Why men should be feminists but reject #girlboss feminism

We need a feminism that fights not for more women CEOs but for things like a shorter work week, public child care, and other things that will help the majority of people.

Part of me is terrified to write this. It’s another one of those “hold my beer” moments. Like when I argued that the term “toxic masculinity” is counterproductive. I’m afraid women are going to think I’m just another man telling them what to do or think. And I don’t want to be that dude.

But I think what I’m about to say about feminism is important, especially for men. I consider myself a feminist. My political views were shaped early in life by hearing my mom complain about the men at her job dominating conversations and bossing her around. My biggest influences for this newsletter aren’t men but women, like Nancy Fraser and adrienne maree brown. More feminist men need to be weighing in on conversations about gender. We can’t let men who have a financial incentive to turn other men against women (like Tucker Carlson, Jordan Peterson, and Andrew Tate) continue to be the loudest voices in the room.

The problem with “zero-sum feminism”

What I want to get across here is that a certain type of feminism is counterproductive—if our goal is to create a fairer, safer, better world for everyone. Let’s call it “zero-sum feminism.” Others have called it “#girlboss feminism” or “liberal feminism.” It’s the idea that progress for women has to come at the expense of men. And it’s very popular (though feminists, especially Black and brown feminists, are increasingly critiquing it).

The most well-known example is probably former Facebook executive and now billionaire Sheryl Sandberg’s book “Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead.” The gist is that women should compete with men for the finite amount of power our capitalist economy allows. The late feminist bell hooks called it “trickle-down theory: the assumption that having more women at the top of corporate hierarchies would make the work world better for all women, including women on the bottom.”

The obvious problem with this brand of feminism is that it blames the victim. Women just need to “lean in” and compete harder with men. Or, as Kim Kardashian infamously said, “Get your fucking ass up and work.” Don’t critique the political and economic system (capitalism) that is making life hard for everyone who isn’t rich and powerful, especially the majority of women who work for a living and don’t have access to corporate power. As hooks wrote:

“Sandberg’s definition of feminism begins and ends with the notion that it’s all about gender equality within the existing social system. From this perspective, the structures of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy need not be challenged.”

The political philosopher Nancy Fraser says, “Such thinking validates the entire hierarchical corporate imaginary. It legitimates a worldview that is fundamentally hostile to the interests of the majority of women, indeed of all people throughout the world.”

Simply putting more women in charge of corporations isn’t enough. Just look at the news this week. Andi Owen, the CEO of the office furniture company MillerKnoll, was caught criticizing her staff for asking whether they’d get bonuses rather than focusing on being better employees. "Don't ask about 'what are we going to do if we don't get a bonus?' Get the damn $26 million," Owen said in a secretly recorded Zoom call, waving her finger at the screen. “You can visit Pity City, but you can’t live there,” she added. Meanwhile, Owen pocketed $5 million in salary and bonuses last year.

A boss is a boss. Corporations are going to corporation. Meaning, they’re built to focus on making profits for executives and shareholders on the backs of workers, whatever their gender is.

Liberal feminism has no room for men

But I think the biggest problem with liberal feminism is that it’s based on zero-sum thinking. I’d always thought the #girlboss stuff rubbed me the wrong way but didn’t know exactly why. I also felt as a man that I couldn’t say anything about it publicly. Then I heard the journalist Liza Featherstone in an interview with the Left Reckoning podcast:

“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.”

Hearing that helped me see that zero-sum feminism has no room for men. The only thing a man who considers himself a feminist (or who is at least sympathetic to the cause) is supposed to do is lean out, stay quiet, check his privilege, feel ashamed, and give up power. There’s nothing to gain. There’s no reason for a man to be a feminist other than to just be nice to women.

For a long time, I was sympathetic to this vision. A part of me still is—that’s why I was afraid to write this. But I’m increasingly convinced that people need to see something for themselves in a movement to sustain their engagement in it.

I learned this from my friends at the organization White Awake. (Full disclosure: I run their Instagram page. You should follow us!) White Awake’s message is that white people shouldn’t be anti-racist out of guilt or shame or kindness. We must recognize that white supremacy is one of the major barriers to everyone getting what they need, including ourselves. This is because—from the era of U.S. slavery to Donald Trump’s dog-whistles—racism is used by the rich and powerful to divide and control everyone else. White supremacy keeps a majority of white people from seeing that they have more in common with non-rich people of color than with the rich white people they vote into office.

Heather McGhee, author of the great book The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together, says:

“There is a zero-sum mindset that's predominant among white Americans ... that basically is threatened by the idea of demographic change. The majority of people making under $15 an hour are white. The majority of people without health care are white. We all live under the same sky and are all going to be vulnerable to climate change. And yet, [talking about race] as Trump did makes white people more conservative. It's this zero-sum idea that progress for people of color has to come at white people's expense.”

McGhee gives countless examples in her book of white people hurting themselves because of racism. Like how slavery actually didn’t benefit the white majority in the South. And when white towns facing integration in the 1950s and ‘60s drained their public swimming pools rather than let Black families swim too. And how racism is one of the biggest obstacles to winning things like universal health care today.

Anne Braden, the white civil rights activist, said, "The fight against racism is our issue. It’s not something that we’re called on to help people of color with. We need to become involved with it as if our lives depended on it because really, in truth, they do."

So, when it comes to gender, we all need a feminism that doesn’t see progress as zero-sum. We need a feminism that challenges capitalism. Meaning, it challenges the power of the small class of people—of all genders—who are hoarding most of the wealth and resources. It fights not for more women CEOs but for things like a shorter work week, public child care, the rights of migrant domestic workers, the rights of other care workers like nurses and teachers, and more.

Otherwise, we’re stuck fighting over scraps in the rat race. And more and more men will continue to be pulled toward the right wing toxic, misogynist vision of society. Because that vision at least tells them there’s something to gain for believing in it.

Now a prompt for our conversation in the comments below: Why should men be feminists? Is there anything valuable in liberal feminism?