Feminism is not Misandry


*Disclaimer:  These are my own thoughts and opinions–please understand that this article is not intended to start an argument, political conversation, and is absolutely, under no circumstances, meant to undermine men (since you know, the whole point of this article is to reaffirm that feminism is not synonymous with misandry).  This is just something that truly needs to be understood.  If you do not have feminist ideals, this article is probably not for you.  Furthermore, if you don’t have anything nice to say, tell your teddy bear or write it in your journal, because I’m not interested in your negativity.  You’ve been warned!*

First, let me start off by saying that I am proud to be a woman.  I am independent, confident, strong, but I can also be stubborn, opinionated, and impatient.  I believe that, together, women and men have the ability to change the world, and I hope for equal opportunity for all people.  I believe in the equal treatment of every race, religion, sex, and body size.  I dream of a world where people of all shapes, sizes, colors, and cultures are seen as beautiful and can be celebrated.

Unfortunately, not everybody thinks as I do.  I understand this, and I also accept other peoples’ ideas and opinions.  I keep an open mind when listening to other parties speak their minds.  I try not to judge others for their opinions, even if they do not align with my state of mind.  I do a fairly good job at this, until, you know, somebody becomes irrational, or worse, is just plain wrong.

If you are unaware of what intersectional feminism is, no worries.  To be honest, I did not know what it was until a little while ago.  Turns out, I was an intersectional feminist all along, and I didn’t even know it!  It is important to understand what intersectional feminism is in order to truly understand what we believe, and why true feminism is not misandry.

Unlike Brandy Melville, intersectional feminists believe that one size does not fit all.  What I mean is that there is not one type of feminism that can cover all the different types of oppression.  Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, fatphobia, etc. are all connected together and should therefore be examined together.  For more information, here’s a handy dandy link with more details on intersectionality!

That said, I know that there are all types of negative feminism and nonfeminism.  Feminazis, TERFs, and antifeminists are all real, but that does not mean that they are justified or correct in their actions.  Rather, they have taken a positive thing, and turned it a complete 180.  And of course, instead of focusing on the positive side of feminism (Equal pay!  Body positivity!  Loving and supporting other women!  Safe abortion/access to birth control!  Sex equality!), society and our media tries to target all their attention on the adverse aspects (re: negative forms of feminism listed above).

But luckily, intersectional feminists are bonding together in order to truly establish who we are and try to rid of the idea that feminism is the idea of equality for all!

It breaks my heart that there are people, especially women, who do not support my decisions for my body.  That there are fellow women that do not want me to have access to birth control and that some women do not even accept that I deserve some jobs that I am qualified for.  I know that not all women support other women, and while I do not necessarily agree with their choices, I choose to support their opinions because that’s what feminists do!

My main goal here is that people stay informed on the truths regarding feminism and the ideals we support.  That will not always happen (for example, people still believe in the Planned Parenthood hoax even though David Daleiden admitted the videos were fake).  However, ignorance only prohibits those who practice it.  Choosing to believe lies only sets those back farther in life.

This is precisely why I am so shocked with the backlash against positive feminism.  If you’ve read recent news stories such as the murder of Grace Mann, the countless stories regarding college football players raping women (while victim blaming *but what’s new?*), and even instances of women proudly declaring their antifeminism, then you know what I’m talking about.

What is so difficult for me to comprehend is the horrible things people have to say in relation to feminists.  While regarding the vicious murder of Grace Mann, one antifeminist blogger stated, “One day a feminist wearing an “ironic” KILL ALL MEN t-shirt will walk down the wrong street, enter the wrong room and encounter the wrong man; a man that does not value her as a woman and chooses not to treat her as an equal. The man will not see the t-shirt as ironical humor, but be offended and beat her savagely, laughing as he licks the tears from her crying eyes”.  I have chosen not to state the name of the writer or blog, because frankly, he is not worth my time.  But you can find more info here.

Other antifeminists claim that feminism is outdated.  They claim that feminism does not support conservative, or traditional, ideals.  Amongst many other reasons, they also claim that feminists do not believe in the victimization of men.

While I can see why they’re concerned, I also believe that they are majorly mistaken regarding what feminism really is.

