Antifeminism

For the Japanese band, see Anti Feminism.

Antifeminism, also spelled anti-feminism, is opposition to feminism. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, antifeminists opposed particular policy proposals for women's rights, such as the right to vote, educational opportunities, property rights, and access to birth control. In the mid and late 20th century, antifeminists often opposed the abortion-rights movement.

In the early 21st century, some antifeminists see their ideology as a response to misandry, holding feminism responsible for several social problems, including lower college entrance rates of young men, gender differences in suicide and a perceived decline in masculinity. 21st century antifeminism has sometimes been an element of violent, far-right extremist acts. Antifeminism is often linked to the men's rights movement, a social movement concerned with discrimination against men.

Definition

Canadian sociologists Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri write that antifeminist thought has primarily taken the form of masculinism, in which "men are in crisis because of the feminization of society".

The term antifeminist is also used to describe public female figures, some of whom, such as Naomi Wolf, Camille Paglia, and Katie Roiphe, define themselves as feminists, based on their opposition to some or all elements of feminist movements. Other feminists label writers such as Roiphe, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese as antifeminist because of their positions regarding oppression and lines of thought within feminism.

The meaning of antifeminism has varied across time and cultures, and antifeminism attracts both men and women. Some women, like those in the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League, campaigned against women's suffrage.

Men's studies scholar Michael Kimmel defines antifeminism as "the opposition to women's equality". He says that antifeminists oppose "women's entry into the public sphere, the re-organization of the private sphere, women's control of their bodies, and women's rights generally." Kimmel further writes that antifeminist argumentation relies on "religious and cultural norms" while proponents of antifeminism advance their cause as a means of "'saving' masculinity from pollution and invasion". He argues that antifeminists consider the "traditional gender division of labor as natural and inevitable, perhaps also divinely sanctioned."

Ideology

Antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of the following general principles of feminism:

1. That social arrangements among men and women are neither natural nor divinely determined.
2. That social arrangements among men and women favor men.
3. That there are collective actions that can and should be taken to transform these arrangements into more just and equitable arrangements

Some antifeminists argue that feminism, despite claiming to advocate for equality, ignores rights issues unique to men. They believe that the feminist movement has achieved its aims and now seeks higher status for women than for men via special rights and exemptions, such as female-only scholarships, affirmative action, and gender quotas.

Antifeminism might be motivated by the belief that feminist theories of patriarchy and disadvantages suffered by women in society are incorrect or exaggerated; that feminism as a movement encourages misandry and results in harm or oppression of men; or driven by general opposition towards women's rights.

Furthermore, antifeminists view feminism as a denial of innate psychological sex differences and an attempt to reprogram people against their biological tendencies. They have argued that feminism has resulted in changes to society's previous norms relating to sexuality, which they see as detrimental to traditional values or conservative religious beliefs. For example, the ubiquity of casual sex and the decline of marriage are mentioned as negative consequences of feminism. In a report from anti-extremism charity HOPE not Hate, half of young men from UK believe that feminism has "gone too far and makes it harder for men to succeed".

Moreover, other antifeminists oppose women's entry into the workforce, political office, or the voting process, as well as the lessening of male authority in families. They argue that a change of women's roles is a destructive force that endangers the family, or is contrary to religious morals. For example, Paul Gottfried maintains that the change of women's roles "has been a social disaster that continues to take its toll on the family" and contributed to a "descent by increasingly disconnected individuals into social chaos".

History

United States

American antisuffragists in the early 20th century

19th century

The "women's movement" began in 1848, most famously articulated by Elizabeth Cady Stanton demanding voting rights, joined by Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony and others who also pushed for other rights such as education, job freedom, marital and property rights, and the right to choose when or whether to become a mother. By the end of the century, a cultural counter movement had begun. Janet Chafetz identified in a study 32 first-wave antifeminist movements, including those in the 19th century and early 20th century movements.

These countermovements were in response to some women's growing demands, which were perceived as threatening to the standard way of life. Though men were not the only antifeminists, men experienced what some have called a "crisis of masculinity" in response to traditional gender roles being challenged. Men's responses to increased feminism varied. Some men subscribed to feminist ideals, and others became decidedly antifeminist. Antifeminist men cited religious models and natural law to emphasize women's need to return to the private sphere, in order to preserve the current social order.

