If you remember watching the political coverage
back in the fall of 2016, you probably have a
few really distinct memories burned into your
brain. Oh, absolutely. It was a very intense
time. Right. But, I mean, imagine for a second
that you were sitting there watching a rather
dry technical debate about tax policy, and a
candidate makes this tiny three -word, totally
off -the -cuff remark. Yeah. You would probably
think that comment would just be a footnote,
right? Something the pundits might briefly argue
about the next morning. And then the news cycle
just churns forward. Exactly. But you are in
the right place today because our mission in
this deep dive is to trace how that exact scenario
played out completely differently. Completely
differently. We're going to explore how a fleeting
mutter at a podium instantly transformed into
a viral hashtag, morphed into a global feminist
movement. and ultimately became a massive, multimillion
-dollar fundraising engine. It really is. It's
just a masterclass in language, the agility of
the Internet, and how modern society reacts in
real time. It is. But before we jump into the
timeline of these events, it is absolutely essential
that we establish some firm ground rules for
our discussion today. Yes. Very important. We
are covering politically charged material stemming
directly from the 2016 United States presidential
election and the various cultural and political
movements that followed in its wake. Right. And
we want to be exceptionally clear with you, the
listener. Neither of us is taking any sides here.
Not at all. We are not endorsing any of the viewpoints,
the political candidates or the causes that we'll
be mentioning. That includes Donald Trump, Hillary
Clinton and the organization Planned Parenthood.
Exactly. Our role today is strictly as impartial
guides. We are here to convey the historical
facts, the sequence of events and the cultural
ideas exactly as they are documented in the source
material. Our goal is understanding the mechanics
of this phenomenon, not taking. A political stance
on it. OK, let's unpack this. Let's set the scene
and take you right back to October 19th, 2016.
The third debate. The third and final presidential
debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
They are right in the middle of a dense discussion
about the Social Security program. Right. The
mechanics of it. Yeah. Clinton is at the podium
and she's explaining her hope to improve the
program by increasing taxes on the wealthy. She
specifically points out that her own Social Security
contributions would go up and so would Donald
Trump's. Then she has a little caveat saying,
quote, assuming he can't figure out how to get
out of it. A very direct jab. Totally. And right
then, reacting to that specific jab, Trump leans
into his microphone and says three words. Such
a nasty woman. And in a traditional media landscape,
say, I don't know, 20 or 30 years ago, the trajectory
of that remark would have been highly predictable.
It would have just been a soundbite. Exactly.
A soundbite on the 11 o 'clock news analyzed
by newspaper columnists the next morning and
then entirely forgotten by Friday as the news
cycle moved on to the next polling update. But
the architecture of modern media doesn't work
like that anymore. That phrase entirely bypassed
the sluggish traditional news filters. It exploded
directly onto social media platforms. Twitter
especially. Twitter was the absolute epicenter.
It was genuinely instantaneous. I mean, the debate
was literally still broadcasting live and the
digital world was already metabolizing the moment.
The sheer speed of the Internet is what always
blows my mind when we look at these cultural
flashpoints. It's unprecedented. And it wasn't
just people repeating the quote either. Users
online instantly started wiring it into existing
pop culture. Oh, the Janet Jackson connection.
Yes. One of the most prominent immediate callbacks
was to Janet Jackson's massive 1986 hit single,
Nasty. People were flooding timelines with the
lyrics, sharing clips of the music video. And
suddenly you have this fusion. Exactly. You have
this tense, modern political moment entirely
fused with a 30 -year -old iconic pop culture
anthem about demanding respect. What's fascinating
here is the psychological pivot that occurred
in that exact real -time window. What do you
mean? Well, typically, when a pejorative term
is hurled at a person or a group, the natural,
almost biological defense mechanism is to reject
it. Sure. You get defensive. You deny it. You
push back or you demand an apology. But women
online. along with many male allies, did the
exact opposite. They immediately embraced the
insult. They owned it. They took this phrase
that was designed to be denigrating and they
weaponized it. They turned it into a badge of
honor and a rallying cry of defiance. That is
a massive psychological shift. Usually the instinct
is to say, hey, don't call us that. Right. But
instead, the collective internet essentially
said, you know what? You're right. We are. It's
incredible. It reminds me of other historical
moments of linguistic reclamation, but happening
at just warp speed. It is a textbook example
of linguistic reclamation. Historically, we have
seen marginalized or targeted groups take ownership
of a slur to strip it of its power. Like what?
Think of words like queer or historical labels
like suffragette, which was actually originally
coined by a journalist as a mocking diminutive
term. I didn't know that. Yeah, but the difference
here is the compression of time. It took decades
for some of those older words to be reclaimed.