For starters, a real feminist would never wear a KILL ALL MEN shirt, because that it not feminism.  It is misandry.  Feminism is about the equality of men, women, trans, different races, cultures, etc.–wearing this shirt would completely go against our ideals.  That is not to say that a Feminazi would not wear this shirt–she might.  But she is not a true feminist–she is a misandrist, and they are just as bad as misogynists.

To further clarify, in case you still don’t quite get it, feminists promote the equality of men and women.  It is also about women supporting women.  Therefore, we accept all choices that women make.  The reason we do not openly talk about women who choose to get married, have children, and be stay at home mothers is because they face little criticism from society.  But working women?  Women who may not want to get married, or have children, or who do not like to cook, or dress up?  They face criticism every day.  We are not putting down women, we are encouraging them to follow their path and make their own decisions.  Another thing that Women against Feminism do not understand, is that we, as feminists, are supporting the equal treatment of men and women across all races, cultures, sexual orientations, ages, etc.  Women against Feminism are quick to state their position on equality between men and women, but completely disregard other types of oppressed people.  This is why feminism is still relevant.  We support everybody.

Lastly, we do not believe that men are never victims.  Men can absolutely be victimized.  Men are raped, men are abused, men can be mistakenly accused as sex offenders.  I, as a feminist, support their rights, but I do not believe that women have more rights than men.  In some areas we are equal, in many we are not.  The idea is to get to the level where we all have the same amount of rights, the same voice, and equal love.  The reason we try so hard to support women is because we have been oppressed for a long time, and historically, men have not.  Women are told that we should not have a say regarding our bodies.  We are told we do not deserve equal pay to men.  We are told that we are worthless without men but that we are sluts if we spend too much time with them.  However, we would never think of disregarding men in the process of attaining equality.  Remember: feminism is for everyone!  (I have many feminist men in my life, and they are just as wonderful and appreciated as the feminist women in my life!)

What absolutely sickens me is that, in the act of opposing feminism, real people are getting hurt every day.  People get raped, murdered, harmed, and physically/verbally/emotionally abused fighting for their basic fundamental rights.  Nobody deserves this under any circumstances.  Ever.  Say what you will about feminists, but a true intersectional feminist would never harm somebody to get what they want.  The same can not be said for those against feminism and equality.

Feminists are not out to get one another.  I mostly believe that we are misunderstood.  I believe that antifeminists are either misogynists or they are misguided concerning what real feminism is.  We want equality, we want our rights, and we want the love and support of other feminists.  Don’t like abortion?  Don’t get one.  Don’t agree with easily accessible birth control?  Don’t take it.  Want to be the CEO of a corporation or be a stay at home mom?  Follow your own path.  We are not trying to take anyone’s rights away, but rather increase the rights of all groups of people.  Overall, I want to make my own decisions regarding my body, my lifestyle, and who I choose to be as a person.  I do not want to be judged for my decisions.  Nobody does.

Feminists face a lot of opposition, but we are still going strong.  Unfortunately for those against us, they are fighting a losing battle.  There will always be men and women who choose equality over all else.  We are louder, because we are willing to fight for what we want.  We are leaders.  We are strong.  It’s time to do your research, and learn what real feminism is all about.  Those who face the facts will soon realize…

…Feminism is not misandry.


*Song of the Day: Been a Son–Nirvana

*Want some recommendations on some great feminist blogs?  Just ask!*

24 thoughts on “Feminism is not Misandry

  1. I won’t play devil’s advocate too long since your disclaimer reads as a statement of intolerance, but here goes 😛

    What makes your (or anyone’s) interpretation the “true feminism”? In defining the term, why shouldn’t we look at the full spectrum of those self-identifying and note where the power resides? Why should a subjective theoretical interpretation weigh more than broad political function?



