From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Antifeminism is broadly defined as ideological opposition to feminism. This opposition has taken various forms across time and cultures. For example, antifeminists in the late 1800s and early 1900s resisted women's suffrage, while antifeminists in the late 20th century opposed the Equal Rights Amendment.[1][2] Antifeminism may be motivated by the belief that feminist theories of patriarchy and disadvantages suffered by women in society are incorrect or exaggerated,[3][4] that feminism as a movement encourages misandry and seeks to harm or oppress men, or by general hostility towards women's rights.[5][6][7][8]


Feminist sociologist Michael Flood argues that an antifeminist ideology rejects at least one of what he identifies as the three general principles of feminism:[3]

  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, such as those in the timelines of woman's suffrage and other rights.

Canadian sociologists Melissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri write that antifeminist thought has primarily taken the form of an extreme version of masculinism, in which, "men are in crisis because of the feminization of society".[9] However, in the same article, they also note that, "little research has been done on antifeminism whether from the perspective of the sociology of social movements or even of women's studies," indicating that an understanding of what the full range of antifeminist ideology consists of is incomplete.

"Antifeminist" is also used to describe female authors, some of whom define themselves as feminists, based on their opposition to some or all elements of feminist movements. Other feminists label writers such as Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Katie Roiphe and Elizabeth Fox-Genovese with this term[10][11] because of their positions regarding oppression and lines of thought within feminism.[12] Daphne Patai and Noreta Koertge argue that by labeling these women antifeminists, the intention is to silence them and prevent any debate on the state of feminism.[13]

The meaning of antifeminism has varied across time and cultures and the antifeminist ideology attracts both men and women. Some women, for example the Women's National Anti-Suffrage League campaigned against women's suffrage. Emma Goldman, for example, was widely considered antifeminist during her fight against suffragism in the US. Decades later, however, she was heralded as a founder of anarcha-feminism.[14]

Men's studies scholar and a feminist 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."[5]

Antifeminist stances

Some antifeminists view feminism as a denial of innate differences between the genders, and an attempt to reprogram people against their biological tendencies.[15] Antifeminists also frequently argue that feminism, despite claiming to espouse equality, ignores rights issues unique to males. Some 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.[16][17][18]

Some antifeminists 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.[19][20][21] For example, the ubiquity of casual sex and the decline of marriage are mentioned as negative consequences of feminism.[22][23] Many of these traditionalists oppose women's entry into the workforce, political office, and the voting process, as well as the lessening of male authority in families.[24] Antifeminists 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".[25]


American antisuffragists in the early 20th century

19th century

In the 19th century, the centerpiece of antifeminism was opposition to women's suffrage.[2] 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.[26] Other antifeminists opposed women's entry into the labor force, or their right to join unions, to sit on juries, or to obtain birth control and control of their sexuality.[5]

Mid 20th century

In 1951, two journalists published Washington Confidential, the novel that sparked the second Red Scare.[dubious ] It 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 vast popularity of the book caused such a buzz that the Civil Service Commission had to create a “publicity campaign to improve the image of federal employees”[27] 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”[27] was the only way to oppose communism.

Late 20th century

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)

The Equal Rights Amendment 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 his or her sex. By 1972, the amendment was supported by both major parties and was immensely popular; but though it made it through Congress, it was defeated when it failed to get the vote of thirty-eight legislatures by 1982.[28]

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; in other words, this theory identifies particular social classes as more inherently friendly to anti-feminism. Another theory holds that women who feel vulnerable and dependent on 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, however, says both views are at least partially wrong, arguing that the primary dividing line between feminists and anti-feminists is cultural rather than stemming from differences in economic and social status.[29]

Burris,[who?] meanwhile, says that high-income men opposed the amendment because they would gain the least with it being passed; in fact, those men had the most to lose, since the ratification of the ERA would mean more competition for their privileged jobs and possibly a lowered self-esteem.[28] Because of the support of antifeminism from conservatives and the constant “conservative reactions to liberal social politics,” like the New Deal attacks, the attack on the ERA has been called a “right-wing backlash”.[28] Their methods grew to actions like, “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”[9] and more.