In the 19th century, one of the major focal points of antifeminism was opposition to women's suffrage, which began as a grassroots movement in 1848 and spanned for 72 years. Opponents of women's entry into institutions of higher learning argued that education was too great a physical burden on women. In Sex in Education: or, a Fair Chance for the Girls (1873), Harvard professor Edward Clarke predicted that if women went to college, their brains would grow bigger and heavier, and their wombs would atrophy. Other antifeminists opposed women's entry into the labor force, their right to join unions, to sit on juries, or to obtain birth control and control of their sexuality.

The pro-family movement appeared in the late 19th century, by about 1870. This movement was intended to halt the rising divorce rate and reinforce traditional family values. The National League for the Protection of the Family, formerly known as the Divorce Reform League, took over the movement in 1881. Samuel Dike was one of the founders of the League, and was considered an early expert on divorce. Through his efforts, the League garnered attention from pro-family advocates. It underwent a shift from fighting against divorce to promoting marriage and traditional family. Speaking on behalf of the League in an 1887 address to the Evangelical Alliance Conference, Samuel Dike described the ideal family as having "one man and one woman, united in wedlock, together with their children". This movement built the foundation for many pro-family arguments in contemporary antifeminism.

Early 20th century

Women's suffrage was achieved in the US in 1920, and early 20th-century antifeminism was primarily focused on fighting this. Suffragists scoffed at antisuffragists. Anna Howard Shaw, president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) from 1904 to 1915, presumed that the antisuffragists were merely working under the influence of male forces. Later historians tended to dismiss antisuffragists as subscribing to the model of domestic idealism, that a woman's place is in the home. This undermines and belittles the true power and numbers behind the antisuffrage movement, which was primarily led by women themselves.

Arguments employed by antisuffragists at the turn of the century had less to do with a woman's place in the home as much as it had to do with a woman's proper place in the public realm. Leaders of the movement often encouraged other women to leave the home and participate in society. What they opposed was women participating in the political sphere.

There were two reasons antisuffragists opposed women participating in the political realm. Some argued that women were already overburdened. The majority of them, however, argued that a woman's participation in the political realm would hinder her participation in social and civic duties. If they won the right to vote, women would have to align with a particular party, which would destroy their ability to be politically neutral. Antisuffragists feared this would hinder their influence with legislative authorities.

Mid 20th century

In 1951, two journalists published Washington Confidential. The novel claimed that Communist leaders used their men and women to recruit a variety of minorities in the nation's capital, such as females, colored males, and homosexual males. The popularity of the book led the Civil Service Commission to create a "publicity campaign to improve the image of federal employees" in hopes to save their federal employees from losing their jobs. This ploy failed once the journalists linked feminism to communism in their novel, and ultimately reinforced antifeminism by implying that defending the "white, Christian, heterosexual, patriarchal family" was the only way to oppose communism.

Late 20th century

Equal Rights Amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a perennially proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would grant equal rights and opportunities to every citizen of the United States, regardless of their sex. In 1950 and 1953, ERA was passed by the Senate with a provision known as "the Hayden rider", making it unacceptable to ERA supporters. The Hayden rider was included to keep special protections for women. A new section to the ERA was added, stating: "The provisions of this article shall not be construed to impair any rights, benefits, or exemptions now or hereafter conferred by law upon persons of the female sex." That is, women could keep their existing and future special protections that men did not have.

By 1972, the amendment was supported by both major parties and was immensely popular. However, it was defeated in Congress when it failed to get the vote of 38 legislatures by 1982. Supporters of an unaltered ERA rejected the Hayden rider, believing an ERA containing the rider did not provide for equality.

In 1986, Jerome Himmelstein identified two main theories about the appeal of antifeminism and its role in opposition to the ERA. One theory is that it was a clash between upper-class liberal voters and the older, more conservative lower-class rural voters, who often serve as the center for right-wing movements. This theory identifies particular social classes as more inherently friendly to antifeminism. Another theory holds that women who feel vulnerable and dependent upon men, are likely to oppose anything that threatens that tenuous stability. Under this view, while educated, independent career women may support feminism, housewives who lack such resources are more drawn to antifeminism. Himmelstein says both views are at least partially wrong, arguing that the primary dividing line between feminists and antifeminists is cultural, rather than stemming from differences in economic and social status.

There are similarities between income between activists on both sides of the ERA debate. The most indicative factors when predicting ERA position, especially among women, were race, marital status, age, and education. ERA opposition was much higher among white, married, older, and less educated citizens. Women who opposed the ERA tended to fit characteristics consistent with the Religious Right.