    1. Hi RP, thanks for commenting and for your question! I’ll try to answer it as best as I can. By saying “true feminism”, I am mostly stating my opinion–overall, this post is part opinion piece, part factual. However, I choose to follow the ideals of original feminists, that is, people who wanted equality for all types of people, not just white women, trans women, gay women, etc. (you get the point). Intersectional feminism is really the only type of feminism that demands equality for everybody. On the other hand, Feminazis want women to have supreme power, and are therefore misandrists. TERFs do not believe that transwomen are real women, and so they harass them online and in person. While they may claim to be feminists, they do not follow the root of feminism, which is that everybody deserves an equal chance. Too many powerful women and men have fought too long for equality, and as we’re progressing, we also have these groups holding us back. They may claim to be feminists, but unless they are accepting of all types of people, they do not follow the traditional definition. I do believe that there are groups that have branched off of feminism, like egalitarians or “white feminists”, but intersectional feminists are those that want the equality of all, thereby conforming to the traditional definition of feminism. Hope that helps clear it up!

      1. Okay yeah, I can follow what you are saying and see where you are coming from. I’m familiar with the connotations surrounding “white feminism”. What about egalitarian? If I’m reading you correctly, you push that into the same-ish category?



      2. Hi RP, sorry for the delayed response. I actually do not consider egalitarian and white feminism synonymous. Egalitarians believe that all people should be treated fairly and have equal rights. Intersectional feminists believe the same thing, so therefore egalitarians are pretty similar to intersectional feminists. However, many egalitarians do not believe that feminism promotes the equality of all people, which is why they consider themselves a different sector (it really comes down to labels and names more than anything). However, I believe that many egalitarians that do not support feminism are misunderstanding what intersectional feminism is, and concentrating more on negative types of feminism.

  2. Hey. I enjoyed this article. I’m an intersectional feminist myself. Just curious, how are you defining “feminazi”? From my understanding, there aren’t actually any feminazis and it’s a derogatory word for feminists that is used by anti-feminists against us. Do you actually think that there are feminists who can be compared to nazis? I don’t know of any feminist individuals or groups who are actually anti-man. I’m weary of creating camps of negative and positive feminism. How are you defining positive feminism? And how are you defining negative feminism? I don’t know if I believe in such a distinction. Feminism is the movement to dismantle patriarchy and end the minority status of women, requiring us to advocate for all women via intersectional feminism…which will achieve equality. So, I don’t know if I believe that this could ever be negative. Or maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean. Just interested in your thoughts.

    1. Hi Alex! Thanks for reading and commenting! I personally do not know any “feminazis” either, it’s just a term that I know many feminists use to describe misandrists. That is, people who do not necessarily know what feminism actually is, and believe that women are better/more deserving than men. However, I do not know the origin of the term feminazi, so you could very well be correct. I am just using the term based off of my research. I, too, am weary of separating “negative” and “positive” feminism, but I felt it was necessary to distinguish between the two in order to prove my point that feminism is not synonymous with misandry. Some people believe that feminists are anti-man, so I use the term “positive feminism” to promote the understanding that feminists are for a good cause, while misandrists do not represent intersectional feminism. I absolutely do not believe that intersectional feminism could ever be bad! I love intersectional feminism, and I just wanted to acknowledge that there are effects (or branches) of feminism that are not always sunshine and rainbows, and that feminism can be misunderstood because of these negative aspects 🙂 I also want people to know that intersectional feminists are different from people who claim to be feminists, but actually promote hatred and discrimination, I hope that clears it up!

    2. “I don’t know of any feminist individuals or groups who are actually anti-man.” – What about the National Organization for Women? They have a well documented track record of lobbying against shared parenting legislation, alimony reform, and legal acknowledgement of parental alienation; not to mention the hyperbolic rhetoric used to do so (‘women and children in a crisis at the hands of violent men!’). That seems a pretty strong case for the phrase “anti-male”, especially considering it’s power at an institutional level. And I’m not saying all feminism…just in specific response to your “I don’t know of any feminist individuals or groups…”.