After the ERA was rejected, antifeminism grew a branch: masculinism. Once feminists began suggesting ideologies like same-sex marriage, single mother households, and ultimately opposing the root purpose of antifeminism, it created a division of antifeminism that feels the “masculine identity has been spurned”.[9] Made up mostly of men, it is debated whether masculinism is a social movement or a scapegoat to the people who made them have to fight for the roles in life that they feel are due onto them.[9]

21st century

A protest against an International Women's Day march in Warsaw, Poland in 2010

Contemporary issues surrounding antifeminism include concerns of fairness in matters of family law, regarding things like child custody, paternity liability, child support, and concerns of sex or gender inequality in the criminal justice system, such as fairness in sentencing for like crimes.[30]

BBC and Time, among others, have covered the 2014 social media trend "Women Against Feminism". These antifeminists say that feminism demonizes men (misandry) and that women are not oppressed in 21st century Western countries.[4][31][32][33][34][35]

The Guardian and Jezebel have also reported on an increasing number of women and female celebrities rejecting feminism and instead subscribing to humanism.[36][37] Several women who identify as being humanist and anti-feminist have argued in an article for the Guardian that feminism is a discriminatory ideology and continues to portray women as victims.[36] The article was written in response to Australian Labor Senator Penny Wong's speech on the 11th of April at the Annual Jessie Street Luncheon where she defended feminism, stating, "Feminism is not an extreme term – it is a mainstream movement that has transformed modern Australia for the better."[38]

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.[39] 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.[40][41]


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.[42] 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.[42]

In India, the Save Indian Family Foundation is an antifeminist organization[43] opposed to a number of laws that they claimed to have been used against men.[44]

Stigmatizing feminism

According to Amherst College sociology professor Jerome L. Himmelstein in his article “The Social Basis of Antifeminism: Religious Networks and Culture,” social stigma against feminism is a manifestation of antifeminism; two prevailing theories can explain where antifeminism originates. The first theory, proposed by Himmelstein, is the political opposition in the abortion and Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) debates, groups who consist primarily of individuals of lower socioeconomic status, rural, and older constituencies. The political view is labeled as conservative. Although these characteristics may perpetuate through anti-abortion and anti-ERA advocates, it is not a blanket definition and deserves to avoid stereotyping.[29]

The second theory proposes that women in the antifeminist group perpetuate the “insecure housewife scenario,” in which women are to depend on men for fiscal support. The theorized opposition is a group of married, low education, low personal income women; however in numerous studies, no direct class can be differentiate between characters of feminism and antifeminism.[29]

So both theories cannot create clear cut, polarized socio-economic groups who dignify the pro-feminists and antifeminist. What cleanly unifies the opposition group is religion. Individuals unaffiliated with any religion, along with Jewish groups, are most likely to support feminist views, while groups involved with Christianity, especially Catholics, are most likely to oppose feminist views. Christian beliefs stress strict lives for women. The Christian doctrine includes regulating women’s sexuality and gender role in the family and in the world. So with evidence from various studies, Himmelstein concludes the feminist stigma stems from religious views that have prevailed for nearly two millennia.[29]

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”.[45] Due to stigma against feminism, some activists 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 feminist.[45]

