The Problem with anti-Feminists

I never thought that I would be writing about misandry. I thought it would be crystal clear that anyone who cares about gender equality that feminism is clearly opposed to it. I’ve recently ventured into territory where people argue otherwise; that it fights for female supremacy and is grounded in a hatred of men. It’s time to challenge this notion.

Why don’t feminists call themselves ‘egalitarianists’, or to gender the issue ‘gender egalitarianists’? While it may seem a mute point that detracts from the aim of feminism, there’s a reason why the word is important. Feminism is about acknowledging that gender inequality exists, and that the existence of this inequality is rooted in socially constructed notions that automatically prize characteristics associated with masculinity. Implicit in this, is the acceptance that men can be, and often are, disadvantaged by these notions of masculinity where they are upheld – but to move to the term egalitarianism ignores the way in which such structures are implicitly constructed in favour of men and rest upon the subjugation of women.

There are men and (gasp!) women who fight feminism by cherry picking a few self-proclaimed feminists who appear to be man-haters. They talk about misandry and ‘feminists’ who ‘bathe in male tears’. The anti-feminist movement is sinister at best, and perhaps even indicates that feminism is effective. After all, if we are progressing towards a gender equal society rather than regressing, then what is the fuss? There is no evidence of any structural discrimination against men (in comparison to women), and it is pertinent to remember that the norms of gender are propagated by powerful men. It is therefore those anti-feminists who should be looking towards men, allowing them to challenge the disadvantages of masculinity that affect (often the poorest) men rather than cherry picking self-proclaimed anti-men ‘feminists’ in order to tarnish the grassroots movement of feminism.

Even if for one second misandrist women were to be considered feminists (an oxymoron, in my book), should they be the focus of concern for feminists? Misandry is a residual product of structural prejudice, and by virtue of being a product from this subjugation, it cannot be compared to misogyny in anyway. It is a form of anger; it does not perpetuate an existing structure that marginalises a group. Feminism can be muscular, inclusive and intersectional (and inclusive of men) while recognising this structure and the need to dismantle it. In essence; let’s not worry about the disenfranchised extremes and get back to fighting for equality.