Just Smith.

If you’re a third or second wave feminist, listen up.

You probably know about male privilege. Allow me to summarise:

• Men aren’t women
• Therefore they don’t experience misogyny
• Therefore they cannot be experts on misogyny
• Therefore they cannot comment on the extent of misogyny
• Therefore they cannot speak over or invalidate the experiences of women on misogyny
• Therefore they cannot know whether misogyny exists, and how significant it is
• Therefore they also cannot say whether male privilege exists, and how significant it is
• Therefore it is possible for misogyny to exist without them noticing
• Therefore it is possible for male privilege to exist without them noticing

Okay?

So, what happens when men are talking about misandry? Are they allowed to do that? Many female feminists don’t think so. They have intervened and told the men that their experiences aren’t valid. But look:

• Women aren’t men
• Therefore they don’t experience misandry
• Therefore they cannot be experts on misandry
• Therefore they cannot comment on the extent of misandry
• Therefore they cannot speak over or invalidate the experiences of men on misandry
• Therefore they cannot know whether misandry exists, and how significant it is
• Therefore they also cannot say whether female privilege exists, and how significant it is
• Therefore it is possible for misandry to exist without them noticing
• Therefore it is possible for female privilege to exist without them noticing

That’s only logical, and it’s the sort of thing fourth-wave feminists accept. They don’t want a double standard, they don’t have an ulterior motive, and they just want progress and equality for everyone.

Unfortunately, the previous waves don’t agree. They’ll come back to this with comments like ‘but misandry isn’t the same as misogyny, so you can’t just substitute it in’. But that’s something that we’ve established as being potentially affected by female privilege. It’s speaking over men’s experiences on misandry. It’s commenting on the extent of misandry. It’s not okay.

So that objection is akin to just saying ‘well my claim that misandry doesn’t exist is valid, because misandry doesn’t exist’. You’re using your conclusion as a justification for your premise, and you’re arguing in circles. It would be just as valid for a man to say that misogyny wasn’t a problem, you to object that he was privileged not to see that it was, and him to justify it by reaffirming that it ‘doesn’t work like that’ and that it isn’t a problem. That is exactly what you are doing with misandry.

The same goes for objections that ‘female privilege doesn’t exist’ - if it did exist than you may very well not notice it, and so saying that you don’t notice it does nothing to disprove its existence. Again using the counterexample, a man could just as validly state that male privilege doesn’t exist because he hasn’t noticed it. You can see how that it again circular, and again nonsense.

When he starts erasing women’s experiences with his privilege denial, it becomes a big problem. That is exactly what you are doing with your privilege denial, which is only as valid as his. You are talking over men’s experiences on male suffering, and making blanket statements about something which, by your own logic, you know nothing about. When your only justification to being called out is ‘but you can’t say that they are the same, because they’re different’ or ‘but you as a man can’t say that men are oppressed, because as a privilege woman my viewpoint is that they’re not’, a justification which you would yourself find offensive if it was pointing the other way.

This is why we need the fourth wave. A new generation of people who are more accepting to the suffering of others, and who are prepared to move with advances in the study of how the patriarchy formed naturally and enforces gender roles equally and oppositely on both men and women (something which evidence from biology, psychology and history all support). People who don’t have a hidden agenda, don’t just want to harass people or cling on to a victim monopoly, and actually care about working from a place of love rather than a place of hate. This is about making the world better for everyone, rather than getting revenge on a group which you have a personal grudge against. This is feminism for the 21st century, and it is a feminism which welcomes people from all races, creeds, genders, sexual identities, abilities, and so on and so forth.

If that sounds good to you, then sign up. If it doesn’t, and you’d prefer to incorporate patriarchal double standards and biases in your work, then please don’t do so whilst calling yourself a feminist. With Chris Martin, you’re going to have to ask yourself: are you part of the cure, or are you part of the disease? If you’re not prepared to apply the same logic and standards to yourself as you do others, then have a good think about whether the equality business is right for you.