See also

Further reading

Literature about antifeminism

  • Nielsen, Kim E. (2001). Un-American womanhood : antiradicalism, antifeminism, and the first Red Scare. Columbus: Ohio State University Press. ISBN 978-0814250808.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • 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), Howard-Zophy
  • Faludi, Susan (1991). Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women. Crown Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0-517-57698-8.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • Kampwirth, Karen. 2006. "Resisting the Feminist Threat: Antifeminist Politics in Post-Sandinista Nicaragua" NWSA Journal. Vol. 18, No 2. (Summer). pp. 73–100.
  • Kampwirth, Karen. 2003. "Arnoldo Alemán Takes on the NGOs: Antifeminism and the New Populism in Nicaragua" Latin American Politics and Society. Vol. 45. No. 2. (Summer) 2003. pp. 133–158.
  • Kampwirth, Karen. 1998. "Feminism, Antifeminism, and Electoral Politics in Post-War Nicaragua and El Salvador" Political Science Quarterly Vol. 113, No. 2. (Summer) pp. 259–279.
  • Cynthia D. Kinnard, Antifeminism in American Thought: An Annotated Bibliography (Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1986, ISBN 0-8161-8122-5)
  • Kipnis, Laura, The Female Thing: Dirt, Sex, Envy, Vulnerability (Pantheon, 2006).
  • Mansbridge, Jane: Why We Lost the ERA, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1986
  • Nielsen, Kim E. Un-American Womanhood: Antiradicalism, Antifeminism, and the First Red Scare
  • Schreiber, Ronnee (2008). Righting Feminism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-533181-3.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  • Swanson, G. Antifeminism in America: A Historical Reader (2000) ISBN 0-8153-3437-0

