Why I am Not a Feminist

As a sociologist, before I begin teaching most of my classes I make a confession. Because a majority of my students expect sociologists to be liberal, I explain that I am not. Moreover, because much of what I teach involves gender relations, I have to explain that I am not a feminist; that I am indeed an anti-feminist.
Before I continue, I must make something else very clear. I am not against women. I have no desire to see them returned to being “barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.” If women wish to become the CEO’s of major corporations, that is perfectly okay with me. If they want to join the military, that is also fine.
No, I am not anti-feminist because I hate women, but because I love children. It is a desire to protect the young that initially impelled me to suffer the wrath of the politically correct. The problem, as I see it, it not the ambition of many women to be vocationally successful, but the implications of radical feminism per se.
Radical feminists paint a dire picture of heterosexual relationships. They regularly portray women has innocent victims and men as cruel exploiters. Although women are said to be every bit as powerful as men, they are simultaneously depicted as in need of protection from constant threats of rape.
Once upon a time, according to the feminists, the genders were on a par. If anything, women had more power than men. Then the advent of agriculture changed everything. The need for upper-body strength to propel a plow vaulted men into the lead. Subsequently, in order to maintain their advantage, men bullied women into submission.
Now, say the feminists, this male hegemony must be challenged. The rules have to be changed so that everything is fifty/fifty. Because the differences between men and women are sustained primarily by raising boys and girls differently, once this disparity is eliminated, the male advantage will disappear.
For the radical feminists, the ideal state is androgyny. All gender differences, except for the physiological ones, have to disappear. People must essentially become genderless. Individuals need to be judged as people, not men or women. The goal is thus absolute equality.
If this sounds fair, and perhaps democratic, it is anything but. It assumes that the differences between men and women are artificial. As a result, it demands that these be completely expunged. Women are required to become more like men and men more like women. Anything less is depicted as unfair.
Nevertheless, what is unfair is what has happened to many marriages. The voluntary intimacy necessary to sustain long-term heterosexual relationships is put in jeopardy when men and women are assumed to be the same. They are further endangered when women are regularly portrayed as the good guys and men the bad ones.
If men and women are to collaborate on developing strong relationships, they must be allowed to be who they are. More than this, if the parties to a marriage are to tolerate their inherent differences, they must accept these for what they are.
And there are differences, many of which are grounded in biology. Most men are more aggressive than most women, while most women are more emotionally sensitive than most men. There are, to be sure, exceptions but the trends are demonstrable in the different ways male and female brains function.
Mind you, these differences are not better or worse; they are merely different. If anything, they permit men and women to work together synergistically, so that the two can be stronger as a couple than they are individually.
Where children come in is that a strong relationship between their parents is to their advantage. It permits them to rely on two dependable parents who contribute different strengths to raising them. And this in turn makes them stronger and happier than they otherwise would be.
But the feminists interfere with this by turning men and women into enemies. They make marriages more fragile and therefore put children in jeopardy, for utterly imaginary purposes. There is no good reason men cannot be men and women, women, and the two still get along. As a result, I say, let them be themselves. In the end, everyone will be better off.
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University