Fighting the Tyranny of 'Niceness': Why We Need Difficult Women

Helen Lewis makes a compelling argument that feminism must accommodate contradictions and complexity, refusing to reduce the movement to a binary logic of “like or dislike.” She advocates for embracing those imperfect, hard-to-categorize, even controversial “difficult women,” because it is precisely these individuals who drive meaningful social change. Her critique strikes at the heart of contemporary feminism’s tendency to demand perfection from its heroes and sanitize its history into a gallery of flawless role models.

The concept of “difficult” is, Lewis argues, fundamentally about complexity. Throughout history, feminists have often been controversial figures whose views may have been untimely or uncomfortable, but precisely because of this they were able to challenge the existing order in ways that “nice” women could not. She criticizes the over-idealization of “role models” in contemporary feminism, believing this approach obscures the inherently political nature and struggle of the movement. By demanding that feminist figures be universally likable and morally pure, we erase the messy reality of how change actually happens—through conflict, contradiction, and the willingness to be unpopular.

Central to Lewis’s argument is her critique of what she calls the “tyranny of niceness.” Society’s expectations of women are to be gentle, compliant, and uncontroversial—to smooth over conflicts rather than create them. This “culture of likability” suppresses women’s anger and agency, transforming feminism from a radical force for change into something harmless and powerless. When we insist that feminists must always be pleasant, always be right, and never make mistakes, we rob the movement of its most potent weapon: the righteous fury that comes from experiencing injustice.

The article also critiques the tendency of “cancel culture” to conduct purges within feminism, cutting down complex figures wholesale and thereby weakening the historical depth and strategic diversity of the movement. Lewis analyzes the rise and predicament of fourth-wave feminism, pointing out that while social media has brought unprecedented energy and visibility, it has also brought division. Conceptual conflicts between younger generations and their predecessors—especially regarding gender fluidity and political strategies—have sometimes devolved into simplistic dismissals rather than productive dialogue.

Lewis cites multiple historical figures from Marie Stopes to Jayaben Desai, emphasizing that the “flaws” and “controversies” of feminists are not unfortunate blemishes to be apologized for, but integral parts of their political lives. True feminist history, she insists, should not be a sanitized gallery of heroes but a collective memory full of struggle, failure, and complexity. She calls for transforming anger into political force to drive structural change, rather than remaining trapped in emotional expression or symbolic protest. The “difficult women” who refuse to be categorized, who make us uncomfortable, who challenge our assumptions—these are the women we need most. They remind us that feminism is not about being liked; it is about being free.