      1. It’s my understanding that in most cases, NOW was lobbying against the shared parenting legislation because the bill was not specifying whether or not it would take into account the best interests of the children. However, I believe that there was a problem both with the bill and with NOW’s opposition of it. I also am not personally part of NOW, so I cannot speak on their behalf, and truthfully, I do not know much about them since I do not identify with them. Large organizations like that also have a difficult time speaking for every feminist that is part of their organization–kind of like how you may be a part of a political party, but not agree with every aspect of that party. While they may have their issues, I do not think they are inherently anti-man though. When I looked into the reasons why NOW doesn’t support the shared parent legislation, it seemed to me it was mostly because they are concerned about children being put in abusive situations. Again, I am not part of the organization, so I have my own personal opinions about the subject, but it seems to me as if they are more concerned about the welfare of the child–even if they are going about it the wrong way. I do agree with you that they sometimes phrase things in a way that makes them seem like victims more than equals. I do not agree with that, but again, NOW is such a large organization that they will not always make every feminist happy. All in all, I think that NOW has their faults, but I do not think they aren’t feminist. Moreso, I think that they are in the public eye so much, that when they do make a mistake, they are scrutinized for it even if they do not actually mean it. I guess my overall point is, everyone makes mistakes, but that does not necessarily represent them as a whole.

      2. Also, please keep in mind that I am 100% in favor of equal parenting rights as long as their is no history of abuse and it is in the best interest of the child. In a case where it is not in the best interest of the child to have equal parenting rights, than the parent at question should not have be given said rights–whether that be the mother or the father. Just wanted to confirm that this is coming from an unbiased point of view!

      3. I’ll definitely look into those claims. Are there any specific links that you can hook me up with about that? Oddly enough, I’ve been avoiding NOW, because some women and I who were in a student feminist organization in college had a really bad experience organizing with them. Let’s just say that they weren’t the most intersectional feminist organization when it came to race and disability and the majority of our student group were women of color and/or women with disabilities. I also do think that there are some sexist assumptions that are sometimes made within feminist rhetoric, specifically that men are always abusers and women are always victims of abuse. Or feminists won’t deal with the issue that women abuse children through their caretaker role. At the same time, there are women and children in a crisis at the hands of violent men. I’ve been in that crisis as a child along with my mom and it got so bad that my dad tried to kill my mom. That happens to a lot of other families too. Although that sentence is only focused on men who are perpetrators, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t representative of a real life social problem and it’s not hyperbole. The women and children in that situation do need legal protection. At the same time, there should also be acknowledgment of male victims of domestic violence, and I wouldn’t consider rhetoric around that to be hyperbole either. It’s all true and it’s all horrible when it happens. I also think that a lot of men misinterpret feminism that is against male privilege and male supremacy as being against men, and those things cannot be conflated. It’s similar to how a lot of white people in our current racial climate mistake black people who are organizing against white supremacy and institutionalized racism as being anti-white, because they feel threatened by the idea of their privilege and power (what they think is just normal) being dismantled. Same with women trying to dismantle patriarchy. With all of that said, I still want to investigate the things you are saying about NOW, but if you already know of some links to an explanation of what you are specifically referencing about them being anti-male, I would really appreciate it.

      4. “Let’s just say that they weren’t the most intersectional feminist organization when it came to race and disability and the majority of our student group were women of color and/or women with disabilities.” –

        You know, I wouldn’t be surprised if they revamped their platforms here soon to keep up with the times. IF they are politically savvy, that is.

        “I also do think that there are some sexist assumptions that are sometimes made within feminist rhetoric, specifically that men are always abusers and women are always victims of abuse.” – Awesome to hear you say that, and credit where credit’s due.

        “there are women and children in a crisis at the hands of violent men.” – I am sorry to hear that is something you’ve experienced. Do you think gendered assumptions in this regard should dictate custody or even batterer intervention policies? I am pro-gender neutral approaches.

        “I also think that a lot of men misinterpret feminism that is against male privilege and male supremacy as being against men” – Hmmm where to start here. I would need specific examples of male privilege and supremacy that are core issues for your feminism before I could form an opinion. Also, do you see privilege as having a categorical relationship to gender or a more linear one to individuals with gender a(e)ffecting some things but not all or always? Or would you fall somewhere else on that spectrum? Just curious, I’d like to not presume anything (though sometimes I’m guilty).

