Imagining the Merger of “Refuse Fascism” and “The General Strike”

By Phil Wilson

December 2, 2025

Source: Nobody's Voice

Image by Paul Goyette, Creative Commons 2.0

This is the time when everyone has a choice to make – actually a series of choices all premised on a single decision. Every US adult will consider whether or not to resist fascism. Some of us may be in better position to act – those with vulnerable immigration status, or with connections to those labeled as state enemies may be at risk for Draconian retaliation, while many of us can engage in substantial resistance with little immediate likelihood of state retaliation.

Once the fight to bring an end to US fascism becomes a personal cause, the subsequent choice involves the means of resistance. Does one conceive of the current white supremacist, saber rattling, misogynistic, oligarchic-capitalist, genocidal regime as a mere blip in the electoral cycle to be parried with a few extra dollars to reelect Chuck Schumer, or does one see the present US predicament as requiring civil disobedience at a pitch never previously imagined? This ought to be a no brainer to anyone who accepts the label of fascism as the accurate way to understand Trump and his regime of billionaires, predators and stooges. Fascism, by definition, seeks to install ongoing repression, to mutilate government bureaucracies and replace officials with grotesque replicas in an act of unacknowledged parody. The sycophantic SCOTUS, the appointment of RFK Jr. as Secretary of Health, the deployment of Pete Hegseth atop the military and Kristi Noem as the head of Homeland Security all together reflect the aura of a screaming nightmare. The first step toward national redemption requires a cold hard gaze.

Perhaps another way to unpack the particular character of US fascism involves seeing it as a manifestation of collapsing empire – fascism has become the default for the longstanding practice of war and colonial extraction. As US global control slides into ruins before the more capable Chinese economic expansion and the BRICS Alliance, the corporate gaze turns inward with the aspiration to squeeze the wealth, once acquired abroad, from its own citizenry. Picture an ordinary person during a critical food shortage whose famished eyes alight upon its own cats and dogs. Our citizens have historically been blind to the corporate policies of war and extraction upon which our collective prosperity has been built, but now it is our medical insurance, our schools, our food, our rent being ransacked for profit. If the US supported fascist regimes abroad who engaged in cruel atrocities, now it comes home in the guise of border security or “replacement theory” rhetoric. We, the ordinary citizens of this terrible predatory empire have abruptly been transformed into the Vietnamese villagers of long ago. This is not indulgent metaphor – the troops march into our neighborhoods, and we have a brand new sense of identity – “the enemy within.”

The people of Vietnam unknowingly instructed future US generations about the tactics of resistance. US power proved a half century ago to be a mirage – the resolve and ferocity of a poor nation exposed the vulnerabilities of a corrupt empire. The lesson was reenacted in Iraq and Afghanistan and may ultimately be reshaped to include the collapse of Israel and Ukraine. The last battle to close down the US Empire will, if I am correct, be centered in New York, Chicago and LA. I am not yet fantasizing about armed guerrilla warfare in downtown DC – the sensible first step involves non-violent civil disobedience.

In previous pieces I have honed in on the organization named after its tactics – “The General Strike.” This group aspires to accumulate some eleven million workers to engage in work stoppages. The number, eleven-million, is not a random figure, but the quantity of opposition that conforms to the 3.5% rule. Social science researchers believe that massive resistance has a precise threshold to upend an oppressive regime.

There are enough different organizations opposed to the Trump regime to confuse many of us – we have “Indivisible,” “No Kings Day,” “Refuse Fascism,” “Democracy Forward,” and a number of other groups. For me, “Refuse Fascism” has the most concise and clear aspiration – the immediate removal of Donald Trump and his regime. Refuse Fascism ticks most boxes for me – the use of non-violent tactics, the aspiration to flood US streets with millions of protesters and the intention to bring together a diverse assortment of factions, all riveted on the single minded goal of getting rid of Trump and his fascist movement.

Perhaps it matters little which organizations provides the inspiration and organizational resolve to fill the streets with protestors, but The General Strike held a webinar last week that struck me as revealing unique and compelling characteristics. Noam Chomsky, in his short pamphlet on “The Occupy Movement,” quoted Howard Zinn’s call to focus “on the countless small actions of unknown people.” Of course, “Occupy” succeeded, albeit too briefly, to create a popular groundswell of passionate resistance with a young, anonymous base.

