WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.700 If you remember watching the political coverage 00:00:02.700 --> 00:00:06.379 back in the fall of 2016, you probably have a 00:00:06.379 --> 00:00:08.820 few really distinct memories burned into your 00:00:08.820 --> 00:00:10.539 brain. Oh, absolutely. It was a very intense 00:00:10.539 --> 00:00:13.220 time. Right. But, I mean, imagine for a second 00:00:13.220 --> 00:00:15.400 that you were sitting there watching a rather 00:00:15.400 --> 00:00:19.579 dry technical debate about tax policy, and a 00:00:19.579 --> 00:00:23.179 candidate makes this tiny three -word, totally 00:00:23.179 --> 00:00:25.500 off -the -cuff remark. Yeah. You would probably 00:00:25.500 --> 00:00:27.079 think that comment would just be a footnote, 00:00:27.160 --> 00:00:30.649 right? Something the pundits might briefly argue 00:00:30.649 --> 00:00:32.469 about the next morning. And then the news cycle 00:00:32.469 --> 00:00:36.390 just churns forward. Exactly. But you are in 00:00:36.390 --> 00:00:39.810 the right place today because our mission in 00:00:39.810 --> 00:00:43.189 this deep dive is to trace how that exact scenario 00:00:43.189 --> 00:00:45.789 played out completely differently. Completely 00:00:45.789 --> 00:00:47.950 differently. We're going to explore how a fleeting 00:00:47.950 --> 00:00:50.289 mutter at a podium instantly transformed into 00:00:50.289 --> 00:00:53.149 a viral hashtag, morphed into a global feminist 00:00:53.149 --> 00:00:57.020 movement. and ultimately became a massive, multimillion 00:00:57.020 --> 00:00:59.820 -dollar fundraising engine. It really is. It's 00:00:59.820 --> 00:01:02.520 just a masterclass in language, the agility of 00:01:02.520 --> 00:01:04.799 the Internet, and how modern society reacts in 00:01:04.799 --> 00:01:08.900 real time. It is. But before we jump into the 00:01:08.900 --> 00:01:11.560 timeline of these events, it is absolutely essential 00:01:11.560 --> 00:01:14.439 that we establish some firm ground rules for 00:01:14.439 --> 00:01:16.760 our discussion today. Yes. Very important. We 00:01:16.760 --> 00:01:19.159 are covering politically charged material stemming 00:01:19.159 --> 00:01:21.680 directly from the 2016 United States presidential 00:01:21.680 --> 00:01:24.939 election and the various cultural and political 00:01:24.939 --> 00:01:27.459 movements that followed in its wake. Right. And 00:01:27.459 --> 00:01:29.939 we want to be exceptionally clear with you, the 00:01:29.939 --> 00:01:33.069 listener. Neither of us is taking any sides here. 00:01:33.189 --> 00:01:35.730 Not at all. We are not endorsing any of the viewpoints, 00:01:35.870 --> 00:01:38.189 the political candidates or the causes that we'll 00:01:38.189 --> 00:01:40.870 be mentioning. That includes Donald Trump, Hillary 00:01:40.870 --> 00:01:43.430 Clinton and the organization Planned Parenthood. 00:01:43.469 --> 00:01:46.750 Exactly. Our role today is strictly as impartial 00:01:46.750 --> 00:01:49.010 guides. We are here to convey the historical 00:01:49.010 --> 00:01:52.010 facts, the sequence of events and the cultural 00:01:52.010 --> 00:01:54.950 ideas exactly as they are documented in the source 00:01:54.950 --> 00:01:58.030 material. Our goal is understanding the mechanics 00:01:58.030 --> 00:02:00.849 of this phenomenon, not taking. A political stance 00:02:00.849 --> 00:02:03.109 on it. OK, let's unpack this. Let's set the scene 00:02:03.109 --> 00:02:05.909 and take you right back to October 19th, 2016. 00:02:06.189 --> 00:02:09.289 The third debate. The third and final presidential 00:02:09.289 --> 00:02:11.449 debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. 00:02:11.990 --> 00:02:14.990 They are right in the middle of a dense discussion 00:02:14.990 --> 00:02:17.509 about the Social Security program. Right. The 00:02:17.509 --> 00:02:20.229 mechanics of it. Yeah. Clinton is at the podium 00:02:20.229 --> 00:02:22.729 and she's explaining her hope to improve the 00:02:22.729 --> 00:02:26.239 program by increasing taxes on the wealthy. She 00:02:26.239 --> 00:02:28.580 specifically points out that her own Social Security 00:02:28.580 --> 00:02:31.280 contributions would go up and so would Donald 00:02:31.280 --> 00:02:34.400 Trump's. Then she has a little caveat saying, 00:02:34.659 --> 00:02:37.139 quote, assuming he can't figure out how to get 00:02:37.139 --> 00:02:40.659 out of it. A very direct jab. Totally. And right 00:02:40.659 --> 00:02:44.639 then, reacting to that specific jab, Trump leans 00:02:44.639 --> 00:02:47.240 into his microphone and says three words. Such 00:02:47.240 --> 00:02:50.039 a nasty woman. And in a traditional media landscape, 00:02:50.259 --> 00:02:53.340 say, I don't know, 20 or 30 years ago, the trajectory 00:02:53.340 --> 00:02:55.900 of that remark would have been highly predictable. 