that are predominantly women, and they are profiting and benefitting in huge ways from these women, and then turning around and actively choosing to support policies and people that are causing harm to women. And I don't care if you're outwardly promoting policies and people that harm women or just not saying anything at all, both are detrimental to our freedom, bodily autonomy, and safety. They are selling a lie, and women (and other marginalized groups) are suffering from it.
I care about an influencer's politics--I'm not going to give someone clicks or views who was telling their followers to vote for Trump. But I also want to question whether someone's associations really do reveal their politics. I think assuming Hannah voted for Trump, or that her followers are more likely to move toward voting right wing because they like her, could be counterproductive for movement building to ever be able to elect another non-right winger.
Objectively, Britteny Martinez Hugeboom (Evie founder) is “in on the bit” [the political right wing movement]. I’m still wondering, though, whether Nara and Hannah are themselves, or if they just see the brand partnership with Evie as a business decision. And this matters because they have droves of self-described “apolitical” or “moderate” or “open minded” followers who could maybe be persuaded to vote differently depending on the candidates. Who might be interested in Evie magazine because they like Hannah and might keep reading because they didn’t like how they felt on hormonal birth control, but who could still be pulled toward a non-right wing candidate if the right case was made. If Hannah is labeled a right wing political figure because of her business decisions to associate with Hugeboom, are those followers more likely to start to self-identify as right wing vs open minded? And is Hannah herself more likely to become more politicized because what she perceives as the other side is telling her she already is?
I want to be able to defeat Peter Thiel and his minions in future elections, if we can preserve the ability to have more elections over the next 4 years, so I’m trying to consider how to swing the broad mass of women away from the next Trump. And I’m pretty sure that path doesn’t include telling them they’re on the bad side for liking to look at the pretty things that conservatives are using to veil their anti-trans, anti-women’s rights agenda. I do want to be clear that in my real life I put time and money into protecting trans rights—this idea is not to embrace Seth Moulton anti-trans virtue signaling. It’s to reject the conservative attempt to identify anyone who likes the aesthetics of high femme cosplay or sees themselves and their dreams reflected by BF as right wing, pro-life and anti-trans warriors.
We can't build a movement by shaming people for what they like, is where I'm currently sitting.
This is so well put Cait - it's such a vicious cycle in terms of who becomes radicalized first and for what reason (is Hannah the chicken or is she the egg lol). Although I can't FATHOM how anyone partners with Evie without also making a political statement? But you're right - there's no real way to know for sure.
I kind of can fathom it, is the thing--having a magazine fawn over her and celebrate her following the skeptical press from the Times of London, plus what I'm assuming she sees as an overlapping audience for their marketing makes it a no brainer business decision to work with Evie even if she's a non-voter or a non-party line voter. Her internal political right/wrong spectrum is clearly limited by having been raised in and still part of a devout Mormon family in Utah. I'm thinking of Design Mom's take on BF when the Times of London article came out.
I do believe she has been personally largely apolitical (I would not be surprised if they voted for Trump but I would be surprised if they are passionate MAGA). And where the tradwife trend has become increasingly political I’ve really appreciated that they have seemingly decided to stay out of it (because I also love pretty aesthetic farm things while considering myself a Bernie Sanders liberal 💖) I think it is possible that they are not fully aware of Evie’s politics and intentions and thought there was a good audience crossover and on the face of their current content, didn’t see anything they disagreed with. Also agreed with most of Design Mom’s assessments on Hannah. Anyway, it all matters to me because she has such a large following. What you said in your initial comment is my same concern—if she’s getting pulled into MAGA bc the Times article made her feel called out for ideals she doesn’t even espouse but doesn’t feel confident or capable talking about because she’s by nature apolitical, and the Evie community is fawning over her, making her feel safer and more welcome there? And then just as you said, her similarly apolitical, undecided followers see her moving right and want to be a part of the community? I just… hate what’s happening here.
If you spend even a passing minute on Evie's instagram page (or their website) it's impossible to avoid their politics, so I have a hard time believing the Neelemans didn't know what they were doing by aligning with Evie. But I DO agree with you that Hannah in particular has really tried to be (in her words) "neutral," which is obviously not possible in today's politically climate.
I disagree that Evie politics are obvious just based off content. When the Evie feature post went up on BF I raced to the comments to call Evie a POS publication using concrete examples from recent content but when I passed their IG and website I saw headlines and topics that my conservative Mormon girlie friends would not find political or possibly would even consider female empowerment 😅I’m trained in media, marketing and politics, so I see the bs immediately but for my apolitical friends they would not see it. If they jumped over to the founder’s IG they would feel like oh this is apparently house in habit’s friend who runs a magazine and then… wonder why they even cared to look 😂 because they don’t care about politics! (Except when it’s making them feel like they are a bad person and then they run to whatever political figure reassures them they are a good person)
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, so please let me know if that is the case. But even if this is a business decision. . .there are many other outlets where she could be photographed in a prairie dress on a horse that DON'T espouse outright wrong and dangerous viewpoints on birth control, gender identity, and many other issues that have enormous implications for all of us. And I also feel like this take sort of infantilizes women like Hannah Neeleman. Regardless of what you personally think of her (I am not a fan, to put it mildly), I feel like this take assumes she may not know the spin of a magazine like Evie and I have a hard time believing that.
I would point to Lizzi's comment above--if someone considers themself apolitical or moderate they could absolutely miss the insidious nature of Evie based on their website. And/or see value in "different sides" to a debate having a voice. What I'm thinking about is whether the non-MAGA tent should be open to these people. And if it is, whether telling them something they like or see value in is "dangerous" is the right approach. As for business decisions, the nature of capitalism is absolutely going to drive BF to work with Evie even if Hannah isn't MAGA herself.
For me, the politics of an influencer matters for a number of reasons, but the main two are: I don’t want to give internet oxygen to people whose worldview is (in my view) harmful to me and the people and communities I care about and I am deeply concerned about how these accounts help feed into various online pipelines to the alt-right. There are plenty of smaller accounts that showcase the aesthetics on display here that aren’t regressive in their politics, so why do these already-big accounts that dabble with this crap need my attention? To have a large platform and to be apolitical in the year of our lord 2024 is a level of ludicrous privilege that I cannot abide, much less one that is happy to play footsie with the alt-right as this whole Evie collab demonstrates.
What has been interesting to observe in the post-election aftermath is seeing some of the conservative women I know (who have since been muted because I’m not really interested in giving them internet oxygen right now) post memes about how they like doing crafts and whatnot but don’t want to take away women’s right to vote (so please don’t unfollow uwu) and it’s infuriating. These are the same women who fetishize reading and talk about how they love escaping into books and TV and whatnot when the world is difficult, and that they cannot examine the ridiculous level of privilege they have to do that is why I’ve stopped paying attention to them. That they think that they deserve headpats and handclap emojis for not being blatant misogynists (while often being quiet misogynists as well as being racists and homophobes and transphobes) and it’s utter bullshit.
As someone who was raised in a conservative household (and whose parents only got worse in recent decades), the final tipping point after an excellent Jesuit collegiate education was being told to fuck myself in a Jezebel comments section. It (seriously) sparked an introspection that actually led to my feminist awakening, and I’m so tired of trying to be kind to our would-be oppressors in the hopes they might get it, because that keeps them in their current level of comfort. Fuck that shit.
i just gotta say "playing footsie with the alt-right" is CHEF'S KISS perfection.
These influencers are now part of a much larger right-wing machine that is looking to grease the slide back to a time where women had no career options outside the home and were completely dependent on men. We should all be very aware of this as we consume their content. They may not have started out that way, but they clearly are now.
Also, cos-plalying as living off the land when you actually have the comfort and privilege of being an heir to a multi-milliondollar fortune is just weird and manipulative, especially given that many young women consuming their content likely don't know that about them (ie, Neelemans/JetBlue heirs).
I do care. And the reason I care is because they have huge platforms and whether there is a conscious attempt to exert their influence or not, it matters that they are able to reach so many people on social media. I have never felt like I personally have changed any of my beliefs because of something I saw on social media (I have been a lifelong Democrat), but I would be curious to know what percentage of people felt influenced by their social network.
I talk to a lot of people (my job as an infant teacher means that it’s a requirement for me to talk to parents of many backgrounds and income levels- we have babies whose parents receive government vouchers and babies whose parents are doctors in my class). I do have some influence. But influencers like Hannah Neeleman have the ability to influence so many people that it absolutely matters what her politics are. We don’t know how many people following her are casual fans and how many are super fans, but she could theoretically be influencing people politically more than we know.
I care in the big picture because of how much of a reach influencers have. I think I’d only feel personally disappointed if I connected with an influencer, but I also don’t really follow any like that.
I’m a younger millennial who has backed the Democrats since before I could vote. I also work in a blue collar field and live in a red state. While I’m not surprised about how Hannah voted, a lot of folks with way less privilege than her would easily take her seriously.
Some will laugh off less polished right-wingers, like the sixty-something dock clerk who drinks too much and assumed I watched the GOP convention (thankfully that’s very rare at my job), but savvier people with the same beliefs and substantial platforms aren’t as as pathetic.
