recognizing and resisting anti-feminist propaganda

the hidden threat of anti-feminism.

ilsten instead:

We often think about anti-feminist sentiments in the most blatant of terms. It's apparent that the man who says all feminists are cunts is against the movement. We know that women who pride themselves on being anti-feminist are often indoctrinated into patriarchal ideals and alt-right pipelines up the wazoo. This type of hate is easier to accept; we can rationalize it to ourselves, disprove it, or simply block these agitators.

Most anti-feminist propaganda is insidious. It hides in plain sight and sneaks its way into people's brains like a worm. The goal of this propaganda is to slowly lead women far away from feminism. It is to fill our heads with so much noise that the idea of women's liberation becomes twisted backwards.

Anti-feminist propaganda can pose as support for women. It can appear as something empowering when the truth is it’s designed to trap women into patriarchy. It may read as relationship advice or self improvement techniques. Many who parrot these talking points are unaware they’re pushing anti-feminism and some may even call themselves feminists.

The first step to resisting this is recognizing it. Being aware means you can be active. There are patterns that are impossible to miss once you see them. When you see it, you can be vocal against it and continue the cycle of awareness.

There’s no definitive anti-feminist propaganda list, but they pop up everywhere across the internet and within feminist discourse. The following will be a non-exhaustive analysis of anti-feminist beliefs. I will highlight the patterns and methods used to attack resistance against patriarchy.

I. Man hating & misandry myths.

To me, this is the most obvious yet the most effective form of anti-feminist propaganda. There is discourse about misandry in nearly all corners of political commentary, activism, and discussion. People on the right say it’s killing men, the left says it doesn’t exist at all and the secret third thing is far more complicated and being used to shut down feminist discussion every day.

Feminism has been likened to a cult of man haters since before the word feminist even existed. Women have routinely been persecuted for defying the status quo throughout patriarchal history. When a woman would decline a man’s advances, he could accuse her of witchcraft and have her burned alive. If she exchanged too many stories about men’s abuses with other women, her husband could fashion her with a spiked muzzle. If she protested for women’s liberation, she could be jailed. If she refused to eat while imprisoned, a tube could be forced down her throat.

Women’s disobedience in the face of patriarchy has been described as a disrespect for men’s authority or a refusal to abide by the “natural order” of society. These are fancy ways to say “man hater.” There has been a major reoccurring lesson throughout women’s fight against oppression: step too far out of line and you will be marked spoiled goods and punished.

The easiest way to dismiss feminism is to shove it all under the category of man hating. If you can define an entire movement/culture/group as hateful, you can push anyone away from it. This method of propaganda has been used over and over again, yet it continues to work.

Since 2013, anyone who says Black Lives Matter has been labeled a hateful individual. Protestors are constantly blamed and villainized for violence incited by police. Right now, the Trump administration is labeling anti-fascist thinkers and trans people as terrorists. In Palestine, Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization because they’re resisting Israeli apartheid. It’s a tactic of the oppressor to vilify the oppressed. Where there is resistance there will always be accusations of hatred, violence, and terror.

While the word misandry is real and the act of hating men exists, there is no systemic oppression of men for being men. Despite any intersecting identities of marginalization, no man is oppressed solely because of his manhood or proximity to masculinity. This means there is a power imbalance, much like with all oppressed peoples, and the oppressed cannot be the primary aggressor.

Women are certified man haters for any disapproval of patriarchy. When we use terms like “misandrist” online it needs to be done with responsibility. One of the earliest uses of the term came from an English magazine in 1885 in which it was used to describe a woman who was bitter about not being chosen for marriage. The article proposed that her resentment and hatred for men stemmed from lack of male affection.

1885 – misandry – “She could not account for it, and it was a growing source of bitterness, of misogyny as well as misandry.” [“The Crack of Doom,” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, Edinburgh, Scotland & London, England, Volume 138, Jul. – Dec. 1885, p. 289]

The word was being used to degrade women in 1885, how can we continue to do the same now? How often is misandry used against a woman who is calling out sexism today? The term is used more often as a slur than with any sort of analysis on rage or hateful feelings towards men.

In general, when you do not engage in much feminist discourse or aid the community of women around you in any way yet use your time to denounce “misandrists” you are being anti-feminist. Women who hate men may not even be feminists, but will be treated as such anyway. You may think that you’re only targeting “bad women” but it has been proven throughout history that any woman that doesn’t bend the knee to patriarchy will be labeled a dissident i.e. a man hater. Patriarchy doesn’t discriminate based on “who hates systemic misogyny not every single man in existence;” we can all burn at the stake the same. These soldiers are wasting their time and putting women in real danger.

This is not exclusive to those who are not feminists or don’t engage in advocacy for women. There is a specific statement I want to address.

“Hating men is still centering men.”