00:02:56.099 --> 00:02:57.419 It would have just been a soundbite. Exactly. 00:02:57.620 --> 00:03:00.080 A soundbite on the 11 o 'clock news analyzed 00:03:00.080 --> 00:03:02.539 by newspaper columnists the next morning and 00:03:02.539 --> 00:03:04.919 then entirely forgotten by Friday as the news 00:03:04.919 --> 00:03:07.500 cycle moved on to the next polling update. But 00:03:07.500 --> 00:03:09.879 the architecture of modern media doesn't work 00:03:09.879 --> 00:03:13.389 like that anymore. That phrase entirely bypassed 00:03:13.389 --> 00:03:16.830 the sluggish traditional news filters. It exploded 00:03:16.830 --> 00:03:19.710 directly onto social media platforms. Twitter 00:03:19.710 --> 00:03:22.530 especially. Twitter was the absolute epicenter. 00:03:22.669 --> 00:03:25.090 It was genuinely instantaneous. I mean, the debate 00:03:25.090 --> 00:03:27.849 was literally still broadcasting live and the 00:03:27.849 --> 00:03:30.270 digital world was already metabolizing the moment. 00:03:30.449 --> 00:03:33.050 The sheer speed of the Internet is what always 00:03:33.050 --> 00:03:34.810 blows my mind when we look at these cultural 00:03:34.810 --> 00:03:37.150 flashpoints. It's unprecedented. And it wasn't 00:03:37.150 --> 00:03:39.580 just people repeating the quote either. Users 00:03:39.580 --> 00:03:42.680 online instantly started wiring it into existing 00:03:42.680 --> 00:03:44.819 pop culture. Oh, the Janet Jackson connection. 00:03:45.159 --> 00:03:47.840 Yes. One of the most prominent immediate callbacks 00:03:47.840 --> 00:03:51.599 was to Janet Jackson's massive 1986 hit single, 00:03:51.759 --> 00:03:54.819 Nasty. People were flooding timelines with the 00:03:54.819 --> 00:03:57.439 lyrics, sharing clips of the music video. And 00:03:57.439 --> 00:03:59.979 suddenly you have this fusion. Exactly. You have 00:03:59.979 --> 00:04:02.500 this tense, modern political moment entirely 00:04:02.500 --> 00:04:05.560 fused with a 30 -year -old iconic pop culture 00:04:05.560 --> 00:04:08.560 anthem about demanding respect. What's fascinating 00:04:08.560 --> 00:04:11.039 here is the psychological pivot that occurred 00:04:11.039 --> 00:04:13.599 in that exact real -time window. What do you 00:04:13.599 --> 00:04:16.050 mean? Well, typically, when a pejorative term 00:04:16.050 --> 00:04:19.250 is hurled at a person or a group, the natural, 00:04:19.470 --> 00:04:22.269 almost biological defense mechanism is to reject 00:04:22.269 --> 00:04:24.689 it. Sure. You get defensive. You deny it. You 00:04:24.689 --> 00:04:27.430 push back or you demand an apology. But women 00:04:27.430 --> 00:04:30.560 online. along with many male allies, did the 00:04:30.560 --> 00:04:33.959 exact opposite. They immediately embraced the 00:04:33.959 --> 00:04:36.120 insult. They owned it. They took this phrase 00:04:36.120 --> 00:04:37.939 that was designed to be denigrating and they 00:04:37.939 --> 00:04:40.259 weaponized it. They turned it into a badge of 00:04:40.259 --> 00:04:43.060 honor and a rallying cry of defiance. That is 00:04:43.060 --> 00:04:46.040 a massive psychological shift. Usually the instinct 00:04:46.040 --> 00:04:48.600 is to say, hey, don't call us that. Right. But 00:04:48.600 --> 00:04:50.160 instead, the collective internet essentially 00:04:50.160 --> 00:04:52.660 said, you know what? You're right. We are. It's 00:04:52.660 --> 00:04:55.000 incredible. It reminds me of other historical 00:04:55.000 --> 00:04:57.620 moments of linguistic reclamation, but happening 00:04:57.620 --> 00:05:00.160 at just warp speed. It is a textbook example 00:05:00.160 --> 00:05:03.240 of linguistic reclamation. Historically, we have 00:05:03.240 --> 00:05:06.600 seen marginalized or targeted groups take ownership 00:05:06.600 --> 00:05:09.560 of a slur to strip it of its power. Like what? 00:05:09.839 --> 00:05:13.199 Think of words like queer or historical labels 00:05:13.199 --> 00:05:15.279 like suffragette, which was actually originally 00:05:15.279 --> 00:05:17.879 coined by a journalist as a mocking diminutive 00:05:17.879 --> 00:05:20.180 term. I didn't know that. Yeah, but the difference 00:05:20.180 --> 00:05:23.620 here is the compression of time. It took decades 00:05:23.620 --> 00:05:25.879 for some of those older words to be reclaimed. 