Current anti-feminist campaigns – building on anti-gender discourses and policies – not only attack gender equality and sexual rights, but are a threat to the foundations of democracy and the possibility of social change.
In recent years and across the globe, issues of gender, gender relations, and sexuality have surfaced as important topics of public and political debate in completely different contexts and forms – from heated debates on the use of gender-neutral language or on sex education in German-speaking countries to legislation criminalising homosexuality (e. g. in Uganda), or Putin’s demonisation of the LGBT community as an agent of Western decadence and decay as well as the political divide over abortion in the US and Poland, to name but a few developments. While these examples vary broadly in terms of topic, focus, and severity of consequences for those targeted, there are underlying motifs that are shared transnationally. Analysing the latter helps us to understand how anti-feminism fuels authoritarian movements and has the power to harm processes of democratic negotiation.
Anti-feminism and anti-gender discourse in a nutshell
Anti-feminism is a multi-faceted ideology and a political movement. Therefore, the term refers to a political stance, which is connected to sexism (as a social structure) and misogyny (an individual belief). Anti-feminism exploits a longing for stability that many people feel as they experience the world around them as increasingly precarious. Anti-feminism has developed alongside and in reaction to feminist and, lately, queer feminist and LGBTIQ+ movements since the late 19th century. At the same time, it is (and always has been) an important part of authoritarian responses to crises. As its long history and its widespread political use show, it is also a flexible ideology, which can be interlinked with a variety of political positions (e.g. different nationalisms or “reverse anti-colonialism“) and different religions.
A significant modernisation of the anti-feminist discourse and strategy occurred in the 1990s with the invention of the term “gender ideology“. The basic idea is a skewed re-interpretation of (queer) feminism’s tenet that gender is not a biological given, but a social construction that is amenable to development and change. The discourse of “gender ideology” re-interprets these thoughts, claiming the existence of an elite conspiracy which uses the term ‘gender’ to follow their “hidden agenda” of creating “sexless humans” abandoning heterosexuality and destroying families.
Striving for a “natural” order
The imagined existential threat to each and every individual, their families, children, and communities renders anti-gender campaigns an effective tool to fire up emotions and gain public support – which is one reason for the successful transnational use of these strategies by right-wing political actors. But it also makes them extremely dangerous as fear and anger can easily be projected onto sexual minorities, gender non-conforming individuals, or emancipated women. For some recipients, a perceived imminent and devastating threat might legitimise violent action.
Anti-feminists counter these views of the modern world with a vision of a “natural” social order, i. e. the (re-)establishment of patriarchal gender relations and so-called traditional families with clearly defined roles for men and women. The term “natural” links ideologically different interpretations, thereby allowing i. a. ultraconservative Christians, authoritarian populists, and right-wing extremists to find common ground. Their different understandings of “nature” notwithstanding, all of these actors strive to build a completely stable social world, i. e. a world in which the reigning “normality” might not be questioned.
The mythological past to which these actors want to return would be marked by inequalities. In contrast to actual history, it would not be characterised by constant social change and social movements working for emancipation. In this vision, values, norms, and practices – e. g. pertaining to economic and political equality, to sexuality, or to family life – should not be issues of public debate, but should rather take a single prescribed form. The ideal of a world in which all human beings are equal would be exchanged for an ideal of “natural differences” which legitimates unequal treatment and effectively bans social dialogue. Such a “frozen” social order would, however, be the end of any meaningful democratic process, as democracy cannot exist without the possibility of change.
