Introduction

 

There is very little room for isolation in today’s globalized climate. Even ideas

are affected and morphed by their thinker’s situation, previous experiences, 

cultural identity, and religious identity, to cite only a few influences. The

internet has played a sizable role in the evolved state of communication,

making it not only possible, but preferable for organizations to embrace the

online edge, creating avenues for interaction that previously would not have

existed. This extends to social media and the emergence of utilizing these new

avenues for business or politically driven objectives. Another change brought

on by the internet’s impact is how it has altered the way that people consume

text, whether it be literature, journalism, or poetry. Blogs, in fact, are now

considered legitimate sources of social discourse, though the topic of

discussion can range from politics to automobiles to fashion. 

​

Man Repeller, a blog run by founder Leandra Medine, is a fashion site,

dedicated to the more unusual side of style, including runway reports and

beauty tips as well as pieces on culture and humor. In this essay, I will apply

ideological criticism to the definition of a “Man Repeller” as written by the site’s

founder (which doubles as its mission statement) as well as the site’s basic

aesthetic. With this artifact, I will examine the rebellious and independent

undertones of Man Repeller’s ideology. 

 

Given that Man Repeller’s entire mission is based on the idea of being

purposefully contrary (as the name suggests), the site is dependent on the

reader’s willingness to buy into the ideology that Man Repeller encourages its

audience to believe: that conventional fashion caters to the stereotypical male

preference more hospitably than their proposed philosophy, and so a truly

progressive woman would shuck the traditional codes of fashion and aim

instead for Man Repeller’s unique non-guidelines for an independent, clever,

and unconventional female who makes unique sartorial choices. These

decisions act as the wearer’s silent proclamation to be progressive and

confident. 

​

By examining the founder’s definition of what a Man Repeller is, it allows me

to unpack what she (she being Leandra Medine) considered the most important

values within the ideology behind the website’s content. This will yield a better

understanding of the nature of rebellious narratives, and provide a clearer

image of this reactionary ideology. 

 

Presentation of Artifact

The page I’ve chosen to examine is the tab reading “What is a Man

Repeller?” Written by Medine in April of 2010, the content of the page 

is an extended definition of the site’s title. It includes an example of the 

use of the word, a fabricated origin, and a pronunciation guide. The 

background of the site is entirely white, and the title appears at the top in 

stark black letters. Sidled up the right end of the title, there is an image of two 

atypically dressed women, shown only from chin to hip, allowing the model of a 

Man Repeller to remain alluringly anonymous. Underneath the title, there are 

tabs for the different  types of material on the site, reading: fashion, beauty, 

humor, culture, dick-shun-ary, trivia, podcasts, and features. There are also

links to Man Repeller’s various social media identities in the top left corner. A 

screenshot of the website in included below, captured on the 16th of February, 

2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Method of Criticism

In this essay, I will be implementing ideological criticism as a means to 

uncovering the underlying ideology of the artifact. First it is imperative to define

what exactly  an ideology is. According to Sonja Foss’s book on Rhetorical

Criticism, “ideologies include a set pattern of beliefs that evaluate relevant

issues and topics for a group, provide an interpretation of some domain of the

world, and encourages particular attitudes.” Ideologies exist behind almost

every commercial aspect of life, silently shaping a person’s  perception of

whichever facet that aspect chooses to focus on. For example,  three men

(Greg Dickinson, Brian L Ott, and Eric Aoki) analyzed the Buffalo Bill Museum

as a means to investigate the ideology surrounding the American cowboy and

the perceptions Americans are likely to hold regarding the frontier as a result of

this constructed ideology.After careful, holistic, and thorough consideration of

the entire museum, the men came to a conclusion about the narrative it 

encourages. They say: “The museum is doing much more than simply 

conveying the biography of a particular cowboy and showman; it is, instead

telling and retelling a narrative of colonization and civilization.” This speaks to

the ideology of the museum, which privileges their ideal of an American hero;

one who is “white and male, a grand weaver of grand narratives.” These

conclusions shed light on the role of a ideological critic. It is the critic’s job to

consider the obvious and flashing facets of the artifact and discover how they

contribute to a way of thinking on a larger scale. As always, it is a rhetorical

critic’s duty to provide a better understanding of the uncertain, uncharted social

or cultural territories hidden in plain sight. Ideological criticism is the practice

of fitting one artifact into a bigger, preexisting set of ideals, and then analyzing what that particular artifact can reveal about its given set of ideals. 