00:05:25.920 --> 00:05:30.160 Here, it took about 45 minutes. 45 minutes. That 00:05:30.160 --> 00:05:33.879 rapid reclamation leads us to the birth of what 00:05:33.879 --> 00:05:37.019 formally became known as the Nasty Woman Movement. 00:05:37.199 --> 00:05:40.060 It got official very fast. It really did. Followers 00:05:40.060 --> 00:05:41.779 of this movement started describing themselves 00:05:41.779 --> 00:05:45.199 using those exact terms. Feminists began describing 00:05:45.199 --> 00:05:47.600 themselves as being just as nasty, maybe even 00:05:47.600 --> 00:05:50.360 more nasty than the original comment about Clinton 00:05:50.360 --> 00:05:52.680 had implied. They leaned all the way in. They 00:05:52.680 --> 00:05:55.019 really did. They took that weaponized mutter, 00:05:55.079 --> 00:05:57.399 stripped the negative connotation right out of 00:05:57.399 --> 00:05:59.959 it and built an entire digital identity around 00:05:59.959 --> 00:06:02.600 it. And that newly forged identity quickly aligned 00:06:02.600 --> 00:06:04.879 itself with the broader goals of the women's 00:06:04.879 --> 00:06:07.259 movement. It evolved past being just a funny 00:06:07.259 --> 00:06:09.990 trending hashtag. Right. something bigger it 00:06:09.990 --> 00:06:12.990 became a distinct recognizable banner under which 00:06:12.990 --> 00:06:15.430 people could gather to express their defiance 00:06:15.430 --> 00:06:19.589 and their solidarity the entire intent was focused 00:06:19.589 --> 00:06:23.110 on taking that specific word nasty and turning 00:06:23.110 --> 00:06:25.509 it into a universal synonym for an empowered 00:06:25.509 --> 00:06:28.569 outspoken woman who absolutely refuses to back 00:06:28.569 --> 00:06:31.050 down or be silenced here's where it gets really 00:06:31.050 --> 00:06:33.689 interesting Because it didn't just stay on Twitter 00:06:33.689 --> 00:06:37.029 as an abstract idea or a digital banner. No, 00:06:37.089 --> 00:06:40.149 it got very real very fast. It materialized. 00:06:40.149 --> 00:06:43.149 It became physical almost overnight. The sheer 00:06:43.149 --> 00:06:45.649 scale of the merchandise that emerged from this 00:06:45.649 --> 00:06:48.610 movement is staggering to look back on. The volume 00:06:48.610 --> 00:06:50.930 was insane. It really was. But it had a very 00:06:50.930 --> 00:06:53.730 specific targeted purpose. This wasn't just capitalism 00:06:53.730 --> 00:06:55.829 capitalizing on a trend for the sake of profit. 00:06:55.970 --> 00:06:58.949 This was a massive, highly coordinated fundraising 00:06:58.949 --> 00:07:01.860 effort directed almost entirely. toward Planned 00:07:01.860 --> 00:07:04.959 Parenthood. It was a direct, calculated response. 00:07:05.420 --> 00:07:07.660 Donald Trump's platform included a conservative 00:07:07.660 --> 00:07:11.000 anti -abortion agenda specifically focusing on 00:07:11.000 --> 00:07:12.839 the threat to cut federal funding to Planned 00:07:12.839 --> 00:07:14.680 Parenthood because of the abortion services they 00:07:14.680 --> 00:07:17.000 provide. Right. The movement saw an opportunity 00:07:17.000 --> 00:07:19.720 to take the energy generated by his own words 00:07:19.720 --> 00:07:21.920 and funnel it directly into the organization 00:07:21.920 --> 00:07:25.259 he was opposing. The translation from a digital 00:07:25.259 --> 00:07:28.980 hashtag to tangible fundraising merchandise was 00:07:28.980 --> 00:07:32.480 incredibly swift. So it started as a tweet, but 00:07:32.480 --> 00:07:35.699 how quickly did it become a fengal product? I 00:07:35.699 --> 00:07:37.819 imagine the logistics of that usually take weeks. 00:07:38.509 --> 00:07:41.189 Not in the era of print on demand. Take Amanda 00:07:41.189 --> 00:07:43.730 Brinkman, for instance. She designed a nasty 00:07:43.730 --> 00:07:46.149 woman T -shirt almost immediately, literally 00:07:46.149 --> 00:07:49.089 while that 2016 debate was still fresh on everyone's 00:07:49.089 --> 00:07:51.269 screens. That same night. That same night. She 00:07:51.269 --> 00:07:53.689 put it online, pledging half of the proceeds 00:07:53.689 --> 00:07:56.730 to fund Planned Parenthood. That shirt went viral 00:07:56.730 --> 00:07:59.329 overnight, immediately attracting national media 00:07:59.329 --> 00:08:01.829 attention. And what really acted as lighter fluid 00:08:01.829 --> 00:08:04.310 on that fire was the celebrity amplification. 