Antifeminist literature


  1. Ford, Lynne E. (2009). Encyclopedia of Women and American Politics. Infobase Publishing. p. 36. ISBN 978-1-4381-1032-5.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  2. 2.0 2.1 Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).
  3. 3.0 3.1 Flood, Michael (2007-07-18). "International encyclopedia of men and masculinities". ISBN 978-0-415-33343-6.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  4. 4.0 4.1 Brosnan, Greg (July 24, 2014). "#BBCtrending: Meet the 'Women Against Feminism'". BBC news. BBC. Retrieved July 24, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 Kimmel, Michael; Aronson, Amy (2004), "Antifeminism", in Kimmel, Michael; Aronson, Amy, Men and masculinities a social, cultural, and historical encyclopedia, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, pp. 35–37, ISBN 9781576077740.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  6. Blee, K. (1998). Antifeminism. In W. Mankiller (Ed.), The reader's companion to U.S. Women's history. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
    • "The two major waves of antifeminist activity coincide with the two waves of the women’s rights movement: the campaign to secure female suffrage in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the feminist movement of the late twentieth century. In both periods, those holding a traditional view of women’s place in the home and family tried to advance their cause by joining with other conservative groups to forestall efforts to extend women’s rights."
  7. Mertz, Thomas J. "Antifeminism." New Dictionary of the History of Ideas. Ed. Maryanne Cline Horowitz. Vol. 1. Detroit: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2005. 94-98. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.
    • "Antifeminism, then, repudiates critiques of male supremacy and resists efforts to eliminate it (often accompanied by dismissal of the idea that change is possible). Note that this definition of antifeminism limits its reference to reactions against critiques of gender-based hierarchies and efforts to relieve the oppression of women."
  8. Howard, Angela Marie. "Antifeminism." The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History. : Oxford University Press, 2008. Oxford Reference. 2008. Date Accessed 30 Sep. 2015
    • "Reform activity that challenged either the subordination of women to men or the patriarchal limitation of women's status provoked an antifeminist response that included an intellectual and political campaign to halt progress toward women's rights and equality."
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).
  10. Judith Stacey, Is Academic Feminism an Oxymoron?, Signs, Vol. 25, No. 4, Feminisms at a Millennium. (Summer, 2000), pp. 1189–1194
  11. Elizabeth Kamarck Minnich, Review: 'Feminist Attacks on Feminisms: Patriarchy's Prodigal Daughters', Feminist Studies, Vol. 24, No. 1. (Spring, 1998), pp. 159–175
  12. BITCHfest: Ten Years of Cultural Criticism from the Pages of Bitch Magazine, by Margaret Cho (Foreword), Lisa Jervis (Editor), Andi Zeisler (Editor), 2006
  13. Patai and Koertge, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women's Studies, (2003)
  14. Marshall, Peter (1992). Demanding the impossible : a history of anarchism. London: HarperCollins. p. 409. ISBN 0-00-217855-9.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  15. Leahy, Michael P. T. The Liberation Debate: Rights at Issue. Psychology Press. p. 10.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  16. Wattenberg, B (1994). "Has Feminism Gone Too Far?". MenWeb. Archived from the original on 13 October 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-30.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  17. Pizzey, Erin (1999). "How The Women's Movement Taught Women to Hate Men". Fathers for Life. Archived from the original on 26 September 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-30.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  18. Janice Shaw Crouse (2006). "What Friedan Wrought". Concerned Women for America. Retrieved 2006-09-30.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  19. Desai, Murli. The Paradigm of International Social Development: Ideologies, Development Systems and Policy Approaches. Routledge. p. 119.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  20. Robert T. Francoeur; Raymond J. Noonan. The Continuum Complete International Encyclopedia of Sexuality. A&C black. p. 1163.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  21. Jaggar, Alison M. Feminist Politics and Human Nature (Philosophy and Society). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 75.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  22. Mary A. Kassian, The Feminist Mistake (2005) ISBN 1-58134-570-4
  23. Carrie L. Lukas, The politically incorrect guide to women, sex, and feminism, Regnery Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1-59698-003-6, ISBN 978-1-59698-003-7
  24. Busch, Elizabeth Kaufer. Democracy Reconsidered. Lexington. p. 242.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  25. Gottfried, Paul (2001). "The Trouble With Feminism". Archived from the original on 20 September 2006. Retrieved 2006-09-30.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  26. Clarke, Edward H. (1873). Sex and education. Wildside. pp. 29, 55. ISBN 9780809501700.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Preview.
  27. 27.0 27.1 Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).
  28. 28.0 28.1 28.2 Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).
  29. 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).
  30. Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value). Pdf.
  31. Young, Cathy (July 24, 2014). "Stop fem-splaining: what 'Women Against Feminism' gets right". Time. Time Inc. Retrieved July 24, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  32. Kim, Eun Kyung (July 30, 2014). "Is feminism still relevant? Some women saying they don't need it". Today. NBC. Retrieved August 1, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  33. Young, Cathy. "Daughters of feminism strike back". Newsday. Cablevision. Retrieved August 1, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  34. Boesveld, Sarah (July 25, 2014). "Not all feminists: How modern feminism has become complicated, messy and sometimes alienating". National Post. Postmedia Network Inc. Retrieved August 1, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  35. Durgin, Celina (28 July 2014). "Anti-feminists baffle feminists". National Review. National Review, Inc. Retrieved 1 August 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  36. 36.0 36.1 Hardy, Elle; Lehmann, Claire; Jha, Trisha; Matthewson, Paula (14 April 2014). "Am I a feminist? Four women reply (and they're not from the left)". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 14 August 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  37. Dries, Kate. "The many misguided reasons famous ladies say 'I'm Not a Feminist'". Gawker Media. Retrieved 14 August 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  38. Taylor, Lenore (11 April 2014). "'Feminism is not an extreme term,' says Penny Wong". The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. Retrieved 14 August 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  39. Chang, Charis. "#WomenAgainstFeminism goes viral as people explain why they don't need feminism anymore". Retrieved August 13, 2014.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  40. Steinmetz, Katy (12 November 2014). "Which word should be banned in 2015?". Time.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  41. Rabouin, Dion (15 November 2014). "Time Magazine apologizes for including 'feminist' in 2015 word banishment poll". International Business Times.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  42. 42.0 42.1 Tierney, Helen (1999). Women's Studies Encyclopedia. Westport, CT, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Incorporated. p. 95.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  43. 52 J. Legal Pluralism & Unofficial L. 49 (2006) Playing off Courts: The Negotiation of Divorce and Violence in Plural Legal Settings in Kolkata; Basu, Srimati
  44. Rohit K. Dasgupta; K. Moti Gokulsing (2013). Masculinity and Its Challenges in India: Essays on Changing Perceptions. McFarland. p. 65.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  45. 45.0 45.1 Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers at line 47: attempt to index field 'wikibase' (a nil value).

External links

  1. Warren Farrell "The Myth of Male Power," Berkeley Publishing Group, 1996. Retrieved 2014-08-01.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>