Masculinism, feminism and power: an essay

Introduction: beyond binaries

The dynamics between masculinism and feminism in the contemporary context are often presented as a battlefield where each camp defends its territory. This Manichaean vision, seductive to the media, fails to capture the complexity of real human relationships. This chapter proposes a different reading: how these movements, understood in their most nuanced dimension, can not only coexist but enrich one another.

The author's thesis: genuine relational progress lies neither in traditional male domination, nor in a simple reversal of power in favour of women, but in the recognition that relational health emerges from collaboration between partners who understand and integrate the legitimate struggles of both sexes.

Understanding the movements in their complexity

Feminism: a multiplicity of currents

Feminism is not a monolith. It comprises several currents which, although sharing the general goal of women's emancipation, diverge in their methods and their analyses:

Liberal feminism — Focuses on formal equality: equal rights, equal opportunities, equal legal representation. Advocates the elimination of institutional barriers.

Radical feminism — Analyses patriarchy as a structural system permeating all social institutions. Emphasises a fundamental transformation of power relations.

Cultural feminism — Values the qualities associated with femininity — empathy, cooperation, benevolence — and challenges the hierarchy that devalues these traits in favour of so-called "masculine" characteristics.

Masculinism: between legitimate claims and excesses

Masculinism, a worn-out term, deserves close analysis. One can distinguish several currents:

Men's rights masculinism — Focuses on specific inequalities: discrimination in custody matters, conscription, harsher sentences for the same crimes, high male suicide, under-investment in men's health.

Existential/psychological masculinism — Explores how rigid expectations of masculinity — "be strong, don't show your emotions, be the provider" — also wound men by confining them to narrow roles.

Reactionary masculinism — A loud current that responds to feminism with a discourse of hatred and the desire to restore a lost male domination. It does not represent the majority of men who are questioning their place in contemporary society.

Crucial distinction: it is essential to distinguish the legitimate recognition of problems specific to men from anti-feminist hate speech. The former seeks mutual understanding; the latter perpetuates conflict.

Little-known points of convergence

Paradoxically, feminism and masculinism (in their healthiest expressions) share goals:

• Rejection of rigid gender roles. The woman who does not want to be reduced to caregiving finds an objective ally in the man who does not want to be reduced to performance and financial gain.
• Recognition of role-related suffering. Feminists highlight how the unpaid carer role exhausts women; masculinists highlight how the provider role places enormous pressure on men. Traditional roles wound those who occupy them.
• Desire for authenticity. At bottom, both movements seek the freedom to be oneself beyond social prescriptions.

Mutual recognition of suffering

The first step towards synergy is the recognition that both genders suffer from rigid gender systems, differently.

Dimension	Most often feminine suffering	Most often masculine suffering
Work	Glass ceiling, wage discrimination, double day (work + care)	Pressure to be the main provider, stigmatisation of "not successful enough"
Emotion	Emotional expression devalued as "weakness"	Prohibition on expressing vulnerability, judged "not masculine"
Sexuality	Objectification, aesthetic pressures, fear of violence	Performance pressure, difficulty asking for non-sexual affection
Parenthood	Expectation of being the main mother, harsh judgement	Exclusion from the parental role, stereotype of the "babysitter" father
Relationships	Expectation of managing the couple's emotional life	Expectation to initiate, to "conquer", to decide

Cross-compassion exercise — for each partner, a space to say: "Here is how the gender system has wounded me", "Here is where I feel judged or misunderstood", "Here is what I need to feel free to be myself". The other listens without defensiveness, without minimising, without comparing. The goal is not to determine who suffers "the most", but to hear each person's specific suffering.

Redefining masculinity and femininity

Synergy makes it possible to redefine gender identities in a less cramped way.

A broadened masculinity combines strength (in the service of the relationship, not domination), vulnerability (the courage to show one's doubts, recognised as a strength), responsibility (taking care of oneself, one's relationships, one's community) and connectivity (creating deep bonds, not a secondary option).

