Feminism and its enemies

In the face of progress in gender equality, it is sometimes tempting to forget that feminism is still confronted with influential and powerful opponents. Studied in this work under the term “antifeminist”, these adversaries have succeeded from the beginning in leaving a lasting mark on the fight for equality. The word feminism itself comes from this antifeminist movement, since in 1872, Alexandre Dumas fils spread the term to designate what he called “the enterprise of negation” of the natural difference between the sexes (p. 9). Ironically, it was therefore his adversaries who created the term feminism before the French suffragettes reappropriated it under the pen of Hubertine Auclert in 1882.

It would be difficult to do justice to the 14 contributions of this collective work in a few lines, because each of them is original and brings its own thesis. However, a common idea runs through the work: the history of feminisms is intimately linked to that of antifeminisms. The two evolve and influence each other, making the understanding of one dependent on the other. The direction of the work shared between a historian, a sociologist and a political scientist gives it an interdisciplinary dimension. A word used, but which in this work takes on its full meaning since antifeminist discourses are examined sometimes as historical phenomena, sometimes as sociological manifestations, sometimes as political strategies.

The chapters reveal the deep roots of these discourses in Western societies, prompting Christine Bard to hypothesize an antifeminism prior to feminism, existing before being named, mobilizing out of fear of any movement challenging the patriarchal order (p. 11). The use of this recent term on old phenomena, however, raises questions of definition: if movements that did not recognize themselves as such at their time can today be described as antifeminist or masculinist, even before the existence of feminist movements, what are antifeminism and masculinism? How can a counter-movement exist without the movement it opposes existing?

Distinguishing antifeminism and masculinism

The definitional question is therefore a first difficulty for authors who consider that antifeminism is as polymorphic as feminism. Although each contribution provides a more nuanced perspective depending on its context of analysis, we will retain that antifeminism is generally understood as the counter-movement of thought and action that opposes feminism and the people who carry it. Antifeminism is therefore not opposed to women as such as sexist and misogynistic discourses do, but only to women (and men) who claim to be feminists. A first distinction therefore appears since antifeminism is broader than masculinism. The latter will not only oppose feminism, but also promote “men’s rights” in a society deemed to be dominated by women. Thus, the anti-gender campaigns in Italy (chapter 7) or the fathers’ rights movements in France and Quebec (chapters 10 and 13) are not only anti-feminist, but also masculinist.

The Faces of Antifeminism

Antifeminism and masculinism are embodied in very different actors. They are often associated with nationalist movements (chapters 3 and 4) and the far right (chapter 5). Antifeminism is also strongly represented in certain branches of the Catholic Church or Islam (chapters 8 and 9). However, antifeminists are not always where one might expect them. Some antifeminist groups are made up mainly of women. This is the case of the Tumblr campaign ” Women Against Feminism » which develops a postfeminist position. The participants believe that equality has already been achieved and that feminists do more harm than good, because they discriminate against men, and they hate them (chapter 6). Others come from political currents far from the right. This is the case of Proudhon’s thought, whose rigorous deconstruction by Francis Dupuis-Déri shows that the philosopher, although critical of domination, sees no problem in essentializing male supremacy to justify an arbitrary power relationship between the sexes (chapter 2).

Maintain the status quo, retain power

The common point between these actors, as diverse as they are, is their desire for conservatism. As Diane Lamoureux points out, this conservatism is characterized by a reluctance to abrupt changes, linked to traditionalist visions, sometimes accompanied by pessimism with regard to human nature (p. 57). The difficulty in studying antifeminism lies in its ability to mask their conservative claims under the guise of progressivism. Thus, some overturn our usual understandings by designating feminism as outdated and archaic, proposing an alternative sometimes called “postfeminism”. Nevertheless, the careful examination of these discourses offered in the contributions of the book reveals a conservative dimension that is still very present. Over the course of the chapters, three camouflage strategies emerge.

