The biggest reason men should be feminists

Men in more gender-equal societies are happier and have better sex. But here's really why we should be feminists.

After researching for this newsletter over the past year, I’ve encountered tons of reasons why feminism is good for men. In more gender-equal societies, men are less likely to be depressed, commit suicide, or die a violent death. We also sleep better, suffer less from chronic back pain, and have better sex. But I want to make an even more convincing argument here.

For a long time when I was younger, I didn’t see myself in feminism. I listened to my mom complain about the men at work who dominated meetings and ignored her ideas. I heard women make reasonable demands for equal rights. I felt their passion and anger. I nodded along because it all made sense. But I didn’t see a role for me other than to support women—to put aside my needs and desires to be one of the few “good” men, an “ally.”

Sometimes I even heard a feminism that seemed to explicitly push me away.

I’m not talking about the “man-hating” cartoon boogeyman the political right falsely claims feminism to be. (A 2023 study confirmed that feminists actually don’t hate men.) What I now think of as “zero-sum feminism” (thanks to the journalist Liza Featherstone) is the idea that progress for women must come at the expense of men (and other, less privileged women). Other names for it are “corporate feminism,” “#girlboss feminism,” and “white feminism.” This brand of feminism focuses on the success of individual women rather than the advancement of all women (and all people). It assumes that replacing corporate leaders and politicians with women is a worthy end in itself. I first started hearing critiques of it when I was involved in organizing and reading groups that sprung out of the early-2010s Occupy Wall Street movement. These critiques were being made by women who opened my eyes to alternative visions of feminism from bell hooks, Silvia Federici, Nancy Fraser, Tithi Bhattacharya, and others.

hooks called it “trickle-down theory: the assumption that having more women at the top of corporate hierarchies [will] make the work world better for all women, including women on the bottom.”

The reason this type of feminism is “zero-sum” is because it doesn’t challenge economic and political systems to change but rather aims to empower individual people over other individual people. It assumes that capitalism is here to stay, so we might as well fight harder over what little pie is available rather than create more pie for everyone. Creating more pie is off limits, because that would mean having to take power and wealth from the ultra-wealthy people (mostly men) at the top of society and redistributing it to improve everyone’s lives. Featherstone says: “Liberalism views the world and the economy as a zero-sum game. The problem [according to] liberal feminism is that women are disadvantaged in the rat race [for opportunity, jobs, money, etc.]. So, by definition, helping women to advance is going to push men out.”

I get why zero-sum feminism is attractive to so many women.

Having women represented in politics, the media, and other areas of life where men have long dominated is important, especially for the social and emotional development of girls. Women have been forced to deal with men running things for so long. I’d want my seat at the table too. I might even want to burn the table and whole building down. But a number of feminists have pointed out, a feminism focused on individual achievement doesn’t actually help most women. Koa Beck, author of White Feminism: From the Suffragettes to Influencers and Who They Leave Behind, said in a an interview a few years ago with NBC News: “You can basically identify as a ‘feminist’ without really challenging power, and that’s very satisfying and welcoming to a lot of people.” She continued:

“Going to a very elite college, running your own company, exploiting other women to get there, entering into marriage or a long-term relationship with another partner, having children, being middle class, really supporting those values which are really intrinsic to our nation. White feminism as a practice and ideology aspires to those things rather than interrogates them ... When there’s a startup company that employs 20 people with uteruses and none of them can afford birth control, is it really a ‘feminist’ company? Is a co-working space that prides itself on having Audre Lorde’s books in its library, but has its cleaners saying they’ve been racially harassed, a ‘feminist’ company?”

It's hard to measure exactly whether this type of feminism really works or not. But an experiment in Norway suggests it doesn’t. In 2003, the country passed a requirement that women should make up 40 percent of every corporate board. Over a decade later, a 2014 study found “no evidence of significant differential improvements for women [across society,] either in terms of average earnings or likelihood of filling in a top position in a Norwegian business.” In 2019, another study came to the same conclusion.

Either way, I believe that as men we must go beyond nodding along and trying to be a feminist “ally.”

There’s so much for us to gain from feminism, particularly the kind that isn’t about helping a few women break through the glass ceiling to get to the upper heights of the economy, standing on the backs of everyone else (including other women). This other kind focuses on the needs of the majority of women (and everyone else). It demands things like publicly funded universal childcare, generous paid parental leave, and shorter work weeks (for the same pay). In Iceland, considered the most gender-equal country, men who have children get 90 days of parental leave, and 90 percent of them use all of it. In the U.S., no federal law provides a right to paid family or medical leave. The feminism I believe in recognizes that caring for others and nurturing social bonds—what has long been considered “women’s work” and gone disrespected and unpaid in capitalism—is valuable to the human experience and crucial for creating healthy communities.

Many of the men who come to me for therapy are struggling with the same things nearly everyone else is. They work way too many hours—or are struggling to find meaningful work that pays the bills. They’re almost constantly stressed and strapped for time. They rarely have time to slow down and care for themselves. They often feel isolated and lonely. If they have kids, they feel like they’re coming up short everywhere: as a parent, as a partner, as a friend, at work. Parenting is a major source of stress and relationship conflict. Every day takes a gargantuan effort to get through because of all the responsibilities and stresses of modern life. Their also worried about the state of the world, about growing inequality, about the housing crisis, about rising fascism, about climate change. These men (and myself) would benefit from a feminism that fights for a world organized around care—for people, our communities, and the environment—rather than fanning the flames of capitalist growth.

In their book Feminism for the 99%, Fraser, Bhattacharya, and Cinzia Arruzza write:

“Feminism shouldn't start-or stop-with the drive to have women represented at the top of their professions. It must focus on those at the bottom, and fight for the world they deserve. Unaffordable housing, poverty wages, inadequate healthcare, border policing, climate change—these are not what you ordinarily hear feminists talking about. But aren't they the biggest issues for the vast majority of women around the globe?”

My guys, I know it might not seem like it, but feminism is for us too.

---

Now, a question for the comments below (or email me: jeremy@jeremymohler.blog): Do you consider yourself a feminist? Why?

(P.S. If you become a paid subscriber for $5/month, you’ll get a chance for free coaching, and you’ll also supporting my writing!)