Untitled

[lucyreillynz]

“Hey girls, anyone else feeling the misogyny slipping through the cracks of our everyday conversations?” - Why TikTok’s new ‘Pink vs Blue jobs’ trend is harmful to feminist progress

With roughly 2 billion users in 2026, TikTok is one of the biggest social media platforms, with hundreds of thousands of trends coming in and out of popularity each day. One in particular has recently been heavily critiqued as being sexist, anti-feminist propaganda: ‘Pink Jobs vs Blue Jobs’.

In late 2025 and early 2026, videos discussing ‘Pink Jobs vs Blue Jobs’ started gaining popularity. The idea behind the trend was that the domestic duties of a couple should be split into ‘Pink Jobs’, the woman’s job, and ‘Blue Jobs’, the man’s job. The colour organisation of these jobs is rooted in the stereotype that views women as ‘pink’ and men as ‘blue’, which is only the beginning of the traditional conservative values displayed in these videos. 

Examples of ‘Pink Jobs’ are dishwashing, laundry, and appointments, while the ‘Blue Jobs’ are responsibilities like yard work, driving, and handling finances. Thousands of comments agree with these divisions, with one commenter stating, “Gender norms are necessary for a functional marriage”. The division of these jobs supports reductive gender roles where women are confined to domestic roles while men perform labour, and promotes a heteronormative view of an ideal marriage.

The preservation of these conventional views in the modern day is a part of key traditionalist conservatism. From a conservative perspective, these clearly-defined roles are often justified as creating stability and order within both family and society. The popularity of these videos also suggests that these ideas resonate with audiences, showing how traditional gender norms still feel desirable despite social progress.

💕💙 #grwm

The ‘Pink vs Blue jobs’ trend also expands into the workforce with the idea of ‘pink-collared’ and ‘blue-collared’ jobs, once again enforcing the idea that men and women have separate duties and skillsets. While ‘blue-collar’ originally referred to manual labor jobs, the trend re-defines it as ‘traditionally male jobs’ by introducing ‘pink-collared jobs’. 

These videos define pink-collared jobs as beauty-focused or care-taking roles, with a popular video listing makeup artists, receptionists, and midwives as some of these pink-collared jobs. Jobs such as labourers, lawyers, CEOs, engineers, and most physically or mentally demanding jobs are noticeably omitted.

Neosexism is reinforced through the subtle assertion of misogynistic beliefs and by undermining the existence of gender inequality. Neosexism operates by presenting inequality as already solved, which allows these traditional roles to be reintroduced without appearing overtly discriminatory. The videos frame ‘Pink vs Blue jobs’ as a personal choice, making it harder to criticise their role in normalising regressive structures. Furthermore, it shows the conservative push for societal structure through traditional roles, framing the separation of these responsibilities as productive rather than restrictive. The trend is politically harmful as it normalises a regression in feminist progress and frames the ‘domestic wife and hard-working husband’ dynamic as desirable.

The rising popularity of these videos has even started a counter-movement where women call out the trend for its regressive views on societal gender roles. Many of them use the satire song “Sorority Girls” by Mommy Long Legs which critiques the pressure put on women to conform to shallow stereotypes. 

i hate people sometimes #fyp #feminism

The trend serves as a reminder that social media can be more than just harmless fun, but instead assist in promoting regressive ideologies to a large audience.

[lucyreillynz]

ICE - If they look like a paramilitary, and act like a paramilitary… They’re probably paramilitary.

Recent coverage of America’s ICE on social media shows agents patrolling predominantly ethnic neighbourhoods and using excessive force to detain alleged illegal immigrants. Reports and viral videos suggest that they aren’t using warrants, formal training, or at times even their uniforms to commit arrests. So, is ICE becoming an authoritarian, paramilitary force?

Masked and Unidentifiable: The Risks of Federal Law Enforcement Operating Without Identification

Since taking office, the Trump administration has undermined public safety and law enforcement accountability by supporting the dangerous pr

ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was formed in 2003 after the 9/11 attacks. It was established to improve national security through the investigation, detention, and deportation of people violating US immigration laws. However, since Trump’s second inauguration, ICE has taken on a broader role: rounding up any ‘un-American’ citizens and deporting them to overseas detention centres, including the controversial El Salvador. 

ICE’s expanded authority reflects authoritarian and nationalist ideologies, where state power is prioritised over individual rights. Since the start of Trump’s second term, ICE has reported 540,000 deportations, 32 deaths in ICE custody, and 33 fatal shootings. Authoritarianism prioritises state authority and security over individual freedoms, while nationalism emphasises national pride and security by defining who belongs and who is ‘excluded’. Recent developments raise serious concerns about how national identity is being defined and enforced, with allegations of ICE targeting people of colour on the assumption that they aren’t legal citizens.