Strategies of a counter-movement

Appropriate the opponent’s grammar

First, the use of egalitarian rhetoric allows the defense of a discourse of inequality between the sexes and genders under the cover of feminism. Equality between women and men is then developed in terms of natural complementarity. Women could only be truly free when they are associated with men. The family is the symbol of this complementarity justified by a biologizing vision of procreation. Thus, groups defending “fathers’ rights” will claim a desire for equality to assert a right to see their child, against a justice system that would be biased in favor of mothers. They use the figure of the child against mothers and produce a masculine consciousness of domination. Édouard Leport (chapter 10) shows that these activists fight the cause of women by denouncing institutions that they believe are acquired to their interests (courts, family allowance fund, etc.). The takeover of feminist grammar by antifeminists is not new. In the 1900s, Action Française employed the same strategy by promoting an “intelligent feminism,” respectful of differences between the sexes (p. 129).

Presenting yourself as less radical and more reasonable

Then, antifeminists tend to present themselves as less radical than feminists, or even as being the real feminists. The latter would have gone too far and would not accept the idea that equality is already there. This argument is often associated with a neoliberal logic. Thus, oppression is individualized and women are made personally responsible for structural inequalities. Thus, the clothing of certain women will be stigmatized in order to justify sexual harassment. For Héloïse Michaud (chapter 6), the study of antifeminist strategies also allows us to highlight the weaknesses of feminist movements. The latter have been overtaken by the negative connotations associated with feminism and by the discourses presenting feminism as obsolete (because equality would already be there).

Reversing the balance of power: the rhetoric of the crisis of masculinity

Another important strategy of antifeminists is the use of masculinist rhetoric which ends up reversing the balance of power between men and women: women are supposedly more powerful than men (in politics, in the home, sexually, etc.). Feminists are supposed to contribute to the commodification of women’s bodies and do not sufficiently consider violence against women when it is produced by women themselves or by immigrants (chapter 5). In addition, men are also supposed to be victims of feminization, because their virility and masculinity are supposedly devalued in favor of homosexual men. Thus, fathers are supposed to be inferiorized during divorces to obtain custody of their children (chapter 13). Isabelle Côté and Simon Lapierre analyze the use of the controversial concept of parental alienation, which refers to the denigration of one parent by the other (often the mother by the father), in front of the child at the time of the couple’s breakup, to the point that the latter comes to hate the targeted parent. The authors show how this concept reinforces antifeminist claims even when it is used by researchers or professionals independent of antifeminist groups (chapter 11).

The influence of anti-feminists on feminists

While we are beginning to understand the structures of masculinist discourses, the way in which feminists fight against these discourses and adapt their strategies is less well known. In the conclusion, Mélissa Blais and Francis Dupuis-Déri identify three ways in which feminists react: ignoring and focusing on defending their struggle rather than on its adversaries; reacting punctually; or dedicating their action to fighting antifeminists, by creating a kind of counter-counter-movement. The stakes are high for feminists because they are about being able to deconstruct antifeminist discourses without this deconstruction monopolizing all their resources in their fight for equality. Mélissa Blais (chap. 14) analyzes the way in which antifeminists harmed the work of feminists in Quebec between 2006 and 2015. She shows that this translates into difficulties in their intervention work with women, in their alliances with partners, and in a loss of funding.

Conclusion

Antifeminist discourses have therefore been able to adapt to feminist strategies, influencing feminists in return by directing their efforts towards the deconstruction of new postfeminist, masculinist or straight rhetorics. Thus, the unity of antifeminists is achieved above all in their common struggles – against feminists present on social networks, groups defending battered women, divorced mothers, etc. – which are sometimes an opportunity to intersect their hatreds by accumulating oppressive discourses (p. 203). This plural nature of antifeminism encourages contributors to focus on discursive strategies in order to better identify in each context, the particularities and transformations of this discourse. While the focus of this work is deliberately broad, which allows it to address and link sometimes distant subjects, giving an overview of the extent and diversity of antifeminism, it would have been interesting to have a narrower focus on themes that seem central to the study of contemporary antifeminists: postfeminist discourses, the effects of antifeminists on feminists, or the place of the division of feminists in the weakening of the movement.