天才女友奈奈: “Language is never neutral—it always carries power.”

Selene (天才女友奈奈) is a feminist content creator on Douyin, having accumulated over 80k subscribers on the platform. She lives in Shanghai and works in finance.

Q1: How did you first come into contact with feminism? Was there any particular experience or turning point that sparked your interest in this topic?

 A: I first encountered feminism around 2016. At the time, influencer Papi Jiang released a video about the issue of children taking their father’s surname, which generated widespread debate. I began to wonder: why is it taken for granted that children should inherit the father’s name? That was the first time I realized gender equality in real life was far less simple than it sounded in slogans. Later, I came across discussions in Douban groups where women shared their personal experiences and analyzed everything from news events to films. Reading those posts made me realize that feminism is not some distant theory, but a practice deeply tied to everyday life.

Q2: Why did you choose to speak out on social media? Compared with traditional media, what unique opportunities has the internet brought you?

A: Traditional media often chases controversy and traffic, and women’s issues are easily marginalized or downplayed. The internet, however, gave me another possibility—women can speak directly and build their own platforms. Social media is not only a tool for dissemination but also an archive. It can preserve women’s experiences rather than letting them be erased or forgotten.

Q3: As a feminist blogger, what does your daily life look like? How do you balance your personal life with the responsibility of speaking out?

A: By day I am an ordinary office worker, and only after work do I have time to write or join discussions online. These two identities are not contradictory: my job grounds me in reality, while writing keeps me reflective. The biggest challenge is facing outside criticism—such as those who say feminism is “too extreme.” But once you’ve witnessed real inequalities around you, it becomes impossible to pretend they don’t exist.

Q4: In daily life, what do you think are the most common forms of gender discrimination in language? Do you have any particularly memorable examples?

A: The most common are derogatory words and jokes. In some friend groups, men often make jokes using sexist slurs. I point them out directly; even if I can’t change their views, at least they’ll restrain themselves in my presence. It’s a stance: a refusal to silently condone discrimination.

Q5: Do you think gender discrimination in language is an unconscious cultural phenomenon, or a deliberately perpetuated power structure?

A: I think it’s both. On one hand, many people repeat discriminatory expressions unconsciously. On the other hand, these words reflect a long-standing, entrenched power structure. Language is never neutral—it always carries culture and power relations.

Q6: Some argue that adopting “gender-neutral” language (such as avoiding gendered pronouns) can ease gender discrimination. What do you think of the effectiveness and feasibility of such language reform?

A: Gender-neutral language is not just “political correctness”; it is a practice. By adjusting how we speak, we create more space for women and gradually shift people’s thinking. Of course, it won’t eliminate discrimination overnight, but it can help society adapt to a more equal way of expression.

Q7: In terms of improving gender bias in language, what do you think ordinary people and public figures can do? In daily conversation, when you notice implicit sexism in someone’s words, how do you respond?

 A: Ordinary people can start with themselves: be mindful of word choice and call out issues when they arise. Public figures bear even greater responsibility because their words influence large audiences. As for me, when I hear discriminatory expressions, I point them out and explain why they’re problematic. Even if I can’t change the other person immediately, at least they’ll realize such language is not harmless.

Q8: From your perspective, has the online environment (such as short video platforms and social media) intensified the sexualization of women? What responsibilities should these platforms bear?

 A: Yes, algorithms often amplify the sexualization of women. Women’s bodies and appearances are constantly consumed as tools for traffic. Platforms should not simply chase clicks—they should create stricter standards to reduce the objectification of women as “traffic bait.”

Q9: When women actively use a degree of sexualized self-expression (through clothing, selfies, etc.), can this be seen as a rebellion against the “male gaze”? Or is it another form of compliance?

 A: It depends on the context. Women absolutely have the right to express themselves through sexuality—it’s an exercise of bodily autonomy. But in the online environment, such expression is often entangled with algorithms and the gaze, making it easy to slip in compliance. So it can be both rebellion and commodification.

Q10: What do you think about the public’s double standards toward sexualized women (for example, encouraging sexualized images in entertainment but criticizing ordinary women’s self-expression)?

A: This double standard is very common. People accept the carefully packaged “sexy” images in the entertainment industry but harshly judge ordinary women’s self-expression. At its core, it reflects society’s sense of ownership over women’s bodies: women can be admired, but only within frameworks others impose.

Q11: Can “sexiness” be redefined? If so, what would you like it to mean?

A: I hope sexiness can be redefined as a matter of autonomy rather than the product of external gazes. It should mean strength, freedom, and self-recognition—not a label of forced compliance.

Q12: Some critics say parts of the feminist movement are “too extreme” or “create gender division.” What is your response to this criticism? (“I don’t hate women, I hate people” vs. “Girls are all sweet and soft.”)

A: This criticism reflects society’s deep habit of patriarchal order. Whenever women demand equality, they are quickly labeled “extreme.” The debate between “hating women” and “hating people” is, in essence, a distraction. I believe feminism’s demand is not division but the recognition of inequality.

Q13: As ordinary people, especially as teenagers, what can we do to contribute to the feminist movement?

 A: Start with small things: notice and correct everyday sexism, speak up with courage, read and think more, and sharpen your awareness of gender issues. For young people, the most important thing is to stay conscious and take action, rather than treating feminism as a slogan unrelated to themselves.