00:08:04.550 --> 00:08:06.850 Huge factor. It wasn't just everyday people buying 00:08:06.850 --> 00:08:09.740 it and posting selfies. You had massive mainstream 00:08:09.740 --> 00:08:12.959 stars jumping in. Will Ferrell, Katy Perry, Kristen 00:08:12.959 --> 00:08:15.540 Bell, Julia Louis -Dreyfus. All of them. They 00:08:15.540 --> 00:08:17.800 were all wearing Brinkman's apparel publicly 00:08:17.800 --> 00:08:20.980 and broadcasting their support to their millions 00:08:20.980 --> 00:08:24.959 of followers. That specific t -shirt became the 00:08:24.959 --> 00:08:27.379 visual symbol of the movement. It was everywhere. 00:08:28.019 --> 00:08:30.800 Brinkman's design alone ended up raising over 00:08:30.800 --> 00:08:35.610 $130 ,000 for Planned Parenthood. Wow. The momentum 00:08:35.610 --> 00:08:38.370 was so sustained that her company, which was 00:08:38.370 --> 00:08:41.590 originally called Google Ghost, actually rebranded 00:08:41.590 --> 00:08:45.470 itself entirely as Shrill Society, just continuing 00:08:45.470 --> 00:08:47.490 to make products revolving around that movement. 00:08:47.570 --> 00:08:50.350 And that $130 ,000, while impressive, is just 00:08:50.350 --> 00:08:52.250 the tip of the iceberg when you look at the broader 00:08:52.250 --> 00:08:54.649 consumer response. It got bigger. Oh, much bigger. 00:08:54.789 --> 00:08:57.649 In July of 2017, the comedian and television 00:08:57.649 --> 00:09:00.970 host Samantha Bee launched her own nasty woman 00:09:00.970 --> 00:09:04.460 shirt campaign. The scale of that specific initiative 00:09:04.460 --> 00:09:07.200 was astronomical. How much did she raise? It 00:09:07.200 --> 00:09:09.820 raised over $1 million for Planned Parenthood. 00:09:09.879 --> 00:09:12.100 A million dollars? From a single t -shirt campaign. 00:09:12.360 --> 00:09:14.360 When you look at those numbers, you begin to 00:09:14.360 --> 00:09:17.840 see the immense, tangible financial power of 00:09:17.840 --> 00:09:20.659 crowdsourced political frustration. It wasn't 00:09:20.659 --> 00:09:22.919 just noise, it was capital. A million dollars 00:09:22.919 --> 00:09:25.320 from a shirt is hard to wrap your head around. 00:09:25.700 --> 00:09:28.720 But I imagine it didn't stop at apparel. If the 00:09:28.720 --> 00:09:31.799 momentum was that strong, how far did the commercialization 00:09:31.799 --> 00:09:34.539 go into other markets? It spilled over into almost 00:09:34.539 --> 00:09:37.379 every sector you can think of, largely driven 00:09:37.379 --> 00:09:40.100 by female -owned businesses that wanted to bake 00:09:40.100 --> 00:09:42.600 philanthropic components right into their business 00:09:42.600 --> 00:09:44.899 models. Like what kind of products? Well, you 00:09:44.899 --> 00:09:47.740 had Meg Hirshmury founding Nasty Woman Wines 00:09:47.740 --> 00:09:51.340 in 2016. They started producing what they explicitly 00:09:51.340 --> 00:09:54.379 marketed as unapologetically feminist wines, 00:09:54.620 --> 00:09:57.139 and they committed to donating 20 % of their 00:09:57.139 --> 00:09:59.710 net profit. to organizations driving equality. 00:10:00.250 --> 00:10:02.610 Wine makes sense. It pairs well with watching 00:10:02.610 --> 00:10:05.029 chaotic political debates. It really does. But 00:10:05.029 --> 00:10:07.000 it really went everywhere. I was reading about 00:10:07.000 --> 00:10:10.000 Nasty Woman Lip Gloss, which produces vegan and 00:10:10.000 --> 00:10:12.820 cruelty -free cosmetics, again, tying the proceeds 00:10:12.820 --> 00:10:15.200 back to empowerment and quality organizations. 00:10:15.860 --> 00:10:18.080 Shrill Society, the company that started with 00:10:18.080 --> 00:10:20.620 that first T -shirt, even branched out into publishing. 00:10:20.860 --> 00:10:23.980 They created a Fuck Trump Action Planner, which 00:10:23.980 --> 00:10:26.340 was also marketed as the Year of the Nasty Woman 00:10:26.340 --> 00:10:29.620 Planner. Yeah. It wasn't just a calendar. It 00:10:29.620 --> 00:10:32.179 was filled with quotes from female leaders and 00:10:32.179 --> 00:10:34.480 concrete action items for political engagement. 00:10:35.049 --> 00:10:38.269 They also developed a nasty woman card game designed 00:10:38.269 --> 00:10:40.789 specifically to get players around a table talking 00:10:40.789 --> 00:10:42.870 about politics, feminism and current events. 