Why the new anti-feminist party should look up “feminism”

[dropcap]H[/dropcap]aving started a previous comment article (about what it means to be sexually harassed) by stating that I am a feminist, I have apparently said something that is the equivalent of admitting to being a fascist. That is the view of the leader of an anti-feminist party called Justice For Men and Boys (and the Women Who Love Them) that will be standing for parliament in the general election.

BuzzFeed has reported that the aim of the party is to “make feminism a dirty word” and the party leader has described feminism as a “deeply vile, corrupting ideology”.

It is a point of view that is worrying, because feminism already has a bad reputation. For some, feminism conjures up images of women who hate men, believe females to be superior and go around burning bras. If this was the actual definition of the word feminism I would declare myself an anti-feminist, too. I’m for equality, not superiority (regardless of whichever gender would be superior).

The fact is, feminism is not about this at all. Feminism aims to establish and defend equality in political, economic, cultural and social contexts for women. The “for women” part seems to point to empowering women at the expense of men, yet this is a misconception. It is specifically “for women” because it presumes females to be those in a position of inferiority, based on legitimate facts of history as well as statistics today (just look at the number of male MPs in comparison to females).

Equality is core, and so this means that the Justice for Men and Boys (and the Women Who Love Them) party are seeking to make “feminism” and therefore “equality” a dirty word, or the party has a misunderstanding regarding the definition of the word “feminism”. It seems to be the latter, as party leader Buchanan has said the idea that feminism is “a benign movement about gender equality is dangerous nonsense.” Yet that’s exactly what feminism is. Or it’s certainly what I mean when I assert I’m a feminist, and the Google definition agrees with me.

The party argues the glass ceiling doesn’t exists and women are “less driven and have less to gain from getting to the top of their professions, so they naturally don’t put the effort in that a man would”.

I’m not sure I can process that, and not because I’m female, but since it’s fundamentally untrue. It’s a sweeping generalisation which paints an entire gender as embodying a certain characteristic, ignoring factors that make up a personality irrespective of gender.

Fact: there are less ambitious men and overtly ambitious women (see Roisin or Bianca on The Apprentice) in the world. Suggesting there is no glass ceiling and that women are not in as many high paying positions in the workplace because they are “less driven” is an attempt to hide the fact that feminism is a legitimate ideology because, in many cases, they are the disadvantaged sex.

Buchanan argues that the party are fighting for men, because they are the sex at an unfair disadvantage and are perceived as having no value, except financial.. If this is the true motive of the party, it is ironic that they are anti-feminist because they are advocating equality, which is what feminism is about. Feminism presumes females as those who are at a disadvantage, whereas Buchanan is giving that role to males. Fundamentally though, both seek gender equality. Buchanan’s mistake is to go down the route of assuming feminists take the same approach he does, which is to seek empowerment at the other gender’s expense.

Advocating that men should be equal to women and being a feminist are not mutually exclusive. Rather, it is a way of saying the same thing in opposite terms. The problem with Buchanan’s party is that he is fighting for a different meaning of the word feminism, and is seeking male empowerment by putting down those who seek female empowerment.

The party is failing to understand the true nature of the word feminism, or are doing it on purpose to legitimise fighting for the superiority of men. It appears to me to be the former, for which the solution is simple. Pick up the dictionary.