I discuss things that wouldn’t quite fit anywhere else.
Why I am not an antifeminist.
Antifeminism is opposition to feminism. In particular, it is against the feminism of the date and the region. For as long as feminism has existed as a formal movement, perhaps two centuries, there has been antifeminism.
For those two centuries, antifeminism has enjoyed a spectacular lack of success.
Women won the vote, they won abortion access, they won jobs, independence from men, better media representation, shelters, better healthcare, & criminalization of marital rape, amongst other victories. What have antifeminists accomplished other than slowing down these struggles? Not much, because much of what they want is already provided by the status quo, & whatever victories that they have tend to be short‐lived. But what is causing their counter‐movement to fail?
Supersimplified analyses: if there is one thing that feminism & its opposition have in common, it’s that they are both highly diverse, with many members from across the political spectrum. Antifeminists, however, do not seem to recognise this, or if they do, they believe that it’s irrelevant. Criticisms such as biological essentialism, tolerance for class‐society, & reckless attitudes towards sex work are valid indeed, but many other feminists are already strongly against these. Indeed, modern or intersectional feminism can be defined as a movement which opposes these discriminations & more. There are even feminists in the Middle East, but antifems seem to think that all of these feminists are irrelevant & the entire movement merits criticism. Why? Is there something wrong with the basic principles of feminism?
Innovation deficiency: whilst feminism generate new theories & evolves to become more inclusive, antifeminism evolves very little, & generates few new ideas. ‘The friend zone’ may be a notable exception, but I see it as a more formal expression of straight men’s entitlement. Ideas such as ‘female privilege’ or ‘matriarchy’ are simply inverted copies of theories conceived by feminists, & have no academic support. Look for contemporary rants by antifeminists & they tend to follow a similar formula: women here are equal now, what about ‘Islam,’ some feminists were mean to me, this isn’t a real issue, what about men, false rape accusations, &c. They’ll even dwell on data that is decades old. It’s very common for them to focus on individual feminists & hurl irrelevant insults at them. In fact, it’s a long‐running tradition, & antifems who focus on theory rather than individuals are scarce; they are academically bankrupt.
Even though the wage gap is not that important to third‐wave feminism, article after article are cranked out insisting that it’s a myth, but it’s obvious that they are ineffective. Are they going to use any other method aside from repetition? I doubt it. Is it their fault that it doesn’t work? Nope, it’s everybody else’s!
Ideological purity: closely related to the previous item, antifems do not typically bother to absorb new viewpoints. Whilst many of them permit input from others, that does not mean that they are willing to learn; they may simply want to argue with feminists to win, not to learn anything or grow as a person. It is common for them to deny that they are misogynous or sexist. Indeed, they don’t even seem open to the possibility that they may at least be subconsciously sexist. To them, accusations of misogyny are always a personal attack, never a concerned criticism (unless perhaps they are the ones making them). Any educational content, such as an article or a video, will probably only have shitposts under it, & good luck trying to get one antifeminist to finish a book written by a revolutionary feminist. This close‐mindedness is why feminist theories are wildly misrepresented.
Unrecognised utopianism: unlike many of their opponents, most (but not all) antifems are not planners for society. They are not in search of utopia—they believe that they already found it: patriarchy (in the so‐called ‘civilised’ world) is a lie, rape culture (in the ‘civilised’ world) is a lie, the pay gap is a lie, sexual harassment is not a ‘real’ issue, ‘almost nobody’ takes bothersome depictions seriously, microaggressions are either a lie or not a ‘real’ issue, &c. It is rarely stated outright, but the logical conclusion from reading their statements collectively is that the Western world, at least for women, is utopian; any dangers posed towards women can be justified in some way. It would take but a few minutes of straightforward, independent research to cast doubt over these claims, but I suspect that if they ever do such, anything that contradicts their ideology can be dismissed as ‘paranoia’, ‘political correctness’ or other such nonsense.
Antipathy: it costs no money to refrain from active misogyny, but apparently that’s an inadequate reason to behave better. Women with P.T.S.D., women of colour, transwomen, big women & aliæ are constantly ridiculed simply for the short‐term amusement of the mocker, but all of these traits are harmless, at least for him. Tying in with ideological purity, antifems would prefer to argue for hours on end in defence of their discrimination. Substituting the b‐word for something else? Too much work, apparently. Other antifems generally do not interfere with this misbehaviour unless it becomes either too extreme or too obvious. Feminists are also frequently compared to mass murderers, without any permit from their victims. With all of this running rampant, it should not be surprising that many feminists intentionally decline input from strangers. This leads me to my next point…
Consecration of free speech: for antifeminists, freedom of speech is not simply the ability to speak without legal penalties, it’s the right to say anything, anywhere, without any negative consequences whatsoever; freedom of platform. This is perhaps the most common argument for truly vile speakers, because it is the only defence that their destructive ideas have. Although it is never stated outright, it would seem that this elevated entitlement is more important than anything else. A society with perfect free speech, wherein life entails so much suffering that the entire population commits suicide, is still far more preferable to one without free speech, where everybody is happy. Criticizing free speech is almost considered blasphemous, and critics, if not demonized, are told to move to some other misogynous country where governmental censorship is well documented.
Shitty arguing: deflecting criticisms by shifting them onto their opponents (e.g. ‘Who cares if Trump is a rapist? Bill Clinton raped somebody & his wife defended him!’), shifting the burden of proof, countless argumenta ad feminam (as mentioned earlier), deliberate misrepresentation of feminists’ claims, boring nitpicking… if I remember any other defects, I’ll mention them here later.
Nobody needs to be a woman to know that there are women suffering all over the world. Cismen may never experience life identically to a woman, but we can still listen to their experiences, or even witness them. If we need one—and only one—reason to support revolutionary feminism, it’s that helping others makes us feel better.