00:10:42.950 --> 00:10:45.759 Wow. And what's crucial to note there is the 00:10:45.759 --> 00:10:49.299 institutional validation. That card game wasn't 00:10:49.299 --> 00:10:52.600 just a self -published underground indie project. 00:10:52.840 --> 00:10:55.740 It was picked up and published by Penguin Random 00:10:55.740 --> 00:10:59.159 House in 2018. That's a huge publisher. Exactly. 00:10:59.200 --> 00:11:02.360 When a massive legacy corporate publisher recognizes 00:11:02.360 --> 00:11:05.360 the grassroots energy of a movement and invests 00:11:05.360 --> 00:11:08.120 in it, you know, the cultural footprint is undeniable. 00:11:08.120 --> 00:11:10.639 It really highlights the friction or maybe the 00:11:10.639 --> 00:11:13.529 synergy between capitalism and activism. You 00:11:13.529 --> 00:11:15.970 have a movement born out of frustration and consumer 00:11:15.970 --> 00:11:18.470 markets immediately pivot to provide a vehicle 00:11:18.470 --> 00:11:20.710 for that frustration. Right. But it makes you 00:11:20.710 --> 00:11:23.009 wonder, did this energy translate into something 00:11:23.009 --> 00:11:25.610 less commercial? Did it bleed into spaces that 00:11:25.610 --> 00:11:27.809 were more foundational, like literature or fine 00:11:27.809 --> 00:11:31.470 art? Absolutely. And that brings us to a major 00:11:31.470 --> 00:11:34.009 pillar of this phenomenon, the community action 00:11:34.009 --> 00:11:36.590 and the earnest artistic expression that it inspired. 00:11:36.909 --> 00:11:39.500 Tell me about that. Well. The commercial aspect 00:11:39.500 --> 00:11:42.340 was huge, but the creative aspect was arguably 00:11:42.340 --> 00:11:45.620 just as impactful. For example, there was a book 00:11:45.620 --> 00:11:48.519 compiled called The Nasty Women Project, Voices 00:11:48.519 --> 00:11:50.519 from the Resistance. The premise of that book 00:11:50.519 --> 00:11:52.779 is fascinating. It was a collection of stories 00:11:52.779 --> 00:11:54.919 sourced from women all around the country who 00:11:54.919 --> 00:11:57.659 were affected, emotionally or materially, by 00:11:57.659 --> 00:12:00.519 the 2016 election. Yes. And the stated mission 00:12:00.519 --> 00:12:03.940 wasn't to turn a profit. It was explicitly to 00:12:03.940 --> 00:12:05.879 fight the threat of misogyny and oppression. 00:12:06.440 --> 00:12:08.600 And keeping with the established theme of the 00:12:08.600 --> 00:12:12.059 movement, 100 % of the proceeds from the book 00:12:12.059 --> 00:12:14.940 went directly to funding Planned Parenthood. 00:12:14.980 --> 00:12:17.960 100%. It was framed not as a project for personal 00:12:17.960 --> 00:12:20.379 glory or traditional literary success, but as 00:12:20.379 --> 00:12:23.139 a historical chronicle and a reminder of collective 00:12:23.139 --> 00:12:25.879 capability. And it wasn't just an obscure, localized 00:12:25.879 --> 00:12:28.779 effort that flew under the radar either. It gained 00:12:28.779 --> 00:12:31.600 significant traction in the literary world. It 00:12:31.600 --> 00:12:33.799 received highly vocal praise and endorsements 00:12:33.799 --> 00:12:36.740 from major respected writers. Who endorsed it? 00:12:36.860 --> 00:12:39.399 Margaret Atwood, Louise O 'Neill, and Nick Heschel 00:12:39.399 --> 00:12:42.419 all championed the project. That gave it a level 00:12:42.419 --> 00:12:46.000 of literary prestige that elevated it way beyond 00:12:46.000 --> 00:12:48.700 a simple political pamphlet. Alongside the literature, 00:12:48.960 --> 00:12:51.899 the visual arts community organized a massive 00:12:51.899 --> 00:12:55.159 response too. Which is interesting because gallery 00:12:55.159 --> 00:12:58.700 art is usually so exclusive and expensive and 00:12:58.700 --> 00:13:01.720 often very slow to react to current events. How 00:13:01.720 --> 00:13:04.500 did the art world mobilize around this? They 00:13:04.500 --> 00:13:07.539 organized the Nasty Women exhibition. This was 00:13:07.539 --> 00:13:10.340 a global art and activism movement spearheaded 00:13:10.340 --> 00:13:13.039 by creators Roxanne Jackson and Jessamyn Fior. 00:13:13.240 --> 00:13:15.559 Was it just one gallery? No, they didn't just 00:13:15.559 --> 00:13:18.340 hold one gallery showing. They coordinated art 00:13:18.340 --> 00:13:20.500 exhibits internationally, featuring artists from 00:13:20.500 --> 00:13:22.659 all over the world. And just like the literary 00:13:22.659 --> 00:13:25.440 project, 100 % of the proceeds generated from 00:13:25.440 --> 00:13:27.820 these exhibitions went directly to Planned Parenthood. 