In 1983, Val Burris said that high-income men opposed the amendment, because they would gain the least with it being passed; that those men had the most to lose, since the ratification of the ERA would mean more competition for their jobs and possibly a lowered self-esteem. Because of the support of antifeminism from conservatives and the constant "conservative reactions to liberal social politics", such as the New Deal attacks, the attack on the ERA has been called a "right-wing backlash". In a 2012 study, their methods include actions such as "insults proffered in emails or on the telephone, systematic denigration of feminism in the media, Internet disclosure of confidential information (e.g. addresses) on resources for battered women" and more.

Abortion

Anti abortion rhetoric largely has religious underpinnings, influence, and is often promoted by activists of strong religious faith. The anti-abortion movement protests in the form of educational outreach, political mobilisation, street protests (largely at abortion clinics), and is often aimed at convincing pregnant women to carry their pregnancies to term.

Abortion remains one of the most controversial topics in the United States. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, and abortion was utilized by many antifeminists to rally supporters. Antiabortion views helped further several right-wing movements, including explicit antifeminism, and helped right-wing politicians rise to power. Antiabortion writings and conservative commentary in the late 20th century criticized the feminist movement's embrace of the right to abortion as selfish and self-centered, practicing it only out of convenience.

21st century

A group of Polish ultranationalists protest an International Women's Day march in Warsaw, 2010

Some current antifeminist practices can be traced back to the rise of the Christian right in the late 1970s. Antifeminist internet communities and hashtags include men's rights activists, incels ("involuntary celibates"), pickup artists, "meninism", "Red Pill", #YourSlipisShowing, #gamergate, and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). These communities overlap with various white supremacist, authoritarian, and populist movements.

BBC and Time, among others, have covered the 2014 social media trend #WomenAgainstFeminism. These antifeminists contend that feminism demonizes men (misandry) and that women are not oppressed in 21st century Western countries. A meta-analysis in 2023 published in the journal Psychology of Women Quarterly investigated the stereotype of feminists' attitudes to men and concluded that feminist views of men were no different to that of non-feminists or men towards men and titled the phenomenon the misandry myth – "We term the focal stereotype the misandry myth in light of the evidence that it is false and widespread, and discuss its implications for the movement."

Many scholars consider the men's rights movement a backlash or countermovement to feminism. The men's rights movement generally incorporates points of view that reject feminist and profeminist ideas. Men's rights activists say feminism has radicalized its objective and harmed men. Men's rights activists believe that men are victims of feminism and "feminizing" influences in society, and that entities such as public institutions now discriminate against men.

The website Jezebel has also reported on an increasing number of women and female celebrities rejecting feminism and instead subscribing to humanism.

In response to the social media trend, modern day feminists also began to upload similar pictures to websites such as Twitter and Tumblr. Most used the same hashtag, "womenagainstfeminism", but instead made satirical and bluntly parodic comments. In November 2014, Time magazine included "feminist" on its annual list of proposed banished words. After initially receiving the majority of votes (51%), a Time editor apologized for including the word in the poll and removed it from the results.

Germany

In March 2019, the Verein Deutsche Sprache ("German Language Association"), an advocacy group for German language purism, organized a petition proclaiming that billions of Euros are being wasted in Germany on "gender gaga" (gender-neutral language and gender studies). This is money the organization believes can be better used to fund hospitals, natural science faculties and virus research institutes.

Serbia

In April 2022, far-right political party Leviathan, with a significant public profile of almost 300,000 Facebook followers, missed out on a seat in parliament in Serbia's 2022 election. The Leviathan party portrays migrants as criminals, and themselves as the defenders of Serbian women. The group has been praised by some in Serbia for defending 'traditional family values' and hierarchical gender roles, while opposing the empowerment of women and feminist ideologies.

South Korea

Social improvements by women have sparked an anti-feminist backlash, in which disgruntled young men have become vocal critics of feminism and feminist women who speak out in public. Yoon Suk-yeol narrowly won South Korea's 2022 presidential election. During his run for presidency, he called for the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family to be abolished, and accused its officials of treating men like "potential sex criminals." Yoon also said that he doesn't think systemic structural discrimination based on gender exists in South Korea. However, Korean women are near the bottom of the developed world according to several economic and social indicators.

Despite decades of anti-discriminatory gender policies and better education for women, there is persistent discrimination of gender in workplaces in South Korea. The reasons for this is due to the lack of legal and inefficient enforcement of the gender-based policies. The punishment for gender-based crimes is weak. The culture of South Korea typically favors male dominance which influences the orginazinational structure of workplaces and boosts societal pressures for women.