        “It’s similar to how a lot of white people in our current racial climate mistake black people who are organizing against white supremacy and institutionalized racism as being anti-white” – To be fair, a lot of blacklivesmatter has gotten out of control and explicitly anti-white. Case in point: http://eagnews.org/dartmouth-black-lives-matter-protesters-confront-students-studying-in-school-library/

        “With all of that said, I still want to investigate the things you are saying about NOW…” – I appreciate the open mindedness. And don’t get too hung up on my label, I don’t think our respective positions will clash too bad.

      5. I don’t agree that A LOT of the black lives matter movement has gotten out of hand or is anti-white. There isn’t anything in the rhetoric of #BlackLiveMatter that is anti-white, unless white people interpret an aggressive attack on anti-black racism to be anti-white (which very well could be the case). I was offended myself by that specific action at Dartmouth. The things that some of those students said and did were undeniably abusive toward the white people in that library and it was also just misdirected and ineffective. I addressed that in a post I wrote: “For instance, I agree with the intent of students at Dartmouth College to protest anti-black racism on their campus, but I do not support harassing and assaulting other students in a library as a tactic. But, we also need to keep things in perspective and understand that that event (or other isolated incidents that you might not agree with) is not representative of the entire movement. We need to be able to distinguish between the ideology of a movement, a strategy, and a tactic/action. A movement can be ideologically sound and have a good overall strategy, but a small group of people can pick a bad tactic and plan an ineffective action in their area. The recent Dartmouth protest was quite frankly shitty, but it shouldn’t be used to condemn an entire anti-racist movement that has also utilized effective tactics (Jonathan Butler hunger strike at Mizzou) or appropriately aggressive strategies (any of the riots against state violence) in other contexts.” I’ll respond to your other comments eventually, but honestly, I would feel more comfortable having this conversation via email instead of in the comments section of someone else’s blog. This format is awkward for me, especially given how complicated and long I foresee our comments becoming. I’m starting to avoid using WordPress for debates in comments sections. I usually just stop responding, unless it’s in my own space on my own blog that I’m responsible for maintaining. I mean, we could both write short essays in response to each other’s responses for a long time and that seems weird to do in someone else’s space. I also don’t like the idea of waiting for an admin to approve each comment. If you feel comfortable and really want to have a one-on-one conversation about gender politics, feel free to shoot me your email and I can respond that way. Or, here is my email: alexmoriah86@gmail.com.

      6. alex, I’m thinking you may not be able to see my longer comment with the links you requested because of where I posted it. On my end, it is saying “awaiting moderation”, so serendipitysaalynn may have to approve it before it’s visible to you. Whoops, if that’s the case.

      7. Ok, yeah. I was wondering what was going on, because I don’t see it yet. But, thank you for getting that information. Even if she doesn’t approve the comment (I’m sure she will), I’ll still look into everything that you said myself. I just thought it would be easier if you already had links that you were specifically referencing. Anyway, thanks.

      8. @ serindipitybysaralynn

        “It’s my understanding that in most cases, NOW was lobbying against the shared parenting legislation because the bill was not specifying whether or not it would take into account the best interests of the children.” –

        Here is an ‘oppose memo’ from 2005 : http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html

        The way I’m reading that is NOW opposes shared parenting in principle, not because of a specific component in the legislation that would prevent courts from assessing instances where shared parenting was not in the best interest of the child (i.e. cases of drug and alcohol abuse, unilateral domestic violence or parent to child violence). Said another way: It is my understanding that a default shared custody arrangement only shifts the presumed best interest from ‘mother primary’ to ‘shared;’ not necessitating the ignoring of instances where other arrangements should be applied. In the memo, NOW even acknowledges the legal definition of SP, which includes the clarifier: “…taking into consideration the location and circumstances of each party.” Thus, it appears that NOW’s argument is default shared parenting harms children because only men are violent and only women can provide the ‘best interest of the child’. The other speculative problems NOW cites (i.e. using children to manipulate a former spouse) are gender neutral. They assert them as gendered without even attempting to demonstrate it. Ironically, this lobbying is quite literally the use of tired gender tropes to cement inequalities for men and traditional custodial roles for women in the process.

        “…it seemed to me it was mostly because they are concerned about children being put in abusive situations.” – Which on the surface, sounds like a great cause. But consider the presumptions inherent. NOW is asserting that mostly (so, only) men are violent. However custody populations aren’t clinical samples of battered women. Why should they (NOW) presume them to be without even considering the wealth of emperical data from gen pop surveys which show gender symmettry in IPV?