(This version has been translated and edited)

Q1: 您是怎么开始接触女权主义的？有什么特别的经历或契机让您对这个话题产生兴趣？
A: 我大约在 2016 年第一次真正接触到女权主义。当时 papi 酱发布了关于“关姓权”的视频，引起了很大讨论。我开始思考：为什么孩子的姓氏理所当然地随父姓？这让我第一次意识到，性别平等在现实生活中远没有口号里听起来那么简单。后来我在豆瓣一些小组看到女性的亲身叙述和讨论，从社会新闻到影视作品的剖析，那些文字让我意识到，女权并不是遥远的理论，而是与日常生活息息相关的实践。

Q2: 您为什么选择在社交媒体上发声？相比传统媒体，您觉得互联网给您带来了哪些特别的机会？
A: 传统媒体往往追逐争议和流量，女性相关的议题很容易被边缘化或弱化。互联网让我看见了另一种可能——女性可以直接发声，建立自己的平台。社交媒体既是传播工具，也是档案库，它能把女性的经验留下来，而不是被遗忘或掩盖。

Q3: 作为一位女权博主，您的日常是怎样的？您如何平衡个人生活和发声的责任？
A: 白天我是普通的上班族，下班后才有时间在网络上写作、参与讨论。这两种身份对我来说并不矛盾：工作让我立足现实，写作让我保持思考。唯一的挑战是如何面对外界的质疑，比如有人认为女权“太极端”。但当你看到身边真实存在的不平等时，就不可能再假装无视。

Q4: 在日常生活中，您觉得语言性别歧视最常见的表现是什么？您有没有特别印象深刻的例子？
A: 最常见的是带有贬义的词汇和玩笑。在一些朋友群里，男性常常用带有辱女意味的词语调侃。我会直接指出来，哪怕无法改变他们的观念，至少能让他们在我面前有所收敛。这是一种姿态，拒绝在沉默中默许。

Q5: 您认为语言中的性别歧视是无意的文化现象，还是某种刻意延续的权力结构？
A: 我认为两者兼有。一方面，很多人确实是无意识地重复某些歧视性表达；另一方面，这些语言背后折射的是长期固化的权力结构。语言从来不是中立的，它是文化和权力关系的延续。

Q6: 一些人认为“性别中立”的语言（例如避免使用性别代词）可以缓解性别歧视，您怎么看这种语言改革的效果和可行性？
A: 性别中立语言并不是形式上的“政治正确”，而是一种实践。通过调整表达，我们为女性争取更多空间，也在潜移默化中改变思维方式。当然，它不会立刻消除歧视，但它能推动社会逐渐习惯一种更平等的表达方式。

Q7: 在改善语言性别歧视方面，您认为普通人和公众人物可以做些什么？在日常对话中，当您意识到某些语言中隐含的性别歧视时，您会选择如何回应或改变对话？
A: 普通人可以从自己做起，留意用词并勇于指出问题；公众人物则要承担更多责任，因为他们的语言会影响更广泛的受众。至于我自己，当我听到带有性别歧视的表达时，会直接指出并解释为什么不合适，即使不能立刻改变对方，也能让他们意识到这种语言并非无害。

Q8: 从您的观察来看，网络环境（如短视频、社交媒体平台）是否加剧了女性被性化的现象？这些平台又该承担什么样的责任？
A: 是的，平台算法往往放大了女性被性化的现象。女性的身体、外貌被不断消费，成为流量的工具。平台不应只是追逐点击量，而应该建立更严格的规范，减少把女性物化为“流量噱头”的现象。

Q9: 当女性主动通过某种程度的性化表达自我（如穿衣风格、自拍等）时，这是否可以被视为一种对“男性凝视”的反叛？还是另一个维度的迎合？
A: 这要看语境。女性完全有权利以性感来表达自我，这是对身体自主权的一种实践。但在互联网的语境里，这种表达往往被算法和凝视裹挟，很容易滑向迎合的另一面。所以它既可能是反叛，也可能被消费。

Q10: 您怎么看待公众对性化女性的“双标”态度（例如鼓励娱乐消费中的女性性化形象，却批评普通女性的性化表达）？
A: 这种双标非常普遍。人们接受娱乐工业里被包装好的“性感”，却对普通女性的自我表达加以苛责。其背后是社会对女性身体的占有欲：女性可以被欣赏，但必须在他人设定的框架里。

Q11: “性感”是否可以重新被定义？如果可以，您希望它意味着什么？
A: 我希望性感能被重新定义为一种自主选择，而不是外界凝视的结果。它应该意味着力量、自由和自我认同，而不是被迫迎合的标签。

Q12: 有些人批评部分女权运动“过于极端”或“割裂性别对立”，您怎么看待这种批评？（“我不是厌女，我是厌人” vs “女孩子都是香香软软的”）
A: 这种批评本身反映了社会习惯于父权秩序。女性一旦提出平等要求，就很容易被指责为“极端”。所谓“厌女”和“厌人”的争论，本质上还是在转移视线。我认为女权的诉求并不是割裂，而是要求正视不平等。

Q13: 作为普通人，尤其是青少年，您认为我们可以为女权运动贡献什么力量？
A: 可以从身边的小事做起：留意并纠正日常生活里的性别歧视；勇敢地表达自己的立场；多阅读、多思考，不断提升对性别议题的敏感度。对于青少年来说，最重要的是保持觉醒和行动，而不是把女权当成与自己无关的口号。

未翻译版本

This interview was conducted by Penny Wei.