Driven by public anger and media coverage, South Korea has seen a boost in actions against sex crimes since the mid 2000's. South Korean K-WomenLink has advocated for systems to support the survivors of sexual violence whilst highlighting the deficiencies in the system. Cases with high influence of victim-blaming, flawed procedures, moreover cases involving individuals (perpetrators) in high social positions were challenged by the organization.

There has been a hashtag, that was popular on Twitter in South Korea "#iamafeminist" which normalized the term "feminism", in a society where it was once unacceptable. This hashtag facilitated feminist activism and played a role against misogyny, where identification as a feminist is often stigmatized. The expression of feminist identity was utilized through this hashtag, and people started to discuss their personal experiences that were related to gender inequality. The hashtag was used for a variety of issues, where not only feminists and activists, but also ordinary individuals shared their hardships on housework, equal pay, sexual harassment, etc.

Organizations

Symbol used for signs and buttons by ERA opponents

Founded in the U.S. by Phyllis Schlafly in 1972, Stop ERA, now known as "Eagle Forum", lobbied successfully to block the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in the U.S. It was also Schlafly who forged links between Stop ERA and other conservative organizations, as well as single-issue groups against abortion, pornography, gun control, and unions. By integrating Stop ERA with the thus-dubbed "New Right", she was able to leverage a wider range of technological, organizational and political resources, successfully targeting pro-feminist candidates for defeat.

In India, the Save Indian Family Foundation is an antifeminist organization opposed to a number of laws that they claim to have been used against men.

The Concerned Women of America (CWA) are also an antifeminist organization. Like other conservative women's groups, they oppose abortion and same-sex marriage and make appeals for maternalism and biological differences between women and men.

The Independent Women's Forum (IWF) is another antifeminist, conservative, women-oriented group. It's younger and less established than the CWA, though the two organizations are often discussed in relation to each other. It was founded to take on the "old feminist establishment". Both of these organizations pride themselves on rallying women who do not identify with feminist rhetoric together. These organizations frame themselves as being by women, for women, in order to fight the idea that feminism is the only women-oriented ideology. These organizations chastise feminists for presuming to universally speak for all women. The IWF claims to be "the voice of reasonable women with important ideas who embrace common sense over divisive ideology".

Another antifeminist merger, which is not yet an acknowledged organization but became a large movement, is the "incel" movement, an internet-culture, which is increasingly widespread via online forums, especially in the US. After the term came up the first time by a woman in the 1990s to define feelings of social awkwardness, in began that the term was used in other contexts. Lately, the term incel is composed of the words "involuntarily" and "celibate" (sexual abstinence) and it is mostly young men in their mid-twenties, identifying with the incel movement, whose overall themes consist of failure and frustration what for they accuse woman and society's structure changes of experiencing a shortage of sexual activity and romantic success, how the Anti-Defamation League defined that movement.

The movement can be classified as misogynist, violent and extremist. Some incels are considered as a danger to the public as well as to individuals, especially women. Their ideology consists of antifeminist ideologies, according to which a hierarchy, based on appearance determines access to sexual relationships and recognition in society, as well as the belief in "hypergamy", that woman use their sexuality for social advancement, which would make them sexually selective and ultimately leads to the third ideology of the rejection of feminism.

According to the German Federal Agency for Civic Education, their hierarchy is composed by three classes of men, the attractive men at the top, as "chads" or "alphas", followed by the so called "normies", the normal men and finally the incels as the loser of the system. With their allegations, they claim to have a fundamental right to sex, which they are denied. In addition to the accusations towards women, their beliefs are anti-immigrant, as their hatred is also directed against migrants, who would take away their sexual partners.

Explanatory theories

According to Amherst College sociology professor Jerome L. Himmelstein, antifeminism is rooted in social stigmas against feminism and is thus a purely reactionary movement. Himmelstein identifies two prevailing theories that seek to explain the origins of antifeminism: the first theory, proposed by Himmelstein, is that conservative opposition in the abortion and Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) debates has created a climate of hostility toward the entire feminist movement.

The second theory Himmelstein identifies states that the female antifeminists who lead the movement are largely married, low education, and low personal income women who embody the "insecure housewife scenario" and seek to perpetuate their own situation in which women depend on men for fiscal support. However, numerous studies have failed to correlate the aforementioned demographic factors with support for antifeminism, and only religiosity correlates positively with antifeminist alignment.

