The role of men within the feminist movement has long been debated and contested. Discussions have often left more questions than answers — do men, as the oppressors of women, belong in the feminist movement? Do they not only belong, but have a larger part to play? Should we even be considering men in discussions on women’s liberation?
While these debates continue, I’ve seen a rise in jokes about hating men, particularly in feminist spaces. This has sparked a large debate over “misandry,” or the hatred of men. Some argue that misandry is just as bad as misogyny and antithetical to feminism. Others say it’s not so harmful and instead, a way for women to cope with misogyny through humor. Personally, I don’t view misandrist jokes themselves as oppressive because there is no structure of oppression against men on the basis of their gender that these jokes reinforce. However, I think that when circulated in a serious context, misandrist ideas can lead to real harm.
When anti-male ideas are taken seriously and as a basis of feminist movements, it creates a slippery slope into separatist concepts. Female separatist movements suggest separation from men as a way to achieve women’s liberation. For example, the 4B movement in South Korea is a radical feminist separatist movement, in which women will not date, marry, have sex with, or have children with men. The ideals of the 4B movement have recently gained popularity worldwide, including in the U.S., with more people questioning the role of men in feminism and in larger society. While it may seem like a way to achieve liberation, I believe separatism causes more harm than good.
Separatist ideology is more often than not rooted in bioessentialism, a debunked theory that argues that personality and other traits are immutable and determined solely by one’s biology. Advocates for separatism often justify their movement with bioessentialist arguments, claiming that “men” (or, to them, anyone assigned male at birth) are inherently violent, and that the only way to free women from this violence is to separate from men completely. The issue with bioessentialism is that it quickly devolves into transphobia. When we focus on separating women and men, definitions of what constitutes these terms come into question. Are we separating on the basis of chromosomes or gender identity? Where does this leave transgender men and women? Where does it leave non-binary individuals? The 4B movement has been criticized for its transphobic ideologies and practices, such as banning trans women from attending protests. To pretend we can have separatism without transphobia is to ignore the complexities of gender as a uniquely personal experience.
Further, biological separatism is, in my opinion, a very nihilistic and ineffective movement. If feminism calls for liberating women by dismantling the patriarchy, yet we immediately cast off all people assigned male at birth as inherently and indefinitely evil, how can we expect to achieve true liberation? What is the point of addressing issues or advocating for change if we don’t believe change can happen? With any radical movement, we must believe people can change. To reduce people to their DNA is incorrect, harmful, ineffective, and dangerously fatalistic. Feminism is inherently incompatible with separatism, and the Combahee River Collective Black Feminist Statement says it best:
We have a great deal of criticism and loathing for what men have been socialized to be in this society: what they support, how they act, and how they oppress. But we do not have the misguided notion that it is their maleness, per se — i.e., their biological maleness — that makes them what they are. As Black women we find any type of biological determinism a particularly dangerous and reactionary basis upon which to build a politic.
My final, and perhaps most pressing, critique of separatism is that it is an incredibly privileged standpoint to have. While white women may have the liberty to be misandrists, to hate men, to advocate for separatism, women of color do not always have this privilege because they must work with men of color to deconstruct a racist and sexist society. Women of color’s movements are not solely focused on sexism. They are focused on dismantling oppression within a cultural context, and therefore cannot separate from men. Referring back to the Combahee River Collective Statement, they posit that “Our situation as Black people necessitates that we have solidarity around the fact of race, which white women of course do not need to have with white men, unless it is their negative solidarity as racial oppressors.” I’ve read similar sentiments in Native and Chicana feminist texts as well — the idea that men and women must work together to dismantle oppression. There’s nothing more indicative of white feminism than not having to worry about racial implications when advocating for liberation.
So do men have a place in feminism? I argue they do. The feminist movement should not be about divisiveness, but unity against an oppressive system. The same system that keeps us oppressed as women also maintains the status of men. Without men changing their mindsets, unlearning biases, and fighting for liberation alongside us, the structures that facilitate oppression will persist. So, while it’s not our responsibility as women to educate men, it is our responsibility to think about how we can create a lasting movement. As Adelaida R. Del Castillo wrote in her essay “La Visión Chicana,” “what the system wants is that the movement divide itself into small factions so that eventually it will fall apart into dust.” Unity is the enemy of the state.
Jokes about men and temporary separation (like women’s only gyms) can be good opportunities for women to cope with misogyny and have spaces for themselves. However, it’s integral to the destruction of the patriarchy that we employ some nuance within these contexts to avoid the slippery slope of separatism. Separatism as a movement is not only ineffective but oppressive in itself. Men have the unique ability to oppose the patriarchy, as those who benefit from it, and should be included in the feminist movement. After all, using their privilege to fight for change over conformity will undoubtedly lead to more effective, lasting change within the context of oppressive gender structures.