Youth Incorporated Magazine

Divyangna Trivedi – “The woman against today’s feminism” created a video about what she thinks is wrong with today’s feminism. Despite the video getting 1.7 million views on Instagram, she only has 18.5k followers, depicting the popular opinion on her video: triggering content. Various people got triggered by the video and shared it among their circles, leading to increasing views despite the hatred the video has received. 

Divyangna Trivedi is not very different from Dhinchak Pooja, a viral YouTube singer who got more views from trolls who wanted to poke fun at her than people who wanted to really hear her sing. Both Divyangna and Dhichak Pooja have one thing in common: Turned off comments because their content is flooded with criticism. Just like Dhinchak Pooja, Divyangna’s content has various views but much fewer likes or subscribers, which can be explained by the hate her content gets from the audience. Just like Dhinchak Pooja’s videos, Divyangna’s videos will soon only be viewed by trolls or people who do not take her content seriously. Divyangna loses respect among the majority of her audience at the cost of a few viral videos. Her downward trajectory in views and the “viral” nature of her videos is inevitable – a similar trajectory like Dhinchak Pooja which is already visible in her statistics. Divyangna’s first video got 1.7 million views, second – 838k views, and the third – 430k views, an observable and unsurprising downward trajectory. 

The content falls along the lines of people who want to post triggering content to stand out on social media and get more attention. Being politically incorrect helps people to gain much more attention as it gains criticism from the masses. Various experts argue that Donald Trump won the US Presidential elections using the same strategy: triggering and offensive content, to stand out from his competitors. Even negative media attention is media attention. People still read about you and think about you. When some people lack talent to be in media attention for the right reasons, they use strategies to get viral by passing controversial and politically incorrect statements. 

Feminism is a humanitarian movement since it promotes equality among all humans. By claiming to be against “Today’s Feminism”, Divyangna takes an “anti-humanitarian” stance, which is itself unconstitutional. When Divyangna says that “Feminism has created a gender divide”, she ignores the pre-existing gender divide which did not allow women to vote, which did not give women equal rights as men, which still does not give women in the same position as men equal pay – all of which feminism has worked towards eliminating. 

Divyangna Trivedi’s video will turn against her in any of her attempts for equality in the future. She has lost the power to ask for equal pay in her future profession of “law”, which has a wage gap, because she has rejected “Today’s feminism”. Divyangna points out that “If feminism were only for women who are raped or oppressed in villages, she would accept it”. This narrow example harms her further by not allowing her to raise the point of “feminism” in any city – even if she was catcalled, not selected for a job because of her gender, was not taken seriously at work, was spoken over by men, eve-teased, stared at by a man, cyberstalked, not given an equal pay – the list is endless. Fighting any of these issues in any way would make her “Today’s Feminist”, hence a hypocrite. 

Her belief in a theory that disempowers her, makes me see her as someone who I cannot respect. If she cannot empower herself, she does not deserve to be in any position which is responsible for empowering other people – because she will not be able to do so. Hence, she has lost her best shot at getting a respectable leadership position. She has single-handedly pushed away her dream to be a judge at any court. The citizens need to trust a judge to be unbiased for power to be vested in them, Divyangna Trivedi has depicted that she is someone who cannot be trusted to be unbiased.

To stick to her rejection of “Today’s feminism”  – she will have to give up her basic rights – equal pay, the desire to stay free of the male gaze, right to speech in the workplace, right to safe movement (without being catcalled) – which is a questionable decision considering she’s an aspiring lawyer, someone who’s supposed to uphold the constitutional rights of all citizens (men and women and most importantly herself). 

Whatever path Divyangna Trivedi chooses in her life, she will be surrounded by women and men, who are “feminists”, who know the disservice she did to the movement, who are aware of her “anti-humanitarian” ideas and will ensure that she isn’t where she doesn’t deserve to be. Her own dreams and aspirations will be pushed further away by her “anti-humanitarian” video which people recognize as hate speech and triggering content. 

Despite her jab at “Today’s Feminism” – feminists will continue to work towards their dreams – to ensure that they continue gaining power in their spheres of influence. Feminists are ensuring that the world is a better place for everyone, and that comes by making sure the right people are the decision-makers in power. You gave up your power Divyangna when you created your “viral” video –  your power to be the respectful person you could be, your power to lead an unquestionable life, above all – the power of credibility. 

My advice to everyone reading this would be to not share triggering content on social media because it only contributes towards increasing the traction which a post gets. Sharing something positive works towards the benefit of social media communities because sharing works as a domino effect. When you share negative or triggering content, the Instagram algorithm does not differentiate between “positive” and “negative” content and the algorithm promotes the post. We need to have better strategies to deal with triggering videos that are viral on the internet. 

*This disclaimer informs readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author, and not necessarily to the author’s employer, organization, committee or other group or individual.