“If your whole personality is about hating men you are still centering men/aren’t a feminist.”

This is anti-feminist propaganda being parroted by feminists.

In my 28 years on this earth I have never met a woman whose entire personality revolved around hating men. A key part of feminism is understanding that women are well rounded human beings with complex thoughts and emotions, just like men. While I understand the phrasing “if your whole personality-” is popular online, the implications are still reducing someone to one singular trait.

We often perceive “man hating” the way patriarchy has taught us, which is any disapproval or disagreement with patriarchy, and when I see these phrases used against women I can’t help but see the misogyny brewing within. Are you targeting women who truly hate all men or are you targeting women who are waking up to their oppression for the first time and rightfully feeling outraged? Are you targeting women who would even identify themselves as feminists? Is telling angry women they’re doing feminism wrong solving anything or is it pushing these women further from diving into feminist theory at the height of their rage?

When I encounter women online (because again, I have never met a single woman like this in real life) who make it a point to express their hatred for men the most I can feel towards them is annoyance. Even then, these women typically do not focus their entire online lives around hating men so in the end I feel nothing towards them. I can look at a post about the evils of men and think to myself that they can dig deeper than they are. I can point out a likely teenaged girl being an edge lord and be irritated by it. Never does the thought that they’re hindering feminism come to my mind. I don’t shame them; I’ll block them or direct them towards feminist creators & authors that I enjoy. I know that the hinderance to feminism is patriarchy and it’s soldiers, not angry women.

This does not apply to TERFs, separatists, or gender critical women. These women are not feminists, as feminism cannot exist without intersectional analysis. Their hatred does not lie with men, as much as they try to pretend it does, it lies with trans people or others who threaten their bigoted ideology. Bio-essentialism is what these women cling to and that is an inherently anti-feminist ideology. It is possible for women who are new to recognizing their oppression to fall down the TERF pipeline, which strengthens the argument that we should direct them towards feminist theory and allow them the space to put their rage into words. This is not to excuse women who fall to TERFism, but it is an acknowledgment of the thought processes that may occur when women feel ousted from feminism.

Capitalism, white supremacy, and cishetero patriarchy will not fall peacefully because the enforcement and upholding of them is not peaceful. Anyone suggesting otherwise is feeding idealistic, individualistic, complacent nonsense. When we’re telling women that their hatred is wrong we are ignoring history. Yes hatred and rage are different, but you may find some people have both. You’re free to choose your own methods of activism and praxis, but it’s counterproductive to shame women for hatred of their oppressors. Revolutions have been built on hatred and rage, I would not decapitate someone I was fond of.

As a society, it’s hard to confidently differentiate between pure hatred for all living men and what patriarchy has instilled in us to believe is harm and danger towards them. Women drawing attention to men’s violence, sexual exploitation, oppressive tactics, and hatred for femininity is not hating men nor is it centering them. It’s far too often I see exactly that be labeled misandry. Even so, hatred for your oppressor is not wrong. With that in mind, the overall use of misandry and man hating labels is anti-feminist propaganda.

II. The divine feminine & being in your masculine.

A key aspect of patriarchy is the perceived differences between masculinity and femininity. Femininity is viewed as passive, weak, and submissive while masculinity is viewed as strong, aggressive, and dominant. Much like binary gender, masculinity and femininity are socially constructed with very specific purposes. The traits we attribute to each are designed to be rigid; any deviation from the norm is not to be accepted because it disrupts this system.

What we know of misogyny is a hatred of women, but it goes much deeper than that. A fundamental rule of misogyny is a hatred of femininity. The feminine, as it is described, is meant to be controlled and lead. Gay men who are feminine face ridicule because they are gay, but also because they are defying the guidelines to present themselves in a feminine way. Why would a man want to be weak, passive, and submissive when he is supposed to be strong, aggressive, and dominant? Trans men are often re-gendered and pushed backwards towards their “feminine status” because they’re not supposed to break molds and join the strong, aggressive, and dominant club. Understanding hatred for the feminine is important here.

Masculinity and femininity have been used within spiritual practices for a very long time. It is viewed like yin and yang, they’re meant to balance each other out. Even spiritually, femininity and masculinity hold the same basic descriptions. They are still based on the social construct that we know so well.

“Before I met him I was in my masculine.”

“He took me out of my masculine and put me into my divine feminine.”

Let’s look at what the message of these statements are:

When a woman is single, she is navigating the world through a masculine lens. She is aggressive, independent and stronger than her counterparts. She’s incapable of being soft and submissive because there’s no man in the picture to allow that of her. Since masculinity and femininity are meant to balance each other, a woman without a man in her life romantically is unbalanced. There are pieces missing. A woman can only be complete when there is a man.

The divine feminine in this context would mean the ultimate submissive and passive woman. This often coincides with keeping a clean house, homesteading, cooking meals for your partner, and having children. What a coincidence!

It’s not a coincidence that the highest form of your womanhood is being a traditional wife. You cannot escape the history of masculinity and femininity by labeling it spiritual. All variations of this rhetoric (yes, ‘i can just turn my brain off around him’ too) is misogynistic and anti-feminist. They don’t hold different meanings in this context, and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

These ideals are not only anti-feminist, they are redpill ideology fed to women in a palatable way. It’s tradwife propaganda with different terminology. I see self proclaimed feminists use “the divine feminine” often, and while they’re not speaking in the context of relationships they’re still forcing the idea of softness, passiveness, and rigid gender roles onto women.

Feminism should aim to move away from femininity and masculinity as descriptors of the very complex experience of gender. These two can mix, they can be absent, one can change from one to the other, and at the end of the day they’re social constructs that have been forced upon us. Shoving women deeper into boxes is not the way to move towards liberation.

III. The sassy man apocalypse.

Despite my overall thoughts on “man hating” there are some attitudes that may be classified as such but are actually harmful to women.

“Men want princess treatment now.”

“There’s a sassy man apocalypse.”

“Men used to go to war now they’re on platforms in the club.”

I’ll be honest, while these crack me up sometimes, it’s still important to analyze the underlying meaning and it’s negative effects.

There’s one common theme amongst all of these insults: men are “acting like women.” We are insulting men by… Comparing them to women. I would think this means that being a woman is the insult. Femininity is socially defined as passive, weak, and submissive (as established) and this is already used as an insult quite often. If these are typically defined as “feminine roles” does this not mean that the feminine roles are less valuable or degrading?

I’ve seen many people describe the insult as men wanting to be women. This once again leaves women at a disadvantage because why is it insulting to want to be one? Does wanting to lean into “feminine roles” make a man gay? Is that the insult? There is an inherent transphobic air to this as well.

Do we see the problem here?

I think there is merit to the idea that men are moving even further away from basic courtesy for their partners and society at large. There has been an awakening to the lack of respect from men as a whole. This is not something that has been called out for very long, and it’s not surprising to me that the methods of doing so are lackluster. They’re not seeking princess treatment, they’re suffering from a lifetime of patriarchal conditioning that’s left them entitled and emotionally stunted.

In general, I don’t think it’s wrong for men to want respect in a relationship or their day to day lives. I really couldn’t give a fuck less if they’re on an elevated surface in the club. Everyone should show common courtesy towards each other and when you form an intimate relationship with someone (platonic or romantic) you should be treating them with kindness and love. I think the resentment comes from men refusing to acknowledge patriarchy or do anything to dismantle it. They don’t address their own entitlement and they’ve historically refused to show women any respect or care. They’re demanding something while not giving it back and doing no work to earn it.

Unfortunately, instead of making that point people are leaning into insults rooted in misogyny.

To point back to section one, this isn’t killing feminism. These few insults are not the reason men hate or abuse women. It’s not leading to “reactionary misogyny” or deepening our oppression. However, they are anti-feminist. Without thinking critically about what we’re saying, we’re vulnerable to falling down a deeper hole of anti-femininity and anti-feminist thinking.

IV. The good man.

Tale as old as time….. The good man.

“How can you possibly be a feminist when there are so many good men out there?”

“Feminism just hurts the good men.”

“You’ve just chosen the wrong men.”

“A good man will change your mind. Patriarchy is necessary.”

As I pointed out in section one, when feminism is largely defined as “man hating” it’s no surprise that people are quick to defend “good men.” If people understood feminism or read any feminist theory they would understand why it’s not an attack on men who treat women with basic respect, or why that isn’t good enough. They would know that dismantling patriarchy is not a call to wipe men from the face of the earth.

Anti-feminist propaganda doesn’t want them to understand.

In my piece “I want women to be meaner” I wrote about the myth of the good woman. What makes a person “good” is not tied to gender or it’s expression. Much like femininity and masculinity do not actually have immutable character traits, neither does womanhood or manhood. What makes someone a good person (kindness, empathy, friendliness, inclusivity, etc.) is not determined by their gender. We may see these traits linked to one gender more often than others, but that is largely due to the socialization of these rigid gender roles. If femininity is supposed to be kind and passive, that is how girls will be raised. If masculinity is supposed to be aggressive and strong, that is what boys will be taught.

The good man is a myth. He doesn’t exist, and neither does the good woman. Funnily enough (read: not funny at all and in fact, predictable) both of these mythical creatures are anti-feminist propaganda.

The good man is used to silence women. It tells us that it’s wrong to critique patriarchy and oppressive systems because the feelings of the good men out there will be hurt. It will drive the good men away or turn them into misogynists. It says we’re ungrateful towards the good men who do exist.