Authors Janet Saltzman Chafetz and Anthony Gary Dworkin, writing for Gender and Society, argue that the organizations most likely to formally organize against feminism are religious. This is because women's movements may demand access to male-dominated positions within the religious sector, like the clergy, and women's movements threaten male-oriented values of some religions. The more successful a feminist movement is in challenging the authority of male-dominated groups, the more these groups will organize a countermovement.

Implicit feminism

University of Illinois at Chicago sociology professor Danielle Giffort argues that the stigma against feminism created by antifeminists has resulted in organizations that practice "implicit feminism", which she defines as the "strategy practiced by feminist activists within organizations that are operating in an anti- and post-feminist environment in which they conceal feminist identities and ideas while emphasizing the more socially acceptable angles of their efforts".

Due to the stigma against feminism, some activists, such as those involved with Girls Rock, may take the principles of feminism as a foundation of thought and teach girls and women independence and self-reliance without explicitly labeling it with the stigmatized brand of feminism. Thus, most women continue to practice feminism in terms of seeking equality and independence for women, yet avoid the label.

Connections to far-right extremism

Antifeminism has been identified as an underlying motivation for far-right extremism. For example, the perpetrators of the Christchurch massacre and the El Paso shooting appear to have been motivated by the conspiracy theory that white people are being replaced by non-whites largely as a result of feminist stances in Western societies. Many who affiliate with the white nationalist alt-right movement are antifeminist, with antifeminism and resentment of women being a common recruitment gateway into the movement.

Media researcher Michele White argues that contemporary antifeminism often supports antisemitism and white supremacy, citing the example of the Neo-Nazi websites Stormfront and The Daily Stormer, which often claim that feminism represents a Jewish plot to destroy Western civilization. According to Helen Lewis, the far-right ideology considers it vital to control female reproduction and sexuality: "Misogyny is used predominantly as the first outreach mechanism", where "You were owed something, or your life should have been X, but because of the ridiculous things feminists are doing, you can't access them." Similar strands of thought are found in the incel subculture, which centers around misogynist fantasies about punishing women for not having sex with them.

Antifeminist politics

The rise of the radical right since the 1980s is, if one focuses on Europe is also accompanied by antifeminist approaches, since the political approach of right-wing extremist parties is mostly based on a "patriarchal constitution". Hostile narratives are seen in feminism, in addition to immigration and Judaism, which are reacted primarily with xenophobia. As the current european governments clarify, a conservative, sexist environment does not oppose the participation of woman in these contexts.

Anti-feminist conservative family and migration policies are pursued by woman-led governments themselves, together with right-wing populist ones. For example through the narrative of a mother, used by Giorgia Meloni, the Italian prime minister, or by Marine Le Pen, former leader of the national Rally party, who presents herself as the "modern mother of the nation". But this by no means has a feminist approach, because along with right-wing populist approaches, Le Pen also pursues a pro-natalist policy in the National Front party, that does not aim at equality, but rather grants women primarily reproductive functions. However, woman with anti-feminism attitudes can take advantage of the fact, that a "feminine image" leads to her being perceived as less radical and far-right. Taking advantage of gender-specific attributions would be therefore an important contribution to the normalization and demonization strategy of anti-feminist and far-right approaches.

Antifeminist authors

Dissident Feminists

Numerous intellectuals who self-identify as feminists, also categorized as part of dissident feminism, have expressed their critiques of certain tenets of contemporary feminism. Examples include Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Lisa Lucile Owens, Peggy Sastre, and Daphne Patai. Common arguments include hostility toward men, or misandry, and the disproportionate prioritization of women’s interests over men’s. Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge argue that the term "anti-feminist" is used to silence criticism and avoid academic debate about feminism. Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers criticize radical feminism for ignoring biological differences between genders and promoting unbalanced perspectives about men. Lisa Lucile Owens questions certain rights exclusive to women, describing them as patriarchal for absolving women of exercising full moral agency. Peggy Sastre criticizes contemporary feminism's approach to issues such as sexual consent and the role of women in modern society.

Agustín Laje's Criticisms

Agustín Laje, a political scientist and philosophy master's graduate, is one of the main critics of contemporary feminism in Argentina and of what he refers to as "gender ideology." In his works The Cultural Battle and Idiot Generation, Laje argues that modern feminism has evolved from a movement advocating equality to a radical and totalitarian ideological current that fosters antagonism between men and women. According to Laje, this feminism is rooted in marxist dialectics, where men are conceptualized as the "oppressors" and women as the "oppressed," transferring the class conflict to the realm of gender and creating a "battle of the sexes." He claims this perspective ignores the complexity and diversity of human relationships, turning feminism into a tool for political and cultural confrontation, promoting division and conflict instead of inclusive and balanced solutions based on cooperation. He maintains that this approach is harmful to social cohesion and peace.