00:13:27.899 --> 00:13:29.860 I find the way they structure that art exhibition 00:13:29.860 --> 00:13:32.679 to be so clever. They completely subverted the 00:13:32.679 --> 00:13:34.620 typical high -end gallery setup. They really 00:13:34.620 --> 00:13:37.019 did. Did they face any pushback from the traditional 00:13:37.019 --> 00:13:39.149 art world for doing that? Well, if we connect 00:13:39.149 --> 00:13:41.789 this to the bigger picture, what Roxanne Jackson 00:13:41.789 --> 00:13:44.750 and Jessamyn Fiore did was actually a masterclass 00:13:44.750 --> 00:13:47.669 in the democratization of art, which inherently 00:13:47.669 --> 00:13:50.509 challenges traditional gallery norms. How so? 00:13:50.710 --> 00:13:53.509 Jackson explained that they instituted an entirely 00:13:53.509 --> 00:13:57.450 open submission process. They accepted all submitted 00:13:57.450 --> 00:14:00.350 artwork, regardless of the content or the artist's 00:14:00.350 --> 00:14:03.009 pedigree. No curation. No curation. They weren't 00:14:03.009 --> 00:14:05.950 trying to meticulously curate a pristine traditional 00:14:05.950 --> 00:14:09.190 exhibition for one wealthy collectors. They were 00:14:09.190 --> 00:14:12.250 focusing entirely on the raw solidarity of women 00:14:12.250 --> 00:14:15.049 coming together. But the absolute most crucial 00:14:15.049 --> 00:14:17.330 element of their strategy was the pricing model. 00:14:17.450 --> 00:14:19.330 Oh, right. They asked all the artists to cap 00:14:19.330 --> 00:14:20.980 the price of their pieces, right? I think it 00:14:20.980 --> 00:14:24.860 was $100 or less. Exactly, $100 maximum. Feuer 00:14:24.860 --> 00:14:27.019 explained the underlying strategy beautifully. 00:14:27.440 --> 00:14:30.139 The goal was to make the art radically accessible. 00:14:30.340 --> 00:14:32.419 That makes total sense. She wanted people who 00:14:32.419 --> 00:14:34.259 had never bought a work of art before in their 00:14:34.259 --> 00:14:37.220 entire lives to be able to walk into that exhibition, 00:14:37.519 --> 00:14:40.639 feel moved by the collective experience, fall 00:14:40.639 --> 00:14:43.720 in love with a piece, and be able to say, $30, 00:14:43.860 --> 00:14:46.059 yeah, I can afford that, and I'm helping Plain 00:14:46.059 --> 00:14:48.570 Parenthood. By lowering the barrier to entry 00:14:48.570 --> 00:14:52.230 so drastically they engaged a much wider demographic. 00:14:52.590 --> 00:14:55.590 It allowed someone to buy art as an accessible 00:14:55.590 --> 00:14:59.759 act of defiance. Precisely. It shifted the purchase 00:14:59.759 --> 00:15:02.740 from a luxury acquisition to an act of community 00:15:02.740 --> 00:15:05.679 participation. And this highly accessible, high 00:15:05.679 --> 00:15:08.279 volume model was incredibly effective. I can 00:15:08.279 --> 00:15:10.980 imagine. Selling pieces for $30, $40 or $50, 00:15:11.360 --> 00:15:13.879 the Nasty Women exhibitions ultimately raised 00:15:13.879 --> 00:15:18.120 over $180 ,000 for the organization. It is amazing 00:15:18.120 --> 00:15:20.200 how making something affordable actually allowed 00:15:20.200 --> 00:15:22.639 them to raise so much more money in the aggregate. 00:15:22.840 --> 00:15:25.899 Because of the sheer volume of sales. Exactly. 00:15:25.960 --> 00:15:28.639 It became a communal event. rather than an exclusive 00:15:28.639 --> 00:15:31.019 viewing. And while this movement was raising 00:15:31.019 --> 00:15:33.299 hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars 00:15:33.299 --> 00:15:35.840 through these grassroots channels, the phrase 00:15:35.840 --> 00:15:38.759 itself was just completely saturating the broader 00:15:38.759 --> 00:15:41.539 media ecosystem. It was everywhere you looked. 00:15:41.740 --> 00:15:44.039 The media coverage was incredibly extensive, 00:15:44.440 --> 00:15:47.159 bridging the gap between new media and legacy 00:15:47.159 --> 00:15:50.320 institutions. Digital first outlets like BuzzFeed 00:15:50.320 --> 00:15:52.679 were constantly publishing articles, listicles, 00:15:52.820 --> 00:15:56.399 and commentary. That gave the movement sustained... 