“The General Strike” webinar seemed to rather consciously court the same constituents as did “Occupy” – young, “unknown” people – but offers a more specific means of resistance. One webinar presenter, introduced simply as, “Ben,” gave a history of the general strike as a time honored tool of the US labor rights struggle. As an elderly, retired worker, I wondered what role I might have. Fortunately, the GS website specifically defines the purpose of retired workers as:

“During the strike, retirees can contribute by boycotting big corporations, providing mutual aid and financial support to striking workers, and doing everything possible to spread the word in the meantime.”

My own chosen role thus becomes – at least for now – “to spread the word.”

The idea that 11 million anonymous folks can bring down the monstrosity of US fascism – a cult of celebrity, of autocratic predators wielding vast sums of money – reprises the David and Goliath narrative. Across the left it has been (ironically) almost impossible to toss off the straight jacket of individualism, and its evil shadow – celebrity. Thus, ones thoughts of the US leftist movement, however vague and fractured it might be, automatically leads us to a hall of names – Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, AOC, Noem Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, etc. but “The General Strike” heroically refuses to either coopt or create celebrities. We will not be saved by famous heroes, they implicitly tell us. There are, astonishingly, no names promoted on “The General Strike” website. Their “leaders,” appearing on the webinar last Saturday, November, 22, go only by their first names. One of the founders, who hosted the event, identified herself only as “Eliza from upstate New York.” The General Strike Website provides even less detail:

“Two friends living in New York City made this website after Roe V. Wade was overturned in 2022, but the concept of a General Strike dates back centuries.

The General Strike is a decentralized network of people and organizations committed to striking once we reach 3.5% of the U.S. population, or 11 million people. We don’t have a traditional “leader” or hierarchical structure, and no one gets paid to do this work. Instead we have an ever shifting network of organizers, all building towards the General Strike in their own ways.”

I had written several months ago that I wished that this organization would embrace “direct democracy” as a stated goal, but upon my updated reflection, it appears that the revised website consciously strives to promote the egalitarian values that one associates with direct democracy – a system of government in which decisions are made by public referendum or by “citizen’s assemblies” made up of ordinary people chosen via “sortition.” Neither The General Strike website, or its affiliated Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) convey any explicit, unequivocal aspiration to employ direct democracy as the vehicle to manifest equalitarian, socialist governance, but the decision to imagine leaders as nameless, common people rather intuitively evokes that vibe for me. There is also this quote from the PSL website defining the nature of a new socialist government that aims to sever the themes of narcissism and self-promotion from the act of political administration:

• Elected officials of the new workers’ government will be paid an average worker’s salary and will receive no special privileges.

Direct Democracy, according to South African Marxist sociologist Michelle Williams, has become a new point of interest among Marxists, and I have written that worker run cooperatives, as proposed by Marxist economist, Richard Wolff, situates direct democracy within the structures of workplace decision making.

For the record, since my last piece on The General Strike, the organization has released a much more detailed set of demands:

“Specific demands will come from leaders and experts of existing fights for racial, economic, gender and environmental justice once we have reached 6M Strike Cards. Stay tuned for updates and submit your input below in the meantime. The broad list includes, but is not limited to:

 Affordable housing

 Climate action

 Constitutional convention

 Criminal justice reform

 Disability rights

 End military aid for occupations and/or ethnic cleansing

 Gun safety

 Immigration reform

 Indigenous rights

 Labor rights & living wages”

 LGBTQIA+ rights

 Paid family & medical leave

 Racial justice

 Repeal Citizens United

 Repeal Right to Work laws

 Reproductive rights

 Student debt reform

 Tax the rich

 Universal healthcare

 Voting rights

 Welfare & child support reform

While some of these demands, such as “repeal citizens united,” and the rather vague, “Constitutional convention,” address the concept of a reimagined political system freed from the control of corporate money, almost all of the other demands focus on basic human rights. We have become so dehumanized that demands for universal health care, an end to military aid for occupation and ethnic cleansing and paid family and medical leave strike us as radical and utopian concepts.