To illustrate his criticisms, Laje often refers to examples of radical feminist declarations, such as the case of Emily McCombs, deputy editor at the progressive outlet HuffPost and an essayist on gender and mental health topics, who posted various misandrist slogans on her social media, including suggesting her New Year’s resolution was to "organize to kill all men."

Laje also criticizes how radical feminism and gender ideology, in his view, have become tools of a new culturalist left. This movement, he argues, diverges from classical Marxism based on class struggle and instead focuses on minority rights, transforming universities, media outlets, and educational spaces into platforms to advance its objectives covertly.

In summary, Agustín Laje contends that these contemporary ideologies destabilize fundamental social values and are strategically used to impose a particular cultural vision rather than promote true equality or social justice.

Christina Hoff Sommers' Perspective

Christina Hoff Sommers, an American philosopher and writer specializing in ethics, is renowned for her criticisms of contemporary feminism, particularly to what she refers to as "gender feminism." Sommers describes it as a movement rooted in an ideological focus on the systemic oppression of women rather than being grounded in evidence and verifiable facts. Her work argues that gender feminism exaggerates the oppression of women in the West and adopts an overly victimizing approach to contemporary feminism, which she believes harms both women and men.

Sommers contrasts gender feminism with equity feminism, which stems from the liberal tradition and seeks equality before the law without dividing men and women into opposing camps. She characterizes gender feminism as a radical variant centered on the narrative of pervasive structural oppression by the patriarchy. This form of feminism, according to her, fosters irrational hostility toward men and aims for social revolution. Sommers claims that gender feminism operates on a conspiratorial framework, discrediting its critics by labeling them as part of an oppressive system.

Furthermore, she accuses gender feminists of disseminating inaccurate, sensationalist, and exaggerated information about the oppression of women in developed Western countries. To Sommers, this victimization narrative—particularly entrenched in academic spaces and the most radicalized forms of student activism—does not align with the reality of the West and proves counterproductive by generating resentment and polarization between genders.

Sommers critiques contemporary feminism's tendency to portray men as systematic oppressors through generalizations, relying on a stereotyped view that degrades relationships between men and women. She also questions its impact on state policies, arguing that the current educational system favors girls at the expense of boys, leading to a decline in boys' academic performance and participation in higher education, as shown by statistics.

In her book The War Against Boys, Sommers asserts that contemporary feminist policies have had a negative impact on men by ignoring the challenges they face. This neglect, she argues, has contributed to a masculinity crisis and a worsening of issues such as depression and suicide among young men, supported by statistical data she compiles.

For Sommers, the consequences of gender feminism include increased polarization in debates, making dialogue and the search for consensual solutions more difficult, and alienating potential allies of feminism due to its aggressive approach.

The Perspective of Jordan Peterson

Jordan Peterson, a Canadian psychologist and intellectual, is a vocal critic of third-wave feminism. Peterson defines contemporary feminist thought as "gender ideology" and denounces its negative consequences for society.

One of Peterson's main criticisms lies in the demonization of traditional masculinity, which feminism conceptualizes as "toxic masculinity." According to his perspective, this widespread criticism leads to the alienation of men, particularly young men, and contributes to social issues such as a lack of purpose, an increase in mental health disorders, and disconnection from society. Peterson argues that traditional qualities associated with masculinity, such as strength and competence, are valuable and should be celebrated rather than suppressed.

Furthermore, Peterson rejects the feminist narrative that uses the thesis of an oppressive patriarchy to explain social structures. He argues that this is a reductionist perspective that overlooks the suffering and responsibilities men have taken on throughout history. Instead, he posits that human history is far more complex and that men and women have cooperated to overcome evolutionary challenges and ensure the survival of the human species. For Peterson, this narrative fosters polarization between genders rather than promoting collaboration.