00:15:58.799 --> 00:16:17.220 Right, keeping it in the feed. You always know 00:16:17.220 --> 00:16:19.919 a phrase has truly cemented itself in the cultural 00:16:19.919 --> 00:16:22.360 zeitgeist when late night comedy gets a hold 00:16:22.360 --> 00:16:31.259 of it. Oh, definitely. But it also loops right 00:16:31.259 --> 00:16:33.620 back into formal politics, which is where it 00:16:33.620 --> 00:16:37.399 started. Senator Elizabeth Warren used the phrase 00:16:37.399 --> 00:16:40.600 as a literal direct call to action. She did. 00:16:40.899 --> 00:16:43.820 She urged women to use their status as nasty 00:16:43.820 --> 00:16:46.100 women to march to the polls and vote against 00:16:46.100 --> 00:16:49.480 Trump on Election Day. The political left largely 00:16:49.480 --> 00:16:51.600 viewed the reclaiming of the title in a very 00:16:51.600 --> 00:16:54.799 favorable, empowering light. And beyond the comedy 00:16:54.799 --> 00:16:57.019 sketches and the formal political speeches on 00:16:57.019 --> 00:16:59.919 the Senate floor, the phrase also inspired deeply 00:16:59.919 --> 00:17:02.580 earnest artistic expression in performance art. 00:17:03.279 --> 00:17:05.539 One of the most notable and visible examples 00:17:05.539 --> 00:17:08.079 of this was a spoken word piece simply titled 00:17:08.079 --> 00:17:10.759 Nasty Woman. Who wrote that one? It was written 00:17:10.759 --> 00:17:13.539 by a 19 -year -old slam poet named Nina Mariah 00:17:13.539 --> 00:17:16.420 Donovan. That poem ended up having a massive 00:17:16.420 --> 00:17:19.180 global stage. It was performed by the actress 00:17:19.180 --> 00:17:22.839 Ashley Judd at the 2017 Women's March in Washington, 00:17:23.119 --> 00:17:25.039 which took place right after the presidential 00:17:25.039 --> 00:17:27.660 inauguration. That was a huge moment. That specific 00:17:27.660 --> 00:17:30.259 performance went incredibly viral online, taking 00:17:30.259 --> 00:17:32.700 the raw, unfiltered words of a teenager. from 00:17:32.700 --> 00:17:35.259 a slam poetry stage and broadcasting them to 00:17:35.259 --> 00:17:37.700 an audience of millions worldwide. It really 00:17:37.700 --> 00:17:39.819 captured the mood of the crowd. It was a defining 00:17:39.819 --> 00:17:43.259 moment of that march. But what I find even wilder 00:17:43.259 --> 00:17:45.759 is how the phrase didn't just stay in the realm 00:17:45.759 --> 00:17:48.880 of political marches, news media, or even earnest 00:17:48.880 --> 00:17:52.400 poetry. It actually seeped into completely fictional, 00:17:52.539 --> 00:17:55.220 scripted entertainment. That is often the final 00:17:55.220 --> 00:17:58.220 stage of cultural assimilation for a new piece 00:17:58.220 --> 00:18:00.960 of terminology. Really? Yeah, when it stops being 00:18:00.960 --> 00:18:03.480 referenced as a news event and starts being used 00:18:03.480 --> 00:18:06.140 as casual dialogue in fiction. The material points 00:18:06.140 --> 00:18:09.359 out a brilliant example of this. The 2018 science 00:18:09.359 --> 00:18:12.119 fiction blockbuster Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom. 00:18:12.400 --> 00:18:15.079 In a dinosaur movie. In a dinosaur movie. The 00:18:15.079 --> 00:18:17.660 film features a direct, unmistakable allusion 00:18:17.660 --> 00:18:19.700 to the quote. The villainous character in the 00:18:19.700 --> 00:18:22.460 film, Ken Wheatley, specifically describes the 00:18:22.460 --> 00:18:25.440 character Dr. Zia Rodriguez as a nasty woman. 00:18:25.700 --> 00:18:27.859 I mean, imagine sitting in a Hollywood writer's 00:18:27.859 --> 00:18:30.660 room for a movie about a... giant T -Rex, and 00:18:30.660 --> 00:18:32.640 someone says, you know what this dinosaur movie 00:18:32.640 --> 00:18:35.880 needs? A reference to a 2016 debate about Social 00:18:35.880 --> 00:18:39.180 Security taxes. It's absurd, but it works. It 00:18:39.180 --> 00:18:41.579 is just surreal how fast that turnaround is. 00:18:41.920 --> 00:18:44.200 Two years later, it's in a summer blockbuster, 00:18:44.299 --> 00:18:46.400 and it showed up in prestige television, too. 00:18:46.519 --> 00:18:50.700 Oh, in Scandal. Yes. In the hit ABC series Scandal, 00:18:50.799 --> 00:18:53.119 the main character, Olivia Pope, has this incredibly 00:18:53.119 --> 00:18:55.960 intense scene where she tells the future president, 00:18:56.119 --> 00:18:59.029 Melody Grant, that any time a woman acts in defiance 00:18:59.029 --> 00:19:01.650 of a man, she will inevitably be perceived as 00:19:01.650 --> 00:19:04.549 a nasty woman. Very pointed. It was a direct, 00:19:04.609 --> 00:19:06.829 pointed reference to the real -world comments, 00:19:07.049 --> 00:19:09.710 woven seamlessly into the fictional drama. And 00:19:09.710 --> 00:19:11.289 it even made its way into the music industry, 00:19:11.490 --> 00:19:13.589 completing the circle back to where the Janet 00:19:13.589 --> 00:19:16.730 Jackson comparisons began. Full circle. In April 00:19:16.730 --> 00:19:19.950 2018, the singer -songwriter Rhodes Rollins released 00:19:19.950 --> 00:19:23.289 a feminist anthem literally titled Nasty Woman. 