 

 

 

Analysis of Artifact

There are two major tenets embedded in Man Repeller’s definition as well as in its aesthetic presentation on the website. These tenets are rebellion and independence. Those who log onto the site are met with the recurring idea that those who read and participate in the website are independent, rebellious, and clever presenters of female fashion. According to Man Repeller, good is frumpy, good is loud and outrageous; good fashion choices “include but are not limited to harem pants, boyfriend jeans, overalls… jewelry that resembles violent weaponry and clogs.” On the other hand, bad is mild, timid and conventional. Medine positions Man Repeller as a representation of female independence in all avenues of interaction, beginning with the way she presents herself as rebellious to typical fashion. 

​

Evidence of this emphasis on rebellion are apparent in this artifact in several ways. First, the word choice in the definition itself lends the reader to a particular interpretation. The use of the words “sartorially offensive” marks a significant support for the contrary nature of the website, allowing the common perception that people judge women on their clothing to be repurposed as a conduit for a woman’s own decisions. In other words, the man-repelling mode is a way for women to not only rebel against the typical, but to consciously fight against it, using their stylistic choices as a weapon. The use of the word “offensive” as being unique to the Man Repeller creed implies that most women dress defensively. This suggests that the women of Man Repeller are confident enough to depart from that defensive state into a  more personalized offensive. 

​

The women at the right of the title also represent a rebellion of sorts— they are dressed in the sartorially offensive style that Man Repeller prizes, and they are also without any major identifying characteristics. This suggests that on the Man Repeller site, it does not matter what beauty a woman was born with (which is most apparent in faces: the two women in the picture are only pictured from chin to hip), but in the choices she makes in how her peers perceive her. There is no doubt that pulling off the outfits pictured requires confidence and through this confidence, Man Repeller wants to add a feminist edge to the way that women view themselves. The emphasis on female rebellion is a step towards their effort of to establish a positive, progressive spin on the often debated purpose of fashion. Women can find empowerment through rebellion.

​

In the realm of independence, the artifact makes a case for personal empowerment through sartorial choices. The solid definition of “man repeller” ends with the idea that this style of dressing, this “sartorially offensive” style of dressing, “may result in repelling members of the opposite sex.” The use of the word “may” in this instance speaks directly to a point that the title alone is wont to neglect: the fact that purposefully dressing in a way that is meant to repel men is still technically dressing for men— that the conscious effort to separate fashion from the male gaze betrays the intrinsic connection between the two. By using the word “may” and positioning the addition after the main definition, Medine is making an attempt to recognize that point and repute it. The group is open to all women who are willing to stand out, before any other purpose that their clothing may serve. this definition aligns “man-repellers” with outspoken, tenacious women, though not necessarily women who have purposefully chosen to repel men. Rather, men are an afterthought that have no place when such a woman dresses herself. In this way, even though the definition of a “man repeller” is verbally linked to the male gender, a person who embraces the definition neglects the presence of a male gaze at all instead of purposefully dressing contrary to it (as the name suggests). 

​

Another example of the independent stream is the humor-infused “Origin” section at the bottom of the page. Median equates “man repeller” to words like “unattractive” and “celibate” (as well as “M.C. Hammer,” an homage to the harem pants, no doubt). Because it is very unlikely that a person would frankly define themselves as unattractive or celibate, the reader can infer irony, in an attempt at humorous cleverness. The playful tone suggests that the follower does not need to take the act of “man-repelling” very seriously. This shows that the creators were aware of the flaws in their ideology (namely, the fact the purposefully dressing atypically is still dressing in a reactionary manner) but believed in the overall effect enough to work around this point.

 

Conclusion

Man Repeller’s chosen ideology is one that revels in the contrary. These women want to be progressive, they want to push boundaries and change perceptions. Though their name may suggest otherwise, the women at Man Repeller are not anti-men, they are just anti-palatable fashion. The repelling of men is just a byproduct. However, the choice to name the website “Man Repeller” is indicative of the ideology itself. The preferred condition is rebellion, the preferred mode is contrary. It only makes sense that they would choose to name the website something loud and confident, because that’s the message they are meant to spread.

 

Works Cited

 

Foss, Sonja K. "Ideological Critcism." Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice.4th ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland, 2009. 209-21. Print.

 

Greg Dickinson, Brian L. Ott, and Eric Aoki, Memory and Myth at the Buffalo     Bill Museum. Reprinted by permission of Routledge.