FEMINISM: WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL FIGHT, AND WHAT HAS IT BECOME?

FEMINISM: WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL FIGHT, AND WHAT HAS IT BECOME? Let's start by defining the terms. Feminism is broadly the advocacy of women's equality and the elimination of discrimination against women. At its core, feminism argues that a woman's sex should not automatically determine her legal rights, opportunities, education, political participation or human worth. And honestly, that is a difficult principle to argue against. A woman should be judged according to her ability, character and qualifications—not automatically placed below a man simply because she is a woman. A person who genuinely supports that principle can reasonably be described as a feminist. But feminism is not the same thing as female supremacy, just as fighting racism against one group does not require hatred of another. And this is where we need to define some other words. MISANDRY Misandry means hatred, contempt or prejudice toward men. Merriam-Webster defines it simply as “a hatred of men.” Therefore, saying: «“Men are disgusting.”» or «“Men are inherently stupid.”» or «“Women are naturally superior to men.”» can express misandrist thinking when those statements are genuinely directed at men as a group. Likewise, reducing men to sexual objects or treating their humanity as less important simply because they are male can be sexist or misandrist. But let's be careful. A woman criticizing a particular man's behaviour is not automatically misandry. “Men should stop cheating” is not misandry. “Men are inherently worthless” is a completely different statement. The distinction matters. MISOGYNY Now we arrive at the word that gets thrown around so frequently online that sometimes it seems to have become a synonym for “a man said something I dislike.” It hasn't. Misogyny means hatred, aversion to, or prejudice against women. It can also describe behaviour, language or social practices that express or reinforce that prejudice. Therefore: “I personally prefer women without tattoos.” That may be a preference. It could be shallow, reasonable, unreasonable or simply personal—but it is not automatically misogyny. “I don't want a wife who works because I personally want a traditional marriage.” That is a relationship preference. Someone can disagree with it, but disagreement alone doesn't make it misogyny. However: “Women are intellectually inferior to men and therefore should never be educated.” That's misogynistic. “Women exist primarily to satisfy men sexually.” That's misogynistic. “Women are naturally incapable of leadership.” That's sexism and can also express misogyny. The important distinction is between a personal preference and a belief that women are inherently inferior or deserving of discrimination. And there is another word we need: SEXISM Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on sex, including attitudes and social conditions that reinforce stereotypical gender roles. This means not every sexist statement is necessarily an expression of hatred. That distinction is important because words have meanings. If we call everything misogyny, eventually the word becomes so broad that people stop taking genuine misogyny seriously. --- WHAT DID EARLIER FEMINISTS ACTUALLY FIGHT FOR? The historical women's-rights movement fought for many things that are now considered ordinary. Voting rights. In the United States, the women's suffrage movement fought for decades before the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. The movement involved petitions, demonstrations, lobbying, civil disobedience and, in some cases, imprisonment and abuse of protesters. And even that victory did not immediately mean every woman could vote without barriers. Racial discrimination continued to prevent many Black women and other women from fully exercising voting rights. Political participation. Women also fought for the ability to participate in political institutions and hold public office. And this is not merely ancient history. According to UN Women, as of January 2026, women made up only 27.5% of parliamentarians worldwide, while women served as Heads of State and/or Government in only 28 countries. So if someone says feminism has completely solved inequality between men and women everywhere, the statistics disagree. Education and employment. Women fought against restrictions that limited their access to education, professions, property and economic independence. Freedom to choose whom to marry. Forced and arranged marriages have existed across many societies and historical periods. But we need to distinguish between an arranged marriage in which both people freely consent and a forced marriage in which a person is denied the ability to refuse. Those are not the same thing. Protection from violence and sexual exploitation. Women also fought against domestic violence, sexual exploitation and the idea that marriage somehow eliminated a woman's right to bodily autonomy. These were legitimate battles. And they still matter. --- BUT DOES THAT MEAN EVERYTHING DONE IN THE NAME OF FEMINISM IS GOOD? Absolutely not. An ideology, movement