Many of the speakers at The General Strike Webinar identified themselves as members of the above referenced PSL – one of several Marxist factions emerging as key organizational players in the fight against fascism. Like “Refuse Fascism” that gathers a number of diverse members and organizations under the leadership of the “Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP),” The General Strike features an unprecedented collection of perspectives and organizations willing to come together under the organizational leadership of those identifying as Marxists. Socialism has incrementally made its way, despite decades of media propaganda, into mainstream awareness. It is however, not enough to merely give Marxists a grudging seat at the table of public discourse. War, climate/environmental destruction, poverty and fascism have inevitable roots in capitalist greed. Who has more qualifications to lead the battle against fascism than socialist movements?

The General Strike lists a number of partners, including – SEIU 503 sub-local 581 representing Oregon teachers. Indivisible, the children’s rights organization, LATINX Parenting, the environmental group, Troublemakers, and the above mentioned, PSL. This eclectic gathering of organizations reflects the same diversity apparent in Refuse Fascism, a group under the leadership of Bob Avakian’s RCP, whose website now features photos of George Conway, Rachel Maddow, Alex Padilla and JB Pritzker – figures far removed from any association with Marxism. As I have stated already, there are no celebrities, no familiar photos, and no famous people promoted at The General Strike, a seemingly small point, but a very meaningful one for me. I imagined, as I signed my “strike card” for this organization, that my voice will be no less heard than anyone else’s.

Some people will obviously cringe at the thought of allying themselves with an organization in which Marxists have a prominent role. A lifetime of capitalist propaganda has left us broken and confused. However, for me, this is essential. If a movement becomes powerful enough to remove the fascist regime, what then? Do we return to neoliberal democracy and its environmental ruin? The climate/environmental apocalypse cannot, according to Degrowth advocate, Jason Hickel, be addressed under capitalism. The very second demand on The General Strike website is “Climate action.” The PSL website prioritizes ending all fossil fuel and nuclear energy. This is not naïve idealism, but a critical matter of survival.

The General Strike, for me, offers a vision for action – a strategy of civil disobedience as a necessary step to bring an end to US fascism. The General Strike also recognizes the priority of alliances between people with different political views. You don’t have to be a Marxist to engage in a general strike, but the reflexive US tendency to view Marxism through the lens of cold war ideology now becomes a dead weight impeding the task before us. Having explored both “Refuse Fascism” and “The General Strike,” I am impressed that both have embraced a philosophy of coalition building. I am uncertain if either or both factions have attempted to merge together in some way. If not, I hope that sectarianism can be set aside toward our nation’s most critical task.Email

Phil Wilson

Phil Wilson is a retired mental health worker and union member. His writing has been published in ZNetwork.org, Current Affairs, Counterpunch, Resilience, Mother Pelican, Common Dreams, The Hampshire Gazette, The Common Ground Review, The Future Fire and other publications. Phil's writings are posted regularly at Nobody's Voice (https://philmeow.substack.com/).

The Ontological Disintegration of Capitalist Modernity and the Origins of Misogynistic Violence

By Mahir Engizek

November 24, 2025

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.

Image courtesy of ​MAHİR ENGİZEK

The global crisis of the 21st century is not merely a temporary geopolitical instability, but an ontological moment of disintegration where Capitalist Modernity has reached its structural limits and attempts to violently restructure itself.

​The chain of conflicts marking this era must be understood as a Third World War conducted simultaneously across economic, political, cultural, and psychological planes, transcending the classical definition of war. The core axis of this war is the existential struggle between Capitalist Modernity, which institutionalizes domination, and Democratic Modernity, which socializes freedom.

​The fundamental philosophy of Capitalist Modernity is to create a political monopoly through the nation-state, an economic monopoly through industrialism, and a societal monopoly through patriarchal-chauvinism. This hegemonic tripartite structure has turned crisis into a form of governance, bringing right-wing and fundamentalist regimes to power and deepening violence, racism, and social fragmentation.

​Historical Leviathan and the Methodology of the Patriarchal Mindset

​The origin of the current war lies not in simple geopolitical interests, but in 5,000 years of Hierarchical and Statist Civilization. This is the process through which the male-dominant, patriarchal mindset (Homo Hierarchicus) transforms violence and domination into a methodology that legitimizes the reproduction of its power.