It’s complicated for me to unpack- but generally I think I don’t want to be giving time or money to people I don’t align with- and BF isn’t a great example because I can’t afford her clothing and don’t like the prairie dress vibes anyway. But I use affiliate links to buy some items and even if that amount of money isn’t much, I feel better if it’s going to someone who id promoting progressive politics. Ash Brandin’s platform is about educating people about gaming and screen time in general from the perspective of an educator but as a nonbinary person is also currently getting people to donate for gender affirming items for LGBTQ youth- some influencers are using their platforms to further progressive policies and some seem to be perpetuating these individualist mindsets and glorifying the nuclear family. And we also know there’s a lack of transparency and we can never fully know anyone who we only see online- we are projecting our own experiences onto the people we have parasocial relationships with to fill in those gaps.
no that's a great point re money!!
Sara!! I just listened to your Code Switch ep and it FLOORED ME. And it does make me totally understand why this whole thing is so toxic/sticky/shiny. I think we do care about influencer politics here b/c they abso-fucking-lutely put homemade sourdough + prairie dresses on the bigger issue of systemic oppression of moms and parents. It’s an easy out to create this fake narrative and imagery of how women can be perfect models of domesticity instead of like…overhauling the fed government to focus on things like paid parental leave and subsidized childcare. It’s easier to perpetuate this as a society than focus on solving the actual problems, and I just refuse to not call that out.
oh YAY! I forgot that went up today!
I'm a Democrat who voted for Harris and who dislikes cooking and cleaning. I'm not a trad-wife demographic. I find McDonalds gross (not a value statement for those who like it, but a physical stomach statement personally), so I wasn't Trump's target when he "worked" there for a day. BUT both tradwives and Trump are so good at, to quote the Wizard, giving people what they want. The Democrats shoved abortion issues and DEI stuff out there when people just wanted to know what they would do about grocery store prices (their everyday lives) - Hannah and Nara show people that you "could" grow your own food and get eggs from real chickens... never mind they are both filthy rich. The Democrats should have acknowledged that people were out there with lackluster lives and struggling to pay for goods and they felt ignored. So of course they'll gravitate towards "wo/men behind the curtains" like Nara, Hannah, and Trump. It's Bread and Circuses too! It's all super disturbing. Few can see past the curtain, which is why I LOVE your newsletter... but I still get disturbed by how large the tradwife audience is.
Ooof yup. I think I mentioned this before in a comment section, but some of the most revealing political signs near me said "Trump low prices, Kamala high prices."
Should clarify *lackluster lives* meaning anyone, even me, can feel insignificant when you see a supermodel make cereal from scratch or a blonde ballerina ride into the sunrise with her "cowboy" man with her strapping young lads with lassos... and I don't own a single corset.
lol totally get it
It's in the name. A synonym of influence is power. To be an influencer is to wield some (however nuanced or limited) power. In the case of an influencer like BF, you have someone who has every type of power afforded to someone in this country minus a penis -- THOUGH she reminds us often that she is married to one. She's beautiful, thin, white, healthy and able-bodied, cisgendered, heterosexual and of course, extremely disgustingly rich BEFORE her influencing gig. Now, on top of the generational familial wealth she's got through her marriage to Jet Blue Jr., she's got this sprawling empire based on her internet videos. The internet videos and photos make her more money, of course, but more importantly they give her the one kind of power she didn't have as a cisgendered, heterosexual, attractive, wealthy, white woman in this country: influence. She can tell and sell a story that we all know is not true but is aspirational in many ways to many people. She can tell everyone that it's so wonderful and lovely to have everything she has and make many of those people wish they could have what SHE'S HAVING (a la When Harry Met Sally). It's a big farce, but she doesn't care, because the check clears and with every headline, every "like" from a celebrity (Jennifer Gardner, WHAT?!), she gains more and more influence (power). What will she (or her family) do with that power? Clearly just having money is not enough, or else there'd be no reason to do what she is doing. So. There's more to the story, I think.
I actually would care a whole heck of a lot less if another influencer I followed turned out to be a Trump voter (and, let's be honest, donor), if they were honest about it. And, I know Trump voters who believe what they believe because they have had hard lives with no one (including their government) trying to help them or make life easier. These are, I believe, the people who are actually really struggling financially, and have been taught to blame the 'other' for their problems and that life is a zero sum game. These are the illusive 'blue collar voter' that the Dems have all but lost. If an influencer with that story came out as a Trump supporter, the whole thing would sit differently with me. But BF, and her ilk, are in on this (gestures wildly). They know how much they have to gain from the next 4 years, and literally do not care about anything but obtaining and maintaining as much power (influence) as they can. The worst. I care and I just went through and unfollowed every person who has liked a BF post in recent weeks.