Peterson also questions feminist arguments explaining gender inequalities in the labor and economic spheres. He asserts that career choices cannot be attributed solely to discrimination but instead reflect inherent biological differences between men and women. Along these lines, he argues that women tend to score higher on traits such as "agreeableness" and "neuroticism" in personality models, which can influence their career preferences and willingness to negotiate higher salaries. He also emphasizes differences in career choices, suggesting that data shows women gravitate toward caregiving professions, while men tend to prefer more technical careers, which are typically higher-paying. According to Peterson, these trends are evident even in countries with high levels of gender equality, such as Nordic countries. Peterson criticizes radical feminism for denying these differences and attempting to impose artificial equality of outcomes. He asserts that while equality of opportunity is desirable, equality of outcomes is not only impractical but potentially harmful. This pursuit of balance, he argues, can lead to social coercion and policies that restrict individual freedom in favor of collectivist goals.

The views of Félix Ovejero

Félix Ovejero, a Catalan philosopher and essayist, has frequently expressed his criticisms of contemporary feminism. His arguments primarily focus on what he perceives as an ideological drift and a series of internal contradictions within the movement.

Ovejero criticizes the deviation from the goals of classical feminism, which sought equality of rights, toward the fragmentation of society into identity-based collectives that emphasize differences rather than promoting their elimination. For Ovejero, this perspective hinders the construction of true social equality, as it places greater emphasis on symbols and narratives rather than on concrete solutions.

Additionally, Ovejero argues that much of contemporary feminism focuses on symbolic and grammatical battles that distract from more practical objectives, such as real access to power and the improvement of women’s living conditions. He claims that hegemonic feminism often adopts sectarian and dogmatic stances, distancing itself from rational debate grounded in evidence. In this regard, he offers a deep critique of feminism’s conceptual framework. Ovejero asserts that contemporary feminism develops a self-referential lexicon (including terms like "microaggressions," "mansplaining," "bropropriating," "manterruption," etc.) that confuses interlocutors with the aim of undermining common ground in the context of political battles. This lexical approach indiscriminately mixes multiple registers: "the normative and the descriptive—how things are and how they seem to us, good or bad, with biology as the usual suspect; the academic-technical and the common—precise and explicit usage versus the everyday language of the tribe, as seen in judicial decisions; and locutionary and illocutionary acts, where adjectives, abandoning their clarifying function, are used to silence disagreements (censorship) or provoke emotions."

Ovejero contends that contemporary feminism resorts to disqualifying interlocutors, accusing anyone or any idea that does not align with its principles of being sexist or heteropatriarchal. From his perspective, this strategy fosters a climate of polarization and obstructs constructive dialogue.

Ben Shapiro's Criticisms

Ben Shapiro, a conservative political commentator and American lawyer, is known for his critical views on the radicalization of contemporary feminism, which he has expressed in debates, articles, and books. In his opinion, the premises and practices of modern feminism are harmful to both men and women, perpetuating a narrative of oppression that, he argues, does not reflect the reality of women in Western societies. This feminism, which Shapiro refers to as "radical feminism," has, in his view, corrupted the first-wave feminist struggle for equal rights, diverting it into a fight for female superiority and the demonization of men.

Shapiro is a critic of the feminist perspective that conceptualizes gender as a social construct and promotes the idea of gender fluidity. From his perspective, this approach is unscientific because it denies inherent biological differences between the sexes, which are supported by scientific evidence, such as sexual dimorphism, cognitive and behavioral differences, and reduces explanations to the process of socialization. Instead, Shapiro argues that acknowledging these differences should not be seen as an obstacle to achieving equality of rights. Moreover, he believes that ignoring these differences could have negative implications for society and gender relations.

Shapiro also contends that radical feminism has created confusion in interpersonal relationships, fostering a restrictive environment for effective communication and collaboration. He claims that uncertainty about what is considered acceptable can lead to harmless interactions, such as compliments or gestures of kindness, being interpreted as harassment. Shapiro further critiques what he perceives as contemporary feminism's tendency to restrict freedom of speech, particularly in universities and the media. He argues that feminists often resort to censorship and cancelation to silence dissenting opinions.

Women Against Feminism movement (WAF)

The Women Against Feminism (WAF) movement is a collective that emerged in 2013, primarily on social media platforms like Tumblr, Twitter, and Facebook. It consists of women who reject contemporary feminism. The movement arose as a form of opposition to what its members perceive as the radicalization of feminism, the politicization of the movement, or the belief that it has led to the demonization of men and the promotion of a supposed "gender war."