2025 was ICE’s deadliest year in two decades. Here are the 32 people who died in custody

The deaths came as the Trump administration ramped up immigration enforcement, detaining a record number of people

Under Trump, ICE is no longer seen as a Government department protecting national security; critics argue they’re becoming the threats themselves. The ICE regime was described as “a personal paramilitary unit of the president” by Democratic representative John Mannion. A paramilitary is a military-like armed force that sometimes receives government support, but exists outside traditional military structures. The way ICE is blurring these boundaries raises key questions on how much power can, and should, be given to individual enforcement organisations.

The same organisation accused of extremist acts like violating citizens’ Civil Rights, medically neglecting their detainees, and using deception to lure individuals out of their homes, are also argued to have lowered their recruitment standards significantly to rapidly expand their force. 

In August of 2025, anti-ICE journalist Laura Jedeed attended an ICE career expo in Texas to see their application process. After a six-minute interview with minimal questioning, Jedeed was told they’d be in touch. The recruitment officer told her the goal for recruitment was, “to put as many guns and badges out in the field as possible”. Despite never submitting key documents, Jadeed was reportedly offered the job. 

Yes, the alleged $170 billion given to immigration enforcement may be being used to expand hiring significantly without vetting or accountability. From an ideological perspective, this reflects a shift toward prioritising state power over accountability. The authoritarian practices of the ICE regime is raising concerns of recreating historical totalitarian forces such as the Nazis. The brutality, disregard for citizens’ legal rights, and authority’s ‘detain first, ask questions never’ mentality have been compared to methods taken by the Nazis to ethnically cleanse the Jewish population of Germany nearly 100 years ago. 

As this paramilitary, authoritarian, and totalitarian regime rises in America, it raises broader questions about how worldwide politics can adjust and respond to large-scale controversies such as ICE.

[lucyreillynz]

The ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’; an individualistic myth that has plagued our media

Character archetypes are a key storytelling method used to create instant audience connection; there’s the ‘reluctant hero’ (think Katniss Everdeen, Harry Potter, Percy Jackson), the ‘brooding loner’, or ‘the fallen hero’. Across modern media, thousands of these archetypes appear in our novels, series, and films. But one in particular became a staple in coming-of-age films for decades: the ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’.

You have likely heard the term ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’ in conversations about characters like Summer Finn and Ramona Flowers, or even in description of everyday people. ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’, or ‘MPDG’, was first coined in 2007 by Nathan Rabin in his critique of the 2005 film ‘Elizabethtown’. Describing the film’s love interest, he defined the MPDG trope as a one-dimensional, quirky and eccentric young woman who serves as the romantic interest for a male protagonist. These characters provide emotional support to the protagonist, advancing his character development and journey while receiving nothing in return. In this way, the trope not only reflects individualist ideology but normalises women existing to carry men’s emotional labour and personal development. Not long after his review, the ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’ entered our everyday language and media.

This raises some questions from me: Is the MPDG real? Should I wait in the supermarket’s hair dye aisle for this perfect woman? Well, these questions have simple answers: nope and definitely not (that’s creepy), but make you wonder why this trope was created. In my opinion, it was to construct a myth representing the ideologies embedded in our media. The “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” trope reinforces postfeministism and individualism by presenting women as tools for male self-development while neglecting structural gender inequality.

Postfeminism refers to the idea that gender equality has been achieved, shifting focus away from structural gender inequality and toward individual choice and empowerment. In our ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’ archetype, this ideology lies in the over-representation of conventionally attractive, white, heterosexual, middle-class women, and the neglect of female character development in favour of watching the male character discover heartbreak or empathy for the first time, as prompted by this MPDG. This reflects postfeminist logic in which gender inequality is obscured, and women’s roles are reframed as individual “choices” rather than shaped by broader social expectations.

However, this trope also lends its hand to individualism. One of the key ideas of individualism is that cultivating well-rounded, open, and curious people requires developing this ‘individual self’, traits these characters are shown to embody. This explains why these characters reject social groups, societal expectations, and authority, as the common individualist belief is that autonomy should be prioritised over authority or structural influences. They’re made to represent that perfect individualistic creature; the self-expression, independence, and self-reliance. Thus, the MPDG becomes less of a person and more of a individualistic narrative device. 

While we may continue to see the Manic Pixie Dream Girl archetype crop up in our media, this trope is inapplicable to real life due to its inability to recognise the multi-faceted nature of women as human beings. So next time you find yourself watching that ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’ and picking up that hair dye, put it down and think about the ideological assumptions you are really being sold; about gender, individuality, whose stories matter, and whose are reduced to supporting roles.

Why the Creator of the Term ‘Manic Pixie Dream Girl’ Wants It to Die

Calling for the death of the 'Patriarchal Lie' of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope.