Feminism is not about fairness

It's about reducing unjust prejudice and improving gender relations

About a year ago, I found myself in an unexpected conversation with a men’s rights activist (MRA) at an Effective Altruism conference. To be clear, I’m not sure he’d use that label—much like how some women resist calling themselves feminists—but more on that later. We had both attended office hours with a professor who was arguing that fostering gender-equal views among children in India might be a promising EA cause area. And as you’d expect, most attendees readily agreed that advancing gender equality was an important and worthy goal.

I can’t remember whether it was the MRA himself who brought it up, but at some point the conversation shifted to discussing gender equality in the West. Nothing all that spicy was said, but my interest level rose when I heard the MRA pushing back, very tactfully and very respectfully, on someone who had made a comment implying it was obvious that women remain disadvantaged here in America. I could tell he was a bit nervous, but he also seemed practiced, as if he’d navigated this minefield many times before, memorizing the most dangerous spots so he could tiptoe around them and reach his conclusion without triggering any explosions. He seemed reasonable, with no hint of the misogynistic anger that is often found lurking just below the surface of MRA talking points.

After the office hours I introduced myself to him. I told him I was a feminist, but that I agreed it’s not necessarily obvious women are “worse off” than men in the West, or that our society is “unfair” to women. Still, I thought feminism was relevant regardless, and in fact, that many of the men’s issues he was likely concerned about were symptoms of a society which was still struggling with the negative side effects that are part and parcel of a commitment to patriarchal values. He responded that he doesn’t believe we live in a patriarchy in the West, as men aren’t controlling everything or prioritizing men’s interests at the expense of women, even though the term is still relevant for describing many other contemporary societies.

Our conversation was cut short before I could clarify my point, but the interaction led me to reflect on whether using the term ‘patriarchy’ typically contributes to effective communication, particularly when in conversation with someone who doesn’t self-identify as a feminist. Clearly, it’s heavily burdened by cultural baggage, transmitting different images, emotional valence, and content based on who the audience is and what they’ve been exposed to. And, as I’d just discovered, its intended meaning in a given context could easily be misinterpreted. What I was actually trying to say, as I explained later online, was something like: 

Patriarchal values, for example that ‘men need to provide to feel worthy’ or ‘women need to remain sexually pure to be good wives and mothers’, still hold some sway, although much less than in previous generations, in the West. Investment in these values can be leveraged to support rigid and morally weighty gender norms, which can cause harm to both men and women for whom those norms are a poor fit. And, since feminism has been almost entirely a movement of women, with roots in the fight for formal legal equality, the ways in which these norms harm women have been interrogated more thoroughly than have the ways in which they harm men. A movement focused on men’s concerns is not only not incompatible with feminism, but can, in fact, often be supported by feminist theory.

What I did not mean was that “men are running everything” or that “society is explicitly structured for men at the expense of women”. Noticing the distance between what I had wanted to say and what I had ultimately communicated convinced me to mostly abandon use of the term. Rather than lazily using the word ‘patriarchy’ as a catch all, I now generally attempt to more precisely specify the cultural value, norm or trope I’m referring to. 

But the term feminist also carries cultural baggage, and so I also was forced to reflect on what its use communicates to various audiences. I had noticed myself saying “I’m a feminist but…”, immediately jumping to explain how my use of the term likely differed from his immediate association with it before he could respond. A similar observation had motivated me to stop identifying as a Catholic back in my early 20s, after the list of ‘buts’ which followed “I’m a Catholic…” became so unwieldy I had to admit “oh, I’m actually… not a Catholic”. 

But feminism is not like Catholicism. There’s no pope, there’s no Catechism. No one has the authority to baptize you and no one has the power to excommunicate you. There are lots of things feminists disagree on and there have always been lots of things feminists disagree on. It’s not at all uncommon for a feminist to call other feminists anti-feminist if they promote a view she disagrees with. But the thing that makes it a disagreement between feminists is that the disagreement is around whether a particular course of action, or a change in norms, laws etc. would lead to greater gender equality. 

I continue to identify as a feminist, but I think there are plenty of reasonable critiques of what I’ll call ‘mainstream contemporary feminism’ for lack of a better term, several of which I’ve made myself. I don’t know exactly what defines ‘mainstream contemporary feminism’, or rather it’s not easily definable since there’s no particular person or organization which is recognized as its obvious leader. But, by the term, I mean to refer to whatever it is that non-feminists are talking about when they criticize feminism or discuss its effect on our society. I’m talking about the vague sense of what feminism means which emerges from popular culture and from observing commonalities among those who claim to be feminists. I’m talking about the cloud of associated concepts coming out of things like the Barbie movie, MeToo, wage-gap discourse and Captain Marvel (I can only assume, since I would never subject myself to a Marvel film).

One of the most obvious critiques of mainstream contemporary feminism is that the degree to which women have an unfair deal (at least in a Western context) is often exaggerated while men’s problems are diminished. This leads to an overexpansion of scope, where gender analysis is applied far beyond its useful limits, and common human experiences—such as the difficulty of finding a great partner—are incorrectly assumed to be a burden only one gender must bear. Online, and in pop culture, I find that the reasonable recognition that women’s historic struggle for equal rights means that casual use of misandrist language is often less harmful or upsetting to men than misogynistic language is to women, is abused to greenlight demonizing men for fun. 

But, probably most importantly, the cultural changes mainstream contemporary feminists demand are often presented as if they’re zero-sum—men against women, pure sex war—rather than justified by claims that they would benefit society in general. Feminists, it seems, have stopped writing for and speaking to men, stopped trying to convince men, stopped trying to convince anyone, really, who isn’t already in the choir. 

If the term feminist were simply defined as: a person who finds common political cause with most other people who currently call themselves feminists, then it wouldn’t suit me particularly well. And this realization is why some women, like

Katie Herzog

, have simply stopped using the term—just as many men who care about men’s issues might distance themselves from ‘men’s rights’ lest they be associated with angry incels. But this is just not a reasonable way of adjudicating whether someone is a feminist, particularly because there have long been deep ideological differences among feminists. Feminism, relative to men’s rights, has a longer history and a far more developed and diverse literature such that it can’t be boiled down to what any group of people is doing or saying right now.

To get more clarity, I’d like to pull apart the difference between being ‘a feminist’, being a part of a particular feminist movement (of which there are generally several at any point in time based on different and often contradictory ideological premises) and participating in feminist analysis. This is a work in progress, so comments and critiques are more than welcome:

To me, participating in feminist analysis entails analyzing society with a view to identifying the ways in which we’re failing to achieve gender equality, articulating why that failure is a problem, and suggesting ways to change the status quo in the direction of greater gender equality. Gender equality entails that men and women are not subjected to gender based prejudice, whether internalized or external. The precise vision of what a gender equal society would look like, however, will vary widely based on a whole host of other beliefs, which will be the subject of my next post.

Note on 9/14/2024: after writing I realized that the term gender equality, as used here, encourages a focus on “fairness” or tallying up harms and benefits to women vs. men. While this phrase is one of the most commonly used in definitions of feminism, feminists generally want more than simple equality but rather social conditions which liberate women from sexism. I think a better way to phrase this is therefore anti-sexism, promoting a culture where fewer individuals hold and act upon unjustified sexist beliefs. I’ve also added definitions of feminism from various sources below¹²³⁴⁵⁶.

A failure to have achieved gender equality means more than ‘women are treated unfairly’, although that has most often been the basis for feminist complaints historically. In feminist discourse, this failure more broadly refers to our society being at a suboptimal gender equilibrium. When feminists articulate the ways in which over-emphasizing narrow conceptions of strength as defining of masculinity impacts the degree to which men seek mental health support, for example, they’re participating in feminist analysis. The feminist project is not completed when men can tally an equal number of complaints to those of women, but when gender norms, laws, and relations are serving the interests of women, but also men and society at large without dehumanizing or restricting the liberty of individuals.

Being “a feminist” implies that you think the goal of achieving gender equality (edit - by which I mean ending or reducing sexism), or improving the gender equilibrium, is an important priority—one which informs your political views and how you interpret your own behavior and that of others. (This gets at part of the definition

Amos Wollen

suggests in this piece, and which I’ll come back to, but swaps out advancing women’s interests with advancing gender equality or improving the equilibrium with respect to gender relations.) Being a feminist does not require you to be an activist on behalf of women as a special interest group, even if the vast majority of feminist activism is indistinguishable from that.

The historical position of women legally, economically, socially and politically is why feminism has focused on women, but this focus does not imply a goal to raise women above men, or to harm men on behalf of women. It may be true that some feminists believe men would be worse off if we were to achieve their imagined feminist utopia than men are given the status quo. But other feminists, such as bell hooks, while noting that patriarchy harms women more than it does men, also contend that it does in fact harm men and suggests that men would also be better off in a world with less sexism. Unjustified sexist prejudices are not conducive to happy and healthy heterosexual relationships, something most of us want to engage in, and a world that limits the flourishing of half its members seems unlikely to get us anywhere close to an “optimal gender equilibrium”.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in We Should All be Feminists justifies use of the gendered term “feminism”, which some take to imply female supremacy, despite having a broader goal of gender equality:

And when asked why use a gendered term, feminism, rather than focus only on gender equality: Some people ask, "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general – but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem should acknowledge that.

Note - added italicized text and above quote on 9/14/2024

Finally, being ‘a feminist’ is a more general identity than is being a part of a particular feminist movement. This explains why the most ardent feminists are always arguing, and mostly with one another! What beliefs and goals define the most ‘mainstream’ or high profile parts of the feminist movement will change over time, and it’s not uncommon for the group that’s part of the mainstream to claim other feminist movements are anti-feminist, actually. This can even be a fair claim if by it they mean that the ideas these other feminists promote, which they believe will increase gender equality, will actually achieve the opposite result. But there really are contradictory movements, all of which can rightly claim to be feminist, happening at the same time. We like to separate out “first wave” and “second wave” etc. but within each wave were individual feminists whose beliefs rested on incompatible ideological bases. The result was often bitter infighting, some of which I’ve covered in previous posts with respect to debates around statutory rape, porn, sexual assault and consent.

So how does this framework interact with some recent attempts to define or critique feminism?

Bryan Caplan

asks: what beliefs do people who identify as feminists share in common which most other people don’t, and concludes that being a feminist means that you think society is unfair to women. I disagree with this definition and its implications as I discuss in my post ‘Do be a feminist’ but I think Amos does a better job of explaining why that definition can’t work, since it would include individuals who no one would consider to be feminist:

[S]uppose there were a Society of Patriarchs, comprised of evil men, controlling the world, whose job it is to make sure society treats men more fairly than women. Assuming they succeed in this, the patriarchs would believe that society treats women less fairly. By Caplan’s definition, the patriarchs would be feminists. But the patriarchs would not be feminists, because they actively promote unequal treatment.

For this reason, feminism can’t merely be the belief that society treats men more fairly than women. The definition also needs a normative element, saying something to the effect of, ‘feminists find this fact regrettable and support its undoing’.

So, as Amos points out, being a feminist isn’t just about what you believe about the state of the world with respect to sex and gender, but also implies that you advocate for societal changes on the basis of those beliefs. If society is unfair to women, being a feminist requires not only that you acknowledge that fact, but also that you think it is unjustified and that we should push to change it.

As I mentioned above, the things feminists advocate for are generally things that they believe will most directly benefit women, and this is often justified by a belief, implicit or explicit, that women are either worse off than men, or that women are less free than men. As such, feminist activism on behalf of greater gender equality has historically taken a form which looks very similar to activism on behalf of women as a special interest group. 

But while most people who would be motivated to advocate for societal changes which benefit women as a special interest group are motivated, at least in part, by a belief that our society is unfair to women, you can still be a feminist and not hold this belief. As Amos points out, activists who are focused on promoting societal change in order to benefit women but who acknowledge that women aren’t treated unfairly could still be called feminists:

Suppose there’s another world war—I think we’re on our third—and all fighting-age men are drafted. Suppose the remaining adult men are kept at home, but ritually humiliated and beaten for their lack of bravado, and all under-age boys trained in sub-human conditions for the day they’ll eventually be drafted.

The women and girls, by contrast, are treated as they’re treated now. No unjust burdens placed on women and girls are abolished; no new ones are added, either.

In this scenario, the moral priority would be to make things better for the men and boys, and the majority of society’s attention would be on ending the war, the draft, the beatings, etc. But suppose that a group of activists got together who reasoned as follows: “Obviously, society treats men more unfairly than women. But there are still ways that society treats women unfairly. Since almost all the attention is focused on the men’s issues, we are going to prioritize women’s issues, and focus on those in our activism. Abortion, violence against women, respect in the workplace—those are our priorities.”

Question: What would this group of activists be called?

Answer: Feminists, no?

Maybe… if their reasoning is that, as women who have studied women’s issues deeply, they are, as a group, better positioned to focus their activism on women, but also recognize that men’s issues are of higher importance at that time and are glad other groups are focused on them, then yes, I’d call them feminists. But if they opposed ending the mistreatment of men, or were even neutral on solving those issues, they would not be feminists but would be female supremacists (or women-supremacists depending on how they view the importance of sex vs. gender). And in fact, the issues men face in this imagined scenario are precisely the sorts of issues that feminists have a lot to say about, rooted in rigid and traditionally patriarchal (I think its use here is justified!) gender norms.

There are certainly many female supremacists who think they’re feminists, probably most notably, at least for my audience, twitter personality RadFemHitler (RFH). But RFH is no feminist, she’s a bitter misandrist with a great sense of humor and an obvious gift for poasting. We can enjoy her content, but she is rightfully excluded from even the very broad understanding of feminism which I’m attempting to articulate here. The views she promotes are just deeply, deeply sexist.

Note on 9/17/2024: After talking with

Amos Wollen

who recently published a response, I’m less clear on whether RFH, or someone like her, who frequently expresses sexist opinions but also engages with core feminist issues should count as a feminist or not. I think clear expressions of misandry or definitive claims of female superiority are clearly not feminist actions, but Amos successfully made the case to me that this doesn’t immediately disqualify someone from being a feminist. If someone were to speak only about feminist issues, ways in which women are discriminated against etc. and then were to say one single misandrist thing, most people and most feminists would still consider them to be a feminist. But if all they do is misandrist speech, speaking about how men are inferior and essentializing men, they’re not a feminist even if they claim to be. But where to draw the line is not obvious. That said, RFH is not part of any movement within feminism that I would want to be associated with.

In my next post, I’ll outline the axes that I see as most relevant to understanding intra-feminist arguments past and present, supported by some historical examples which illustrate just how obvious it is that a small set of well defined empirical beliefs will not be sufficient to differentiate who is or isn't a feminist. As frustrating as it may be to Bryan Caplan, a belief in gender equality, which is now reportedly shared by almost everyone in the West, is one of, if not the only, legible beliefs which unites all feminists. The presence of this belief alone can’t tell you if someone is a feminist or not, but its absence guarantees anti-feminism. Anti gender equality is anti-feminist. But what you believe needs to be done on the basis of a belief in gender equality is what differentiates feminists from pro gender equality non-feminists.

In a recent post

Bentham's Bulldog

criticized two dogmas which I agree are held to be true by most people who would call themselves feminists today: extreme confidence that women are treated worse than men and only caring about harms to women. I think he’s right on both points, that, at least within an educated coastal social context, women being overall worse off than men is assumed to be obvious (I have a friend who was broken up with for saying he didn’t think upper middle class educated women in the West were overall worse off than their male counterparts) and that feminists seem to only pay attention to gender inequalities that harm women.

I’ll address his critiques more fully in a future post on ‘What Feminists Owe Men’, but if you have actionable ideas around that please share them in the comments. For now I’ll just say that while I agree that prison rape jokes are unacceptable and reveal a greater callousness to men’s suffering relative to women’s, feminists are not the ones making those jokes! Men are! Feminists are actually the ones receiving eyerolls from men, being told we’re too uptight and that we don't have a sense of humor (women just aren’t funny amirite!) when we tell men off for making them. Believe me! That said, I do think feminism needs to do a better job of talking to men and addressing their issues. That belief was one of the reasons I started this blog, so how can I do better?

1. bell hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center: Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.

2. Amia Srinivasan, Preface to The Right to Sex: Feminism is not a philosophy, or a theory, or even point of view. It is a political movement to transform the world beyond recognition. It asks: what would it be to end the political, social, sexual, economic, psychological and physical subordination of women? It answers: we do not know; let us try and see.

3. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in We Should All be Feminists cites a dictionary definition which she read when she was first called a feminist as an insult (and realized she was one) which says: a feminist is “a person who believes in the social, economic and political equality of the sexes”.

She also notes that: My own definition of a feminist is a man or a woman who says, "Yes, there's a problem with gender as it is today and we must fix it, we must do better."

And when asked why use a gendered term, feminism, rather than focus only on gender equality: Some people ask, "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general – but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem should acknowledge that.

4. Link to a collection of such definitions, of which I’ll highlight that from Domitila Barrios de la Chungara, 1975: "One type involves those who think women will only be free when they equal men in all their vices. This is called feminism... But companeras, do we really want to smoke cigarettes? [The other type is] women being respected as human beings, who can solve problems and participate in everything-- culture, art, literature, politics, trade-unionism-- a liberation that means our opinion is respected at home and outside the home."

5. Dictionary definitions:

Cambridge: the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state.

Oxford English Dictionary: Advocacy of equality of the sexes and the establishment of the political, social, and economic rights of the female sex; the movement associated with this.

Merriam Webster: belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.

6. Lorna Finlayson in An Introduction to Feminism says feminist theory is “the theory which identifies and opposes what it calls sexism, misogyny or patriarchy.”

She further states that:

“Feminism has two basic components. First, it recognizes or posits a fact: the fact or patriarchy. Second, it opposes the state of affairs represented by that fact.

'Patriarchy' names a system in which men rule or have power over or oppress women, deriving benefit for doing so, as women's expense. Feminists believe that this system exists, and not as something minor or peripheral or as a hangover from an earlier age, but as central, woven into the fabric of social reality.”