A broadened femininity combines power (expressing ambition, anger, sexuality without being labelled "difficult"), autonomy (choosing one's path without the obligation of caregiving), chosen vulnerability (deciding when to be vulnerable and when to be strong) and leadership (directing, deciding, influencing without it being read as a "masculinisation").

Overcoming cultural traps

The media and popular culture convey simplistic narratives that one must learn to recognise.

The "battle of the sexes" presents men and women as natural adversaries. In reality, both have more interests in common than divergent — love, security, respect, fulfilment. The real divide does not set the genders against each other: it sets healthy relational values against rigid systems that wound everyone.

The "alpha male" / the "strong woman" creates unrealistic expectations. Relational health emerges from authenticity, not performance. A partner who can say "I don't know", "I am afraid", "I need help" is more reliable than a facade of invulnerability.

The "irrational woman" / the "blocked man" invalidates the experiences of both genders. Women who express emotions are labelled "hysterical"; men, "weak". In reality, both genders have a complete emotional range. The differences observed are largely due to socialisation rather than biology — this is the dominant position in the social sciences, even though the specifically biological share is the subject of lively debate. In any case, both can develop sophisticated emotional intelligence.

The axes of power intersect

Gender is only one dimension of relational power. Other axes interact: socio-economic class (the one who has more resources has more freedom to leave and more weight in decisions), ethnic and cultural origin (the one whose culture is dominant sees their values implicitly privileged), age (a significant gap often creates an imbalance of experience, resources and perceived authority), health (the one who is doing better can contribute more, the other feeling "in debt").

Understanding these intersections helps to read a relationship with nuance — and to use the power one has ethically rather than denying it.

Solidarity in the face of oppressive systems

Rather than fighting each other, partners can team up against outside systems: against sexism, racism, classism, ageism. The guiding principle is simple: "Your struggles are my struggles. Your oppression is my business because I love you and I want you to be free to be yourself."

Children and transmission

Children absorb the power dynamics between their parents. These observations form their future relational scripts.

When they see one parent make all the decisions, they learn hierarchy. When they see the other carry the mental load alone, they learn that invisible work "doesn't count". Conversely, when they see both express their emotions, ask for help, admit their mistakes, they learn that vulnerability is compatible with strength.

Parents can regularly ask themselves: "If my child learned to be in a couple by imitating me, what kind of partner would they be?" If the answer worries them, that is a signal.

Conclusion: towards a shared humanity

At the end of this examination, a paradoxical conclusion: the path towards healthier relationships passes both through the recognition of gender differences and through their transcendence.

Recognition: men and women have different social experiences. Sexism affects women in specific ways; expectations of masculinity wound men in specific ways. Ignoring these differences amounts to ignoring the lived reality of billions of people.

Transcendence: beyond these socially constructed differences, human beings of all genders share the same fundamental needs — to be loved, respected, to belong, to express one's truth, to develop.

A healthy relationship honours both the differences (each person's specific wounds related to gender) and the similarities (shared humanity). And balance is never a state achieved once and for all: it is a continuous process of negotiation and adjustment, at every stage of life.

Genuine progress consists not in deciding which gender "is right", but in creating together a world where each person can be fully themselves — strong and vulnerable, ambitious and caring, leader and support — without having to sacrifice a part of themselves to be accepted.

Key points to remember

1. Feminism and masculinism (in their healthy expressions) share goals: rejection of rigid roles, recognition that both genders suffer from gender systems, desire for authenticity.
2. Distinguish legitimate masculinism from reactionary masculinism — recognising problems specific to men has nothing to do with anti-feminist hate speech.
3. Suffering is cross-cutting, and asymmetrical: recognising trends does not invalidate individual experience, nor does it justify violence.
4. Gender is only one dimension of power: class, ethnicity, age, health interact. Reading a relationship means crossing these axes.
5. Children model parental dynamics: what they observe becomes their relational script.
6. This chapter is an essay: a perspective to discuss. For the operational tools (audit, rebalancing, conversation rules), see Power in the couple.