Here, it took about 45 minutes. 45 minutes. That
rapid reclamation leads us to the birth of what
formally became known as the Nasty Woman Movement.
It got official very fast. It really did. Followers
of this movement started describing themselves
using those exact terms. Feminists began describing
themselves as being just as nasty, maybe even
more nasty than the original comment about Clinton
had implied. They leaned all the way in. They
really did. They took that weaponized mutter,
stripped the negative connotation right out of
it and built an entire digital identity around
it. And that newly forged identity quickly aligned
itself with the broader goals of the women's
movement. It evolved past being just a funny
trending hashtag. Right. something bigger it
became a distinct recognizable banner under which
people could gather to express their defiance
and their solidarity the entire intent was focused
on taking that specific word nasty and turning
it into a universal synonym for an empowered
outspoken woman who absolutely refuses to back
down or be silenced here's where it gets really
interesting Because it didn't just stay on Twitter
as an abstract idea or a digital banner. No,
it got very real very fast. It materialized.
It became physical almost overnight. The sheer
scale of the merchandise that emerged from this
movement is staggering to look back on. The volume
was insane. It really was. But it had a very
specific targeted purpose. This wasn't just capitalism
capitalizing on a trend for the sake of profit.
This was a massive, highly coordinated fundraising
effort directed almost entirely. toward Planned
Parenthood. It was a direct, calculated response.
Donald Trump's platform included a conservative
anti -abortion agenda specifically focusing on
the threat to cut federal funding to Planned
Parenthood because of the abortion services they
provide. Right. The movement saw an opportunity
to take the energy generated by his own words
and funnel it directly into the organization
he was opposing. The translation from a digital
hashtag to tangible fundraising merchandise was
incredibly swift. So it started as a tweet, but
how quickly did it become a fengal product? I
imagine the logistics of that usually take weeks.
Not in the era of print on demand. Take Amanda
Brinkman, for instance. She designed a nasty
woman T -shirt almost immediately, literally
while that 2016 debate was still fresh on everyone's
screens. That same night. That same night. She
put it online, pledging half of the proceeds
to fund Planned Parenthood. That shirt went viral
overnight, immediately attracting national media
attention. And what really acted as lighter fluid
on that fire was the celebrity amplification.
Huge factor. It wasn't just everyday people buying
it and posting selfies. You had massive mainstream
stars jumping in. Will Ferrell, Katy Perry, Kristen
Bell, Julia Louis -Dreyfus. All of them. They
were all wearing Brinkman's apparel publicly
and broadcasting their support to their millions
of followers. That specific t -shirt became the
visual symbol of the movement. It was everywhere.
Brinkman's design alone ended up raising over
$130 ,000 for Planned Parenthood. Wow. The momentum
was so sustained that her company, which was
originally called Google Ghost, actually rebranded
itself entirely as Shrill Society, just continuing
to make products revolving around that movement.
And that $130 ,000, while impressive, is just
the tip of the iceberg when you look at the broader
consumer response. It got bigger. Oh, much bigger.
In July of 2017, the comedian and television
host Samantha Bee launched her own nasty woman
shirt campaign. The scale of that specific initiative
was astronomical. How much did she raise? It
raised over $1 million for Planned Parenthood.
A million dollars? From a single t -shirt campaign.
When you look at those numbers, you begin to
see the immense, tangible financial power of
crowdsourced political frustration. It wasn't
just noise, it was capital. A million dollars
from a shirt is hard to wrap your head around.
But I imagine it didn't stop at apparel. If the
momentum was that strong, how far did the commercialization
go into other markets? It spilled over into almost
every sector you can think of, largely driven
by female -owned businesses that wanted to bake
philanthropic components right into their business
models. Like what kind of products? Well, you
had Meg Hirshmury founding Nasty Woman Wines
in 2016. They started producing what they explicitly
marketed as unapologetically feminist wines,
and they committed to donating 20 % of their
net profit. to organizations driving equality.
Wine makes sense. It pairs well with watching
chaotic political debates. It really does. But
it really went everywhere. I was reading about
Nasty Woman Lip Gloss, which produces vegan and
cruelty -free cosmetics, again, tying the proceeds
back to empowerment and quality organizations.
Shrill Society, the company that started with
that first T -shirt, even branched out into publishing.
They created a Fuck Trump Action Planner, which
was also marketed as the Year of the Nasty Woman
Planner. Yeah. It wasn't just a calendar. It
was filled with quotes from female leaders and
concrete action items for political engagement.
They also developed a nasty woman card game designed
specifically to get players around a table talking
about politics, feminism and current events.
Wow. And what's crucial to note there is the
institutional validation. That card game wasn't
just a self -published underground indie project.