        Furthermore, their model of activism in this sphere is based upon the notion that the actions of a minority are (or should be) representative of an entire gender. It would be the equivalent of, say, The National Coalition for Men (just go with me to a hypothetical parallel universe where men have default custody for a sec), rallying against women’s cries for shared parenting by citing women (a minority of women) as the primary perpetrators of child neglect and child medical maltreatment. And at least the NCFM would have the data to support a biggoted agenda.


        This comment’s getting long so to summarize: I find any gendered presumptions as an inadequate basis from which to base custodial policy. NOW’s assertions rely upon gender tropes against men that don’t even bore out in gen pop data. That makes it propaganda.

        “NOW is such a large organization that they will not always make every feminist happy.” – I would like to see more self-identified feminists speak out against them. They are such a huge lobby (largest ‘feminist’ lobby in the U.S.). And to clarify, I don’t presume them to speak for you. You seem quite level headed, hence why I’m taking the time to comment.

      9. Hi RP, I actually read the oppose memo when I looked up NOW’s stance on equal parenting, and that was mainly what I was referring to when I said that I had my own problem both with the bill and NOW’s opposition. My problem with the bill is NOW’s concern about not taking into account the overall well being of the child. My problem with NOW’s opposition is what you’ve already stated–while I’m all for focusing on the welfare of the child, I completely agree with you that they victimize women and classify men as violent. I’m not sure if they meant for it to come across that way, but I think they could definitely rewrite the opposition memo in a much more appropriate way. However, from what Alex said, it does not seem as if NOW is quite as intersectional as they make themselves out to be. That is the main reason why I try not to identify myself with a large organization as such. Their beliefs may not necessarily always align with mine. While I do applaud NOW for fighting for women’s reproductive rights, etc., I think they have a lot to work on in order to win over the whole feminist population. Hopefully they’ll change with the times! Thanks for commenting.

      10. @ alexmoriah86 : I’m about to jet away from the internet for a bit. I will definitely sit down with your comment asap, but I wanted to leave the links you requested first.

        NOW opposes shared parenting: http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/03/Instances-of-NOW-opposing-shared-parenting-bills-in-2005-and-2009-along-with-the-actual-bills.pdf & http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/03/national-organization-for-women-opposes-shared-parenting-joint-custody-bill-2010.pdf

        NOW opposes legal recognition of parental alienation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/parental-alienation-its-a_b_807641.html & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQIXAjC_v50

        NOW opposes alimony reform: http://www.flnow.org/press.html & http://www.nownj.org/news-x/press-releases/171-alimony-reform.html

        “Would you consider yourself an anti-feminist or just against dogmatic feminism? And how are you distinguishing the two?” –

        Well both, but hear me out. I identify with the label “anti-feminist” but I don’t presume to know someone’s views just because they identify as a “feminist”. I always let the ideas speak for themselves. Make sense? My views mesh well with many feminists, just as there are many feminists with whom I clash. My leanings toward “anti” stem from the often unchallenged lobbies such as now, having more influence at an institutional level than the well meaning feminists I meet online.

        I would distinguish “dogmatic” feminism as having premises or conclusions that are resistant to data. So, for instance, a hypothetical feminist says “IPV is a women’s issue because men are the primary perpetrators,” and I kindly point him or her to the huge body of data showing gender symmetry. They respond, “well men are the primary perpetrators of intimate terrorism which is worse than what women tend to do,” and I kindly point them to the wealth of data showing gender symmetry in violence consistent with intimate terrorism. They respond “well men cause injury and commit homicide at a higher rate,” and I kindly point them to the data showing that women cause injury and commit intimate partner homicide in significant figures , and even if men are a step or two ahead in these domains, we shouldn’t use any minority subtype of IPV to dictate broad policy and therefor conclude that “IPV is a women’s issue and men are the primary perpetrators.” Said feminist then blocks me or stops engaging and probably doesn’t alter their position whatsoever. That is dogmatism, and I encounter it quite a bit in self-identitified feminists. Hope that makes sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.