or political philosophy does not become automatically correct simply because some of its historical achievements were valuable. You can support women's equality while criticizing particular feminist arguments. You can believe women deserve equal rights while disagreeing with certain modern feminist movements. You can oppose misogyny while also opposing misandry. Those positions are not contradictory. In fact, equality requires consistency. If violence against women is wrong, violence against men is also wrong. If sexual harassment against women is wrong, sexual harassment against men is also wrong. If women deserve to be believed when they report abuse, men who report abuse deserve to be taken seriously too. Equality cannot mean: “Believe women.” It should mean: Investigate claims fairly and protect victims regardless of sex. --- THE ABORTION DEBATE This is where my argument becomes more complicated. I believe people are entitled to moral objections to abortion. I also believe people are entitled to different conclusions about abortion law. But some arguments surrounding abortion are simply factually incorrect. For example, saying: «“It's just an embryo.”» does not establish whether abortion is morally acceptable. Embryo, fetus, infant, child, adolescent and adult describe different developmental stages of a human organism. But the scientific fact that an embryo is human does not, by itself, settle the philosophical and legal question of whether abortion should be legal. That is where the actual debate begins. Similarly, saying: «“A fetus cannot survive independently, therefore it is a parasite”» is not a sound argument. A fetus is biologically dependent on pregnancy. A newborn is also dependent on adults, but biological dependence does not make a newborn a parasite. The word “parasite” has a specific biological meaning and should not simply be used as a political insult. And the claim that abortion is legally equivalent to murder is also incorrect. Murder is a specific criminal-law category. Whether a particular abortion constitutes a crime depends on the jurisdiction and the circumstances. For example, Massachusetts law specifically states that after 24 weeks, abortion may be performed only by a physician and only under specified circumstances, including preserving the patient's life or physical/mental health or certain serious fetal diagnoses. So the statement that Massachusetts simply allows women to obtain elective abortions “up to birth” is misleading. There is another important point. Telling someone who says they cannot afford a child simply to “not have sex” may reflect your personal moral position, but it does not eliminate the reality that contraception can fail and that people's circumstances can change. Research examining women's reasons for abortion has found that economic circumstances, inability to afford a child, disruption to education or employment, relationship problems and limiting childbearing are among commonly reported reasons. You can still oppose abortion. But if you're going to oppose it, oppose it with accurate arguments. --- THE “50/50” ARGUMENT Now let's talk about another modern argument. A woman says: «“I don't want to split everything 50/50.”» Fine. A man says: «“I don't want to split everything 50/50.”» Also fine. Marriage is not a mathematical competition. One couple may divide expenses equally. Another may have one person earning most of the money while the other contributes more through childcare, housework or other responsibilities. Another couple may maintain completely separate finances. The important thing is agreement between the people involved. But if someone demands traditional privileges while rejecting every corresponding responsibility, questioning that inconsistency is reasonable. If you expect your partner to provide financially, what are you contributing? If you expect your partner to stay home and raise children, are you contributing in another way? If both partners work full-time, why should domestic responsibilities automatically belong to one person? These are legitimate questions. “What's your contribution to this relationship?” is not inherently misogynistic. And the answer doesn't have to be money. --- “WHAT DO YOU BRING TO THE TABLE?” This phrase has become unnecessarily controversial. A relationship is a partnership. You don't need to turn your partner into a financial spreadsheet. But both people should contribute something. Money. Emotional support. Loyalty. Household work. Childcare. Companionship. Protection. Respect. Whatever the couple has mutually agreed upon. A woman does not need to prove her worth by earning the same amount as a man. A man does not need to prove his worth by earning every cent. But neither person should expect to contribute nothing while demanding everything. --- INDEPENDENCE AND EXPECTATIONS Here's another contradiction worth discussing. Someone may say: «“I am an independent woman. I don't need a man.”» That's completely fine. But independence doesn't mean refusing every form of help. Nor does accepting help make someone weak. A woman can carry her own luggage and still appreciate someone helping her. A man can open a door for a woman