It was picked up and published by Penguin Random
House in 2018. That's a huge publisher. Exactly.
When a massive legacy corporate publisher recognizes
the grassroots energy of a movement and invests
in it, you know, the cultural footprint is undeniable.
It really highlights the friction or maybe the
synergy between capitalism and activism. You
have a movement born out of frustration and consumer
markets immediately pivot to provide a vehicle
for that frustration. Right. But it makes you
wonder, did this energy translate into something
less commercial? Did it bleed into spaces that
were more foundational, like literature or fine
art? Absolutely. And that brings us to a major
pillar of this phenomenon, the community action
and the earnest artistic expression that it inspired.
Tell me about that. Well. The commercial aspect
was huge, but the creative aspect was arguably
just as impactful. For example, there was a book
compiled called The Nasty Women Project, Voices
from the Resistance. The premise of that book
is fascinating. It was a collection of stories
sourced from women all around the country who
were affected, emotionally or materially, by
the 2016 election. Yes. And the stated mission
wasn't to turn a profit. It was explicitly to
fight the threat of misogyny and oppression.
And keeping with the established theme of the
movement, 100 % of the proceeds from the book
went directly to funding Planned Parenthood.
100%. It was framed not as a project for personal
glory or traditional literary success, but as
a historical chronicle and a reminder of collective
capability. And it wasn't just an obscure, localized
effort that flew under the radar either. It gained
significant traction in the literary world. It
received highly vocal praise and endorsements
from major respected writers. Who endorsed it?
Margaret Atwood, Louise O 'Neill, and Nick Heschel
all championed the project. That gave it a level
of literary prestige that elevated it way beyond
a simple political pamphlet. Alongside the literature,
the visual arts community organized a massive
response too. Which is interesting because gallery
art is usually so exclusive and expensive and
often very slow to react to current events. How
did the art world mobilize around this? They
organized the Nasty Women exhibition. This was
a global art and activism movement spearheaded
by creators Roxanne Jackson and Jessamyn Fior.
Was it just one gallery? No, they didn't just
hold one gallery showing. They coordinated art
exhibits internationally, featuring artists from
all over the world. And just like the literary
project, 100 % of the proceeds generated from
these exhibitions went directly to Planned Parenthood.
I find the way they structure that art exhibition
to be so clever. They completely subverted the
typical high -end gallery setup. They really
did. Did they face any pushback from the traditional
art world for doing that? Well, if we connect
this to the bigger picture, what Roxanne Jackson
and Jessamyn Fiore did was actually a masterclass
in the democratization of art, which inherently
challenges traditional gallery norms. How so?
Jackson explained that they instituted an entirely
open submission process. They accepted all submitted
artwork, regardless of the content or the artist's
pedigree. No curation. No curation. They weren't
trying to meticulously curate a pristine traditional
exhibition for one wealthy collectors. They were
focusing entirely on the raw solidarity of women
coming together. But the absolute most crucial
element of their strategy was the pricing model.
Oh, right. They asked all the artists to cap
the price of their pieces, right? I think it
was $100 or less. Exactly, $100 maximum. Feuer
explained the underlying strategy beautifully.
The goal was to make the art radically accessible.
That makes total sense. She wanted people who
had never bought a work of art before in their
entire lives to be able to walk into that exhibition,
feel moved by the collective experience, fall
in love with a piece, and be able to say, $30,
yeah, I can afford that, and I'm helping Plain
Parenthood. By lowering the barrier to entry
so drastically they engaged a much wider demographic.
It allowed someone to buy art as an accessible
act of defiance. Precisely. It shifted the purchase
from a luxury acquisition to an act of community
participation. And this highly accessible, high
volume model was incredibly effective. I can
imagine. Selling pieces for $30, $40 or $50,
the Nasty Women exhibitions ultimately raised
over $180 ,000 for the organization. It is amazing
how making something affordable actually allowed
them to raise so much more money in the aggregate.
Because of the sheer volume of sales. Exactly.
It became a communal event. rather than an exclusive
viewing. And while this movement was raising
hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars
through these grassroots channels, the phrase
itself was just completely saturating the broader
media ecosystem. It was everywhere you looked.
The media coverage was incredibly extensive,
bridging the gap between new media and legacy
institutions. Digital first outlets like BuzzFeed
were constantly publishing articles, listicles,
and commentary. That gave the movement sustained...
Right, keeping it in the feed. You always know
a phrase has truly cemented itself in the cultural
zeitgeist when late night comedy gets a hold
of it. Oh, definitely. But it also loops right
back into formal politics, which is where it
started. Senator Elizabeth Warren used the phrase
as a literal direct call to action. She did.