00:19:23.410 --> 00:19:25.630 It was entirely centered on themes of female 00:19:25.630 --> 00:19:28.410 empowerment, pride, and unapologetic ambition. 00:19:28.829 --> 00:19:31.289 So we can really trace this phrase as it moves 00:19:31.289 --> 00:19:33.890 from a tense... political debate, to a live social 00:19:33.890 --> 00:19:36.329 media explosion, to physical merchandise, to 00:19:36.329 --> 00:19:39.450 fine art galleries, to slant poetry, to blockbuster 00:19:39.450 --> 00:19:41.849 dinosaur films, and finally to pop music. It 00:19:41.849 --> 00:19:44.150 saturated almost every conceivable layer of the 00:19:44.150 --> 00:19:46.750 cultural ecosystem. So what does this all mean? 00:19:46.869 --> 00:19:49.650 When you look at this entire timeline, spanning 00:19:49.650 --> 00:19:52.490 from a debate podium to a million dollar t -shirt 00:19:52.490 --> 00:19:55.869 campaign, what is the big takeaway for you listening 00:19:55.869 --> 00:19:58.140 to this deep dive right now? That's the real 00:19:58.140 --> 00:20:00.960 question. Why does this matter beyond the specific 00:20:00.960 --> 00:20:04.759 context of that one election? Well, it matters 00:20:04.759 --> 00:20:08.160 because this is a definitive masterclass in agility 00:20:08.160 --> 00:20:11.779 and linguistic reclamation. It proves how modern 00:20:11.779 --> 00:20:15.059 digital citizens possess the unprecedented ability 00:20:15.059 --> 00:20:18.140 to take a phrase that was intended to be a weapon, 00:20:18.299 --> 00:20:21.339 instantly forge it into a shield, and then use 00:20:21.339 --> 00:20:23.640 that shield to crowdsource millions of dollars 00:20:23.640 --> 00:20:26.180 in a matter of weeks. It's remarkable. It shows 00:20:26.180 --> 00:20:28.200 us the terrifying and brilliant speed of Internet 00:20:28.200 --> 00:20:30.680 culture. A community took an insult, printed 00:20:30.680 --> 00:20:32.700 it on a T -shirt, and used the profits to heavily 00:20:32.700 --> 00:20:35.680 fund the exact organization the insult thrower 00:20:35.680 --> 00:20:38.630 was actively trying to defund. It is a loop of 00:20:38.630 --> 00:20:41.150 cultural judo that simply wasn't possible a generation 00:20:41.150 --> 00:20:43.990 ago. This raises an important question. As we 00:20:43.990 --> 00:20:45.910 look at the sheer velocity of this phenomenon, 00:20:46.210 --> 00:20:47.990 we have to consider the future implications. 00:20:48.289 --> 00:20:50.289 What do you mean? If a single off -the -cuff 00:20:50.289 --> 00:20:53.650 remark at a podium can organically spawn a global 00:20:53.650 --> 00:20:56.670 art movement, a literary anthology, and a million 00:20:56.670 --> 00:20:58.890 -dollar campaign in a matter of mere months, 00:20:59.609 --> 00:21:02.490 How might the next linguistic shift happen? Oh, 00:21:02.509 --> 00:21:05.470 wow. The next time a viral phrase drops, it might 00:21:05.470 --> 00:21:07.970 completely bypass traditional media altogether. 00:21:08.269 --> 00:21:10.650 It could directly fund a new political reality 00:21:10.650 --> 00:21:13.769 or an entirely new massive social movement before 00:21:13.769 --> 00:21:15.910 the nightly news even realizes it's happening. 00:21:16.210 --> 00:21:19.029 The architecture for this kind of rapid, monetized 00:21:19.029 --> 00:21:21.410 cultural response has now been permanently built, 00:21:21.490 --> 00:21:23.710 and it is just waiting for the next spark. That 00:21:23.710 --> 00:21:25.769 is a deeply fascinating thought to leave on. 00:21:25.869 --> 00:21:28.410 The infrastructure is there. The blueprint is 00:21:28.410 --> 00:21:30.440 proven. and the speed is only getting faster. 00:21:30.819 --> 00:21:32.579 Thank you so much for joining us on this deep 00:21:32.579 --> 00:21:35.059 dive. We hope this exploration of the nasty woman 00:21:35.059 --> 00:21:37.400 phenomenon gives you a fresh perspective on the 00:21:37.400 --> 00:21:39.400 hidden power of the internet and the incredible 00:21:39.400 --> 00:21:41.940 elasticity of the language we use. Keep listening, 00:21:42.099 --> 00:21:44.440 keep analyzing the world around you, and most 00:21:44.440 --> 00:21:46.420 importantly, keep questioning the words you hear 00:21:46.420 --> 00:21:48.259 every single day. See you next time.