Feminism's Gains Come with Sacrifices
Feminists' criticisms of feminism fail to reckon with the cost of equality
Feminism is no stranger to criticism and attack. Lately, however, feminism has been attacked by self-proclaimed feminists. Some are claiming that they feel feminism isn’t in their personal best interest despite still being widely considered to be in the best interest of society as a whole. These sentiments have given rise to “anti-feminism” and “postfeminism” as the newest enemies of feminism. The reasons some self-proclaimed feminists offer for finding anti-feminism and postfeminism attractive suggest that they hold double standards in expectations and are experiencing cognitive dissonance about the pros and cons of equity. For example, they complain of a decline in chivalry: strangers don’t hold doors open for women, partners expect women to go fifty-fifty on finances, and many men decline to stop to help women who are obviously in need.
Some of these feminism-critical feminists fail to realize that the fight for any cause comes with some sacrifices, and without those sacrifices, victory is impossible. For example, a darker side of equity is an absence of preferential treatment, but it’s a small sacrifice that some feminists are willing to make for the greater good. Feminism is more than just a single feminist’s comfort and happiness; feminism is about women as a collective. It’s selfish to complain about the individual inconveniences that result from the victory of feminism without recognizing the macro-level benefits experienced by women as a collective. Any individual feminist’s sacrifice—no more doors held open, splitting the household expenses, fending for yourself when you have a flat tire—is integral to the continuation of one of the most important movements in history.
Postfeminism is defined as the widespread sense that feminism achieved what it set out to achieve, and is thus now obsolete. Postfeminism is widely seen as a backlash to feminism, claiming to be a natural evolution of feminism. This claim is loosely supported by the steady decline in support for identifying as a “feminist” since 1980, which has given rise to anti-feminism. Anti-feminism is defined as an outright opposition to feminism, a sentiment that is increasing among younger people (especially men). They claim that feminism is exclusionary in nature and does not focus on holistic human equity.
One social space where anti-feminism and postfeminism have appeared is the workplace. Social media has recently experienced an influx of self-proclaimed feminists complaining about having had to work full-time jobs for the last five decades, wishing instead that there had been someone to take care of them. How would the founders of feminism feel about these modern-day feminists denigrating the very opportunities that they’ve fought so hard for? We used to be proud of having the opportunity to join the workforce and contribute to society and the economy.
Another social space where anti-feminism and postfeminism have appeared is romance. Some self-proclaimed feminists are complaining that their partners are not “financially attractive” or “economically viable” in comparison to themselves. The cognitive dissonance of fighting for equity only to be attracted to inequity may need to be called out and addressed through therapy and what used to be called “consciousness raising.” We should be proud of equitable relationships where partners are of equal income, power, and status. Otherwise, we can’t truly call ourselves equitable feminists because selective equity is not equity at all. The fight for equity in wages, power, and status comes (or should come) with equity in mortgage payments, child custody determination, and even selective service registration.
Some self-proclaimed feminists want to be seen as strong and independent without seeking opportunities to build strength and independence. Social media has also experienced an influx of influencers wishing to live in their “soft era,” overlooking the fact that softness contradicts strength and independence. We must not forget that strength is built through overcoming progressing levels of hardship, and independence is built through self-reliance in solitude. We cannot be strong if we opt to travel the path of least resistance, overcoming the fewest obstacles. We cannot be independent if we always have a fallback option, a failsafe that bails us out anytime we’re in need. Enduring hardship builds the strength and independence necessary to develop character, and some seem to have little stomach for the task.
Being independent means having the courage to face the potential of being a feminist who sacrifices for greater feminism. Bravery is a prerequisite to independence; greater feminism understands this, even if some individual feminists do not. Being strong means staying strong through the trials and tribulations at the individual level for the benefit of the greater good. Being strong means we think about more than our comfort and happiness, sometimes calling for individual feminists to sacrifice for the good of greater feminism. Just as some soldiers sacrifice for the greater good of their countrymen, so some feminists may be called upon to sacrifice for the greater feminism that has given women equality and then some.
Dr. Nafees Alam is a professor of social work, holding a PhD from Yeshiva University, and licensed in multiple states. His scholarship focuses on viewpoint and political diversity in higher education and the greater society. His previous articles for the JFBT were “Neo-White Supremacy and the Assumption of Black/Brown Inferiority,” “From ‘Masculinity Can Be Toxic’ to ‘Masculinity Is Toxic’,” and “‘Antiracism’ That Erases Black History.” He was a guest on the FBT Podcast in September of 2025. Follow him on Twitter/X.
I think feminists are learning, the hard way, the wisdom of the old saying that you should "be careful what you wish for because you might get it." Being "strong and independent" isn't a slogan you can wear like a T-shirt when you feel like it. For it to be real you have to earn it, and it's pretty damned hard and stays that way. But most women hate "hard."
The girlboss thing is less about actual accomplishment than attitude, birthed by decades of anti-male propaganda. It's trite and tedious and we males, at least those over a certain age, are all sick of it.
As a staunch feminist with liberal values, I think that feminist movements do themselves no favors when they fail to acknowledge the real trade offs that women face (and have faced) when they are able make choices. No one can “have it all,” and women need to understand the potential consequences of their priorities. The baby trad wives and girlfriends on social media are no better at this. Many of them have their own revenue streams beyond what their spouse provides that they’re not talking about as they encourage other women, who may not have their resources, to enter into dependent relationships with no exit strategy. There are good reasons generations of women fought for rights and autonomy, not least of which is the right to save and protect ourselves from situations we deem unacceptable. Stop encouraging women to give it up for a version of domesticity that never existed.