Why I’m Over Making Feminism Palatable for Men and Why You Should Be Too

On male comfort, devil’s advocates, and why feminism doesn’t need your approval to be legitimate

You must have seen this intriguing and baffling sight at a bus stop, family dinner, or in a classroom. A frantic feminist, waving their hands and turning red with frustration, facing the behemoth sight of an indifferent, smug, condescending cisgender man standing with a glazed look. 

Popular phrases one might overhear include: “Men benefit from feminism too!” “No, men should be allowed to cry; I completely agree.” “No, I don’t hate men.” And, “Your divorce did not come out of nowhere, Uncle Vernon.”

If you have witnessed this, you’re surely familiar with what I call the “Devil at the Dining Table” phenomenon. A liberal, reasonably educated young person attempts to infiltrate and spread the equality propaganda (the horrors!) at holiday dinner, only to meet ragebait final boss, your uncle, two Scotches down, waiting with a glint in his eye to launch into, “Um, actually…”, “Just to play devil’s advocate here,” and “But WHY do these feminists hate men?”

If you have ever been on the receiving end of this fine selection, my sincere condolences. If you haven’t, consider yourself lucky. It’s no easy feat, carrying the weight of a centuries-long movement on young shoulders, representing activists around the world at family dinner. It’s certainly not a very giving feat, considering, more often than not, it leaves us forlorn and frustrated.

Because naturally, we want to champion our cause to more people, appease the dominant group with the most economic, political and social power, and gain allies who can help create real difference. But in the process of making the movement accessible and far-reaching, certain trade-offs are made. Softer language for broader appeal, reframing arguments to show how feminism benefits cishet men, and avoiding conflict through a defensive male-comfort-centric approach. 

However, feminism should not have to constantly soften, repackage or centre itself around male comfort to be considered legitimate. There is a difference between making feminism accessible and making it palatable, and the latter can reproduce the very power structures we are trying to challenge. 

I have found myself at that proverbial dinner table displaying more disgust and loathing than I thought the human face capable of. And over two decades, I have learnt eight things that have slowly but steadily driven me away from selling the cause to our favourite demographic! 

1. Why is it my job to do your homework? Expecting me to do the taxing emotional and mental labour of critical thinking for you is an unfair burden. You are a person with a brain, internet access, and a reasonable ability to form your own conclusions. Use them. I am more than happy to talk about feminist theory with people genuinely curious, but I don’t offer personalised introductory courses on how to have empathy for others.

2. Your discomfort is not the point. There is a strange expectation from the movement to be presented in the least threatening way possible. Make it gentle. Mention that men benefit too. Remind them that “not all men”. Reassure them that nobody hates them. And before you know it, a movement designed for liberation against unfair oppression has turned into comforting the feelings of those benefiting most from the existing hierarchy. 

3. Feminism is not simply Men = Women. One of the most common ways feminism has been made palatable has been by reducing it to a harmless little equation. Except feminism has never existed in a vacuum where the only axis of power is binary gender. Intersectionality is what keeps this movement grounded and dynamic. Gender intersects with race, class, sexuality, disability, nationality and countless other structures of power. Reducing it to men and women should be equal risks creating a version that is easiest for the most privileged to adopt and easiest for anyone else to disappear from.

4. Why should I tone down my activism to make it digestible for you? Diluting what the movement actually means, stripping it of its inclusivity, acceptance, and critique; softening every criticism, removing every uncomfortable bit so that someone does not storm off the table creates a shell of a movement, afraid to question the wrong people and complacent in who maintains the unequal structures. A feminism that makes no one uncomfortable only alienates these people who need it the most. 

5. Why does a movement need to benefit you for you to believe in it? I am not an elephant, nor will I ever personally benefit from protecting that species from extinction. Yet, I still believe that we should protect elephants. And pandas. And Venus flytrap. Why do you need a personal return on investment to believe something is worth standing up for? Benefit is not the entry fee for belief in a cause. 

6. People whose comfort is most prioritised are frequently those with the greatest ability to maintain the status quo. “Men” are obviously not a monolith. Race, class, disability, poverty and countless other factors shape how people experience gendered power. But recognising this does not nullify the structural advantages given by patriarchy. As Flora Tristan put it, “even the most oppressed man finds a being to oppress, his wife: she is the proletarian of the proletarian.” So all of this, diluting your activism, altering its meaning, alienating the most marginalised, for what? To make feminism more palatable to the demographic most invested in keeping the status quo?

7. The Devil’s Advocate is real and can hurt you. For a lot of people, this is just an intellectual debate they can pick up at a party, play with for twenty minutes and abandon when their wine is topped off. But for a lot of us, the thing being debated is our autonomy, rights, safety, and dignity. Claiming “devil’s advocate” might create an illusion of neutrality, but it really is just a way for someone to assume intellectual superiority and disregard someone else’s lived experience under the pretext of “debating”. 

8. Sometimes, they really are trying to provoke you. Especially online, anonymity and distance can make provocation feel consequence-free and pleasurable. Some people deliberately interrupt, twist your argument, keep pushing after you have explained yourself and then use your frustration as evidence that you are too “emotional” to be taken seriously. Your reaction becomes the evidence that feminism is irrational.

All this is not to say stop talking to people about feminism. Men are not an audience you can ignore because they’re friends, parents, partners, siblings, colleagues, politicians, policymakers. Engaging them in these conversations is imperative to bring about social change. I am asking us, however, to stop treating male approval as the final examination feminism has to pass. There is a difference between asking someone to join the movement and completely rearranging what the movement stands for just to accommodate them. 

So educate people when you have the capacity and when the conversation is genuine. But you do not have an infinite supply of mental, physical or emotional energy.

Use it wisely. Spend it organising, supporting survivors, building communities, creating policy, fundraising, volunteering. Spend it making feminist spaces better, safer and more inclusive.

But remember, when Uncle Vernon leans across the dinner table, two Scotches deep, and asks you for the four hundredth time why you “hate men”, feminism does not need to pass the palatability test. And neither do you.