without believing women are inferior. A woman can pay for her own meal. A man can pay for both meals. Neither arrangement automatically makes either person superior. Courtesy is not oppression. And independence is not hostility toward the opposite sex. --- FALSE ACCUSATIONS This subject requires extreme care. False accusations of sexual assault can seriously harm an innocent person. But we must also avoid making the opposite mistake: assuming that because some accusations are false, victims generally cannot be trusted. A false accusation is a serious problem. A genuine accusation is also a serious problem. The solution is neither: “Believe every accusation automatically.” nor: “Every accusation is probably a lie.” The solution is evidence, investigation and due process. We should protect victims without abandoning fairness toward the accused. --- AND NOW: LINDSAY CLANCY This is where I would change your original argument considerably. If you're looking for an example of “modern feminism causing women to lose the plot,” Lindsay Clancy is not a defensible example. In January 2023, Clancy was accused of killing her three young children. She has admitted to the killings, but her defense argues that she was experiencing severe postpartum psychosis and therefore was not criminally responsible. Prosecutors argue that she understood what she was doing and that the killings were deliberate. As of September 3, 2026, the jury has deliberated for six days without reaching a unanimous verdict. The judge has not declared a mistrial, and deliberations are continuing. The case has also brought attention to postpartum psychosis, a rare but extremely serious psychiatric condition that can involve loss of contact with reality. Recent medical reporting places its occurrence at roughly 1–2 cases per 1,000 births. So what does Lindsay Clancy have to do with feminism? Very little. The fact that some women have publicly expressed sympathy for Clancy does not prove that feminism caused the crime. Women expressing concern about postpartum mental illness is not feminism causing murder. A feminist defending someone solely because she is a woman would be an example of gender-based bias. But women asking whether a severely mentally ill person should be treated differently under criminal law is a legitimate legal and medical question. That distinction matters. You cannot take: “Some women sympathize with Lindsay Clancy” and logically conclude: “Modern feminism caused Lindsay Clancy to kill her children.” That is a causal leap. If you want to criticize the response to Clancy, a much stronger argument would be: “Gender should never determine whether society takes a crime seriously. Mental illness should be investigated scientifically, but sympathy must not replace accountability.” That's a defensible argument. --- EQUALITY MEANS BOTH DIRECTIONS There are men who are abusive. There are men who cheat. There are men who manipulate women. There are men who commit sexual violence. There are men who are terrible fathers and terrible partners. Those men should be held accountable. But women can also abuse men. Women can manipulate men. Women can sexually assault men. Women can abuse children. Women can lie. Women can exploit people. Acknowledging that does not make someone anti-woman. Likewise, acknowledging that women experience discrimination does not make someone anti-man. The point of equality is not: “Women good, men bad.” Nor: “Men good, women bad.” The point is: Human beings should be judged as individuals. --- KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF And finally, violence. If you hit someone, you should understand that your actions may provoke a defensive response. That doesn't mean every response to violence is automatically justified. Self-defence has legal limits and depends on circumstances. But the principle is simple: Keep your hands to yourself. Don't hit someone because you believe your gender gives you special permission. Being a woman does not give you immunity from consequences. Being a man does not make you a legitimate target. --- FEMINISM SHOULD NOT BECOME FEMALE SUPREMACY I love being a woman. I want women to succeed. I want women to become doctors, engineers, scientists, politicians, soldiers, CEOs, entrepreneurs, mothers, artists, mechanics—whatever they are qualified and willing to become. But I also want men to succeed. I don't believe equality requires men to lose. I don't believe women have to become men to be respected. I don't believe men have to become women to understand equality. And I don't believe feminism should mean protecting women from criticism. If feminism means equality, then women should be capable of being criticized just as men are. A woman can be wrong. A man can be wrong. A woman can be abusive. A man can be abusive. A woman can be a victim. A man can be a victim. A woman can be brilliant. A man can be brilliant. Equality means the standard applies to everybody. That is the feminism I can support. Not female supremacy. Not male supremacy. Not hatred. Not double standards. Equality. Justice. Accountability. That should be the plot. ⚖️

Other insights from Udoka Gift

Referral Earning

Points-to-Coupons