​This mindset, institutionalized since the Sumerian era, has coded violence not as a means but as an existential necessity of power. This ontological coding manifests in contemporary conflicts as the systematic targeting of women and children.

​The abduction, enslavement, and sale of women by fundamentalist organizations like ISIS (DAESH), Boko Haram, Taliban, HTS, etc., are not merely physical attacks but strategic psychological operations aimed at breaking the spirit of social resistance and establishing collective submission.

​Since women are the bearers of social values and morality, violence applied through the female body and identity targets the collapse of the entire social structure.

​Looking at historical references, the savagery in Roman arenas, the Witch Hunts in Medieval Europe (which were instruments of early capitalist/national states to suppress social consciousness and control women’s social productivity), and the systematic rape and murder in the contemporary Middle East prove the continuity of this masculine methodology.

​The fact that the first actions of radical right-wing regimes established post-war (Taliban in Afghanistan, Ahmed El Sharaa (Abu Mohammad Al-Jolani)’s regimes in Syria) are to usurp women’s rights (education, employment, dress) shows that the new power constructs its legitimacy through domination over women, and the seizure of women’s rights is a political tool for these powers.

​War as Crisis Management and the Desiccation of Conscience

​Capitalist Modernity uses war as a crisis management strategy because it is incapable of solving its internal crises. The objective of this war is not only to re-divide economic and geopolitical resources but also to occupy and commodify the ethical, moral, and social conscience areas that the system cannot control.

​The racism and chauvinism deepened by war consolidate the nation-state ideology, while the rise of religious nationalism sharpens social fragmentation.

​The greatest human loss in this process is the systemic silencing of social conscience. The systematic violence applied against Yazidis in Sinjar, Alevis in Syria, and other minorities disregards the values considered sacred by society.

​States and power centers remain indifferent to this savagery due to chauvinistic and pragmatic interests, while acts of massacre, looting, and occupation become normatively accepted. Even the discourse on justice and human rights is dragged into the domain of legitimizing war.

​The over 50 percent increase in femicides, rape, and trafficking of women in the last 15 years is a statistically and sociologically documented, undeniable reflection of this masculine, militarist system’s misogynistic ontology.

​Critique of Symbolic Action from the Perspective of Political Philosophy

​The reactions of global women’s movements against the current violence and destruction often remain at the level of symbolic actions confined to specific days. The fundamental problem with this approach is that the actions are limited to daily practices and incidents, failing to penetrate the roots of the patriarchal mindset that generates violence and domination.

​From the perspective of political philosophy, the patriarchal system has established a tripartite structure of domination built upon the nation-state ideology and capitalist modernity.

​Only temporary and limited struggles against this structure are insufficient to protect women’s gains and do not allow for the questioning of the system. Permanent liberation depends on the transformation of this mindset through continuous and comprehensive resistance in every field.

​Women’s Reality: The Epistemology of Life and Peace

​Against the masculine methodology of war, women’s reality (from the Jineological (Women’s Science) perspective) is positioned as the fundamental truth of a democratic and humane society. This is a structure that inherently rejects violence and destruction. All violence produced by the patriarchal mindset is not merely individual aggression but the result of a systematic mindset that naturalizes war and turns men into instruments of their own war.

​Women’s movements must make this masculine ontology of war visible and form a common will and single voice against this destruction aimed at all humanity.

​The unity and common stance of women represent not just gender-based solidarity but a historical will capable of changing the destiny of humanity. This historical responsibility invites women’s movements to form a political front against the wars of the 21st century.

​The Dialectic of Denial: The Double Domination over Kurdish Women

​The denial of Kurdish identity, mother tongue, and existence signifies the ontological negation of a society. This politics of denial has created a two-tiered domination over Kurdish women: the chauvinistic assimilation policies of the nation-state and the double pressure of feudal/male-dominant relations.

​The prohibition of the mother tongue has led to the exclusion of Kurdish women (in high rates such as 98%) from political, economic, and social life, ensuring the cultural isolation of the society.