She urged women to use their status as nasty
women to march to the polls and vote against
Trump on Election Day. The political left largely
viewed the reclaiming of the title in a very
favorable, empowering light. And beyond the comedy
sketches and the formal political speeches on
the Senate floor, the phrase also inspired deeply
earnest artistic expression in performance art.
One of the most notable and visible examples
of this was a spoken word piece simply titled
Nasty Woman. Who wrote that one? It was written
by a 19 -year -old slam poet named Nina Mariah
Donovan. That poem ended up having a massive
global stage. It was performed by the actress
Ashley Judd at the 2017 Women's March in Washington,
which took place right after the presidential
inauguration. That was a huge moment. That specific
performance went incredibly viral online, taking
the raw, unfiltered words of a teenager. from
a slam poetry stage and broadcasting them to
an audience of millions worldwide. It really
captured the mood of the crowd. It was a defining
moment of that march. But what I find even wilder
is how the phrase didn't just stay in the realm
of political marches, news media, or even earnest
poetry. It actually seeped into completely fictional,
scripted entertainment. That is often the final
stage of cultural assimilation for a new piece
of terminology. Really? Yeah, when it stops being
referenced as a news event and starts being used
as casual dialogue in fiction. The material points
out a brilliant example of this. The 2018 science
fiction blockbuster Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom.
In a dinosaur movie. In a dinosaur movie. The
film features a direct, unmistakable allusion
to the quote. The villainous character in the
film, Ken Wheatley, specifically describes the
character Dr. Zia Rodriguez as a nasty woman.
I mean, imagine sitting in a Hollywood writer's
room for a movie about a... giant T -Rex, and
someone says, you know what this dinosaur movie
needs? A reference to a 2016 debate about Social
Security taxes. It's absurd, but it works. It
is just surreal how fast that turnaround is.
Two years later, it's in a summer blockbuster,
and it showed up in prestige television, too.
Oh, in Scandal. Yes. In the hit ABC series Scandal,
the main character, Olivia Pope, has this incredibly
intense scene where she tells the future president,
Melody Grant, that any time a woman acts in defiance
of a man, she will inevitably be perceived as
a nasty woman. Very pointed. It was a direct,
pointed reference to the real -world comments,
woven seamlessly into the fictional drama. And
it even made its way into the music industry,
completing the circle back to where the Janet
Jackson comparisons began. Full circle. In April
2018, the singer -songwriter Rhodes Rollins released
a feminist anthem literally titled Nasty Woman.
It was entirely centered on themes of female
empowerment, pride, and unapologetic ambition.
So we can really trace this phrase as it moves
from a tense... political debate, to a live social
media explosion, to physical merchandise, to
fine art galleries, to slant poetry, to blockbuster
dinosaur films, and finally to pop music. It
saturated almost every conceivable layer of the
cultural ecosystem. So what does this all mean?
When you look at this entire timeline, spanning
from a debate podium to a million dollar t -shirt
campaign, what is the big takeaway for you listening
to this deep dive right now? That's the real
question. Why does this matter beyond the specific
context of that one election? Well, it matters
because this is a definitive masterclass in agility
and linguistic reclamation. It proves how modern
digital citizens possess the unprecedented ability
to take a phrase that was intended to be a weapon,
instantly forge it into a shield, and then use
that shield to crowdsource millions of dollars
in a matter of weeks. It's remarkable. It shows
us the terrifying and brilliant speed of Internet
culture. A community took an insult, printed
it on a T -shirt, and used the profits to heavily
fund the exact organization the insult thrower
was actively trying to defund. It is a loop of
cultural judo that simply wasn't possible a generation
ago. This raises an important question. As we
look at the sheer velocity of this phenomenon,
we have to consider the future implications.
What do you mean? If a single off -the -cuff
remark at a podium can organically spawn a global
art movement, a literary anthology, and a million
-dollar campaign in a matter of mere months,
How might the next linguistic shift happen? Oh,
wow. The next time a viral phrase drops, it might
completely bypass traditional media altogether.
It could directly fund a new political reality
or an entirely new massive social movement before
the nightly news even realizes it's happening.
The architecture for this kind of rapid, monetized
cultural response has now been permanently built,
and it is just waiting for the next spark. That
is a deeply fascinating thought to leave on.
The infrastructure is there. The blueprint is
proven. and the speed is only getting faster.
Thank you so much for joining us on this deep
dive. We hope this exploration of the nasty woman
phenomenon gives you a fresh perspective on the
hidden power of the internet and the incredible
elasticity of the language we use. Keep listening,
keep analyzing the world around you, and most
importantly, keep questioning the words you hear
every single day. See you next time.