The good man is used to justify inceldom and the male loneliness epidemic. These men believe they are good, but they’re lonely because women are keeping their standards too high. They refuse to acknowledge that their hatred of and lack of respect for women is visible from a football field away. Feminism must be out to attack these good men and ruin their lives.

The good woman is used to keep women in check. It tells women to be submissive, lean into their femininity (isn’t it crazy how everything I’ve written here keeps intersecting) and keep a clean home or else they’ll be alone forever. The good woman myth shames women who are too loud, assertive, or disobedient to the patriarchal ideal. Feminism will taint a woman, and she can no longer be considered one of the good ones.

Society will say a good man is a man who has never hit or raped a woman. The bar is so low that a man who takes the trash out is considered a premium partner. Criticism of any man deemed “good” is often met with distain and verbal abuse, yet what is considered good is far below par. If we continue to use this metric to dictate which men should be immune from critique of their misogynistic beliefs, we will get nowhere. No man is immune while patriarchy is still in place.

Neither concept is used to actually uplift anyone. Good men aren’t being brought into the conversation simply to praise them; the idea of them is used to snuff out women’s voices. Good women receive praise in the same way a cow receives praise before slaughter, just a good chunk of meat that will serve it’s purpose.

We can push back against this by dropping the gender from the praise. If someone is a good person, then they’re a good person. We should resist handing out gold stars for bare minimum respect towards women, a man isn’t a feminist ally because he doesn’t use slurs.

Feminism doesn’t claim that men are incapable of possessing positive traits, but that’s what this piece of propaganda wants you to believe. As long as “good men” are weaponized against women and “good women” are the standard, this anti-feminist belief will persist.

V. The gender war.

If a white person says “the race war”, what’s the first thing that comes to mind?

Dog whistle.

At least it should be, because that’s exactly what it is. “The race war” is something racist white people say to excuse their persistent hatred and violence against people of color. It paints the oppressed as aggressive and victimizes themselves. It’s a manipulative narrative shift to justify more violent oppression.

So why, when we hear “the gender war,” do we give it validity? Why do I see self proclaimed feminists writing more than one think piece validating men’s idea of a gender war and placing blame on women for being too aggressive?

The gender war isn’t real. More women are turning towards feminism and men’s violence is being spotlighted at a rate that’s never been seen before. There are honest conversations being had about rape and femicide. The definition of sexual assault is broadening to include violations that men have been getting away with for centuries. Men are facing an intimacy drought because they’re more likely to be forced to treat women like human beings and they don’t know how to do that.

None of this is a war, and not a single damn thing listed means that men are victims. We could say women being murdered, enslaved, and sexually exploited for centuries is a gender war, but something tells me that wouldn’t be well received.

The only war happening is men’s own with patriarchy. For the first time, the truth of their own socialization is being held in front of them. They’re facing the fact that they know nothing about women’s bodies or feelings, they are women’s biggest predator, and a lot of them have probably raped a woman at least once without realizing it because they don’t know what consent is. They’re learning that their chokehold on power is falling apart and they have no one to blame but the system that promised them that power.

Let’s play in fantasy land and pretend there is a gender war, men would still be at an advantage. Masculinity is designed to be violent. Women are still oppressed across the world and patriarchy is still the reigning social system. Even with the strides feminism has made, if our current timeline is a gender war then women showed up with sporks and men have nuclear bombs.

Propaganda insists that resistance is unnecessary aggression. Feminism growing is not an act of war against men. Of course, if you’re comfortable in your oppressive position, it will feel like one, but that doesn’t make it true. Women are allowed to be vocal about our mistreatment. Victims should be encouraged to speak up. Instead, any attack on patriarchy is stamped with the man hating, gender war inciting seal of no return.

The gender war narrative is another way to paint women as man haters. It pushes women away from feminism lest you be labeled someone trying to harm men. It turns the oppressor into the victim. It’s anti-feminist propaganda. Under no circumstances should the idea of it be validated, and anyone using it should be called out immediately.

If you take away nothing else from this piece I hope you see the patterns. Anti-feminism often follows the same playbook. Degradation of the feminine, accusations of hatred for men, victimization of the oppressor, and the urging of women towards submission.

Recognition of these patterns can be used to root out more propaganda. It can shut down the rhetoric before it reaches a critical point. Learning them now can save you from falling down alt-right pipelines in the future.

Anti-feminist attitudes are a risk to women everywhere. It’s not just a movement or culture that is being attacked, it forces us further away from liberation. The individual narratives pile up quickly so it’s imperative that they be corrected now.

New dog whistles arise weekly and it’s impossible to keep track of them all, but calling out what we can is a step in the right direction. Refusing to bend to or validate the propaganda is resistance. Knowledge is power and awareness is liberating.