Among WAF's main arguments against feminism is the belief that contemporary feminism espouses a misandrist narrative, demonizing men by labeling them as innate oppressors. They also claim that feminism has strayed from the goals of classical feminism—such as suffrage rights and legal equality, which are already guaranteed in Western societies—toward pursuing privileges instead of real equality. Another criticism centers on the rejection of the feminist intersectionality framework. Many WAF members argue that these ideas fragment and distract from the fight for women's rights, moving away from universal female experiences. Additionally, they criticize the politicization of contemporary feminism, which alienates women who do not adhere to political agendas such as socialist, environmentalist, or LGBTQ+ activism. WAF members also frequently oppose the devaluation of traditional gender roles, such as motherhood and homemaking. On the contrary, they believe every woman should have the freedom to choose her path without facing criticism. Furthermore, they challenge feminist critiques of traditional female identity, arguing that contemporary feminism promotes an androcentric vision of women, pushing them to emulate male roles. Another criticism targets the focus of contemporary feminism on what WAF considers marginal or minor issues, such as studying microaggressions, "mansplaining," or "manspreading," instead of addressing more severe problems like female genital mutilation, child marriage, or the lack of women's education in some underdeveloped countries. From this perspective, modern feminism is overly concentrated on minor issues in developed countries.

See also

• Backlash (sociology)
• École Polytechnique massacre
• Feminazi
• Incel
• The Manipulated Man
• Manosphere
• Men's rights movement
• Sexism
• Social justice warrior

Further reading

• Faraut, Martine (2003). "Women resisting the vote: a case of anti-feminism?". Women's History Review. 12 (4): 605–621. doi:10.1080/09612020300200376. S2CID 145708717.
• Howard, Angela; Adams Tarrant, Sasha Ranaé, eds. (1997). Opposition to the Women's Movement in the United States, 1848-1929. Antifeminism in America: A Collection of Readings From the Literature of the Opponents to U.S. Feminism, 1848 to the Present. Vol. 1. New York: Garland Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8153-2713-4.
• Howard, Angela; Adams Tarrant, Sasha Ranaé, eds. (1997). Reaction to the Modern Women's Movement, 1963 to the Present. Antifeminism in America: A Collection of Readings From the Literature of the Opponents to U.S Feminism, 1848 to the Present. Vol. 3. New York: Garland Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8153-2715-8.
• Howard, Angela; Adams Tarrant, Sasha Ranaé, eds. (1997). Redefining the New Woman, 1920-1963. Antifeminism in America: A Collection of Readings From the Literature of the Opponents to U.S. Feminism, 1848 to the Present. Vol. 2. New York: Garland Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8153-2714-1.
• Kampwirth, Karen (2006). "Resisting the feminist threat: antifeminist politics in post-Sandinista Nicaragua". NWSA Journal. 18 (2): 73–100. doi:10.2979/NWS.2006.18.2.73 (inactive 1 November 2024). JSTOR 4317208. S2CID 145487146.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
• Kampwirth, Karen (2003). "Arnoldo Alemán takes on the NGOs: antifeminism and the new populism in Nicaragua". Latin American Politics and Society. 45 (2): 133–158. doi:10.1111/j.1548-2456.2003.tb00243.x. JSTOR 3176982. S2CID 153608755.
• Kampwirth, Karen (1998). "Feminism, antifeminism, and electoral politics in post-war Nicaragua and El Salvador". Political Science Quarterly. 113 (2): 259–279. doi:10.2307/2657856. JSTOR 2657856.
• Kinnard, Cynthia D. (1986). Antifeminism in American thought: an annotated bibliography. Boston, Mass.: G.K. Hall & Co. ISBN 978-0-8161-8122-3.
• Mansbridge, Jane (1986). Why we lost the ERA. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-50357-8.
• Nielsen, Kim E. (2001). Un-American womanhood : antiradicalism, antifeminism, and the first Red Scare. Columbus: Ohio State University Press 978-0-8142-0882-3. ISBN 978-0-8142-0882-3.
• Price-Robertson, Rhys (Spring 2012). "Anti-feminist men's groups in Australia (An interview with Michael Flood)" (PDF). DVRCV Quarterly (3 ed.). Collingwood, Vic.: Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria. pp. 10–13. ISSN 1838-7926 – via Xyonline.net.
• Schreiber, Ronnee (2008). Righting feminism: conservative women and American politics. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-533181-3.
• Swanson, Gillian (2013) [first published 1999]. Antifeminism in America: A Historical Reader (1st ed.). New York: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315051970. ISBN 978-1-3150-5197-0.

External links

• Media related to Antifeminism at Wikimedia Commons
• The dictionary definition of antifeminism at Wiktionary