Feminism Vs. Misandry: Does It Matter?
- Parker Coyne
- Nov 17, 2025
- 2 min read
Definition of feminism: the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes (Oxford Languages).
Definition of misandry: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e. the male sex) (Oxford Languages).
One of my particular interests is how feminism is perceived.
Some may view feminism as misandry--seeing that female-identifying individuals are more "important" than male-identifying, nonbinary, or genderfluid individuals.
This is, of course, not true.
Feminism is meant really to fight for equality--and I constantly wonder if we should keep feminism and equalist separate sometimes as feminist really does speak specifically for feminine individuals--and that's not always the case for some people. However, regardless of sex, gender, or orientation, everyone should be treated equally and fairly in housing, economy, work-life, school-life, etc. so it really seems like "equalist" is the better term, but we'll keep it to feminism vs misandry for now.
Misandry, much like misogyny, represents an unfair prejudice on someone for their assigned gender/sex and claiming that one sex is superior. And yet, there are many people who agree with misandrist and misogynistic views--this is where feminism is supposed to come in handy for both matters.
Feminism isn't meant to mean that feminine individuals are superior, just that they should be viewed and treated as equal to masculine-presenting individuals. This seems like a no-brainer.
One thing I found more misandrist than feminist was Dr. Drews' essay "The Second Sex and the Third Force" in today's terms. Back when we can estimate Dr. Drews wrote the essay--probably in the 1950's--the arguments she's making is for the time. At this time, women couldn't do much legally and had just received the right to vote thirty years prior. There were issues with women being able to own land, property, or even receive divorces when they so wanted.
Essentially, women were still very much facing enslavements of marriage or male relatives during this time.
The argument Drews is making throughout her essay is that women are the answer to the world's issues and by granting them more ability to solve them--there would be way less issues in the world. This seems more like an argument for women to receive more freedom and rights for the time in the most simple way possible. It's an advertisement almost:
Give women equal rights, it'll solve a lot of issues in the world.
More to come on this.
Sources:
Comments