​The struggle of Kurdish women targets these two-tiered mechanisms of oppression, forming the social practical domain of the Democratic Modernity thesis against both the denial of the nation-state and the institutionalization of the patriarchal mindset.

​The Theoretical Value of the Manifesto: Philosophical Guarantee of Freedom and Peace

​The Manifesto for a Democratic Society and Peace by the Kurdish People’s Leader Abdullah Öcalan is a radical challenge to the inadequacies of classical political philosophy (especially the theories of Machiavelli and Hobbes that view the state as the ultimate solution) and liberal democracy.

​The core thesis of the Manifesto is the rejection of the nation-state’s violence-producing structure and the centering of women’s freedom as the fundamental and unchangeable principle of social liberation. This is not merely a demand for rights but an ontological declaration that the social structure itself must be rebuilt on a women-based, egalitarian foundation.

​New Social Contract Theory: Transferring Power to Society, Not the State

​Classical contract theories are based on the assumption that individuals surrender some of their rights to the Leviathan (State) in exchange for security and order. The Democratic Modernity paradigm, however, reverses this theory, arguing that the state is inherently a structure that produces oppression and violence and cannot provide security (especially for women).

​In this context, Öcalan’s paradigm proposes a new social contract that transfers the monopoly of power back to social self-organization instead of the state.

​The fundamental unit of this contract is the Commune. Democratic Confederalism, established through Communes, rejects the hierarchical and vertical structure of the nation-state, distributing power to the cells of society. This transforms Rousseau’s idea of direct democracy into a practical social form that overcomes the hierarchy and patriarchal domination created by the capitalist system.

​Organized Woman: Institutional Guarantees and Epistemological Transformation

​In Democratic Modernity, political participation is not only about elections. It is a continuous and direct action spread across all areas of life. The organized woman transforms from a passive victim figure into an active political subject who reconstructs life and politics.

​The institutional and epistemological guarantees of this subjectification are:

​Jineology (Women’s Science): This is not just a gender study, but a critical epistemology developed against the methodology of male-dominant science and knowledge. Jineology re-reads the social and natural sciences from a women’s perspective, centering freedom and equality in knowledge and opening a third path.

​Co-chairmanship System (Parity): This system is not just equality in representation (quota) but a veto and balance mechanism that prevents the male-dominant mindset from monopolizing decision-making structures. Co-chairmanship aims to break hierarchy and ensure decisions are made with common will.

​Redefinition of the Security Paradigm: From State to Commune Transfer

​The realization that the State, the patriarchal order, and existing family structures cannot provide a secure space free from violence for women necessitates a radical redefinition of the security paradigm. Security must now originate from organized social structures, not a central state apparatus. This shifts the understanding of security from individual protection to collective responsibility.

​Commune: Social Refuge and Self-Governance Unit

​The Commune is not just an administrative unit but also functions as a social refuge where violence is absent, and women can realize their will and perspective in life.

​These communes are established in different areas such as health, art, economy, agriculture, or self-defense, and encompass the entirety of social life. These structures represent a horizontal, decentralized, and voluntary organization model.

​By establishing Communes, women not only protect their own gains but also form a social defense force against all attacks directed at society and life. This goes beyond individual resistance, turning into an organized popular force that concretizes society’s ability to determine its own destiny.

​Self-Defense: An Instrument of Social Resistance Against Institutional Violence

​Self-defense has a three-layered conceptual meaning:

​Individual and Social Protection: Physical and psychological protection against male violence, femicides, and the culture of rape.

​Political Resistance: An organized stance and political resistance against all anti-women practices of the male-dominant power system (nation-state, capitalism, patriarchal order).

​Ideological Defense: The practice of protecting identity, language, and culture against the psychological and cultural assimilation policies applied to the individual and society.

​With the socialization of self-defense mechanisms, the authority of security is taken away from the state and transferred to society itself. This goes beyond the classical concept of civil disobedience, becoming a part of organized civil construction.

​Conclusion: Historical Necessity and the Horizon of the 21st Century

​The fundamental issue of the 21st century is the construction of Democratic Modernity against the destruction of Capitalist Modernity. The unity of women and their clear stance against war is an ontological necessity for the survival of humanity.

​The only force that can ensure the male mindset that makes war decisions loses its legitimacy is an organized society, led by organized women. This century’s advancement towards becoming the century of societies and women, not states, is only possible if women undertake this historical mission.

​November 25th is a symbol of this uninterrupted struggle and the stance against the patriarchal mindset, keeping alive the memory of the sacrifices made for women’s freedom.

How online toxic masculinity is shaping politics worldwide

Issued on:  26/11/2025 


Toxic masculinity and its incarnation on digital spaces, the so-called manosphere, seeks to normalise and legitimise hatred of women, and more and more young men are subscribing to these ideas. FRANCE 24's Sharon Gaffney speaks with Mariel Barnes, Assistant Professor at the La Follette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin-Madison, about the impact they are having on politics worldwide.

Video by: Sharon GAFFNEY

The rise of masculinism: From obscure online forums to ballot boxes (2/3)

LONG READ


For the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, FRANCE 24 examines a sharp rise in masculinist discourse that seeks to normalise and legitimise misogyny. This second article in a three-part series explores how masculinism has moved from the dark corners of the internet to become a central political tool. From the United States to South Korea, populist parties and authoritarian leaders are increasingly adopting the discourse and rolling back women’s rights.


Issued on: 25/11/2025 
By: Pauline ROUQUETTE

Maculinism, which was initially confined to obscure online forums, has become an important political tool. © Studio graphique FMM


Masculinist discourse is no longer just a muted background noise online. What once belonged to obscure subcultures on the internet is now being echoed, amplified and instrumentalised by political actors who are helping push the misogynistic ideology into the mainstream.

In the US, South Korea and parts of Europe, the anti-feminist rhetoric has become an effective electoral tool – a shared language that mobilises supporters and helps undermine democratic institutions.

“Although the masculinity ideology emerged in the Anglosphere, it has now taken off in many other countries too, from South Korea to Germany, including in France, where – for the first time – a man has been put under formal investigation for plotting a terror attack motivated by the incel [involuntary celibate, eds. note] movement,” a report published by the Gender and Geopolitics Observatory of the French geopolitical think-tank IRIS noted in October.

READ MOREShould France’s incel threat be treated like terrorism?

“Several factors have turned masculinism into an expanding political force,” the report continued, stating that platform algorithms were bringing like-minded users together and enabling masculinist networks and influencers to organise, spread and monetise their ideas through large-scale anti-feminist campaigns.

The online movement then quickly found its way into politics, where populist players stood ready to channel the male anger into electoral capital.
‘Bloke things’

“It’s the whole galaxy gravitating around [Donald] Trump – and especially Steve Bannon – that has set the strategic blueprint for uniting disparate masculinist groups and exploiting men’s grievances,” Stéphanie Lamy, researcher and author of the book “La Terreur Masculiniste” (The masculinist terror), explained.

“It costs less for a candidate to promise middle- and working-class men that they will regain control over ‘their women’, than to actually improve their material conditions,” she said.

In 2014, the US was the scene of the so-called Gamergate controversy – a sexist, anti-feminist harassment campaign that targeted female journalists and researchers.

“It was a large anti-feminist masculinist mobilisation that brought together fairly disparate groups under the one and same umbrella,” she said.

Many of the men who participated in Gamergate all shared the same core values: an hostility towards feminism, the anti-racist Black Lives Matter movement, so-called Social Justice Warriors (SJW), along with a contempt for both journalists and researchers.

Gamergate became a showcase for the American alt-right movement which strongly backed Trump during his first campaign to win the White House. According to IRIS, the anonymous administrator of the “The Red Pill” – a masculinist subgroup on Reddit – played “a key role in rallying young. anti-feminist men to vote for Trump”.

Lamy described it as “a fairly young voter base that had hardly voted at all before”.

In his 2024 re-election campaign, Trump sought to mobilise the fringe group again and appeared on masculinist podcasts like “The Joe Rogan Experience” – one of the most popular podcasts in the world, which in October drew 16 million listeners and averages at 200 million monthly downloads – to appeal to them. Nearly 90 percent of the show’s guests – and 80 percent of its audience – are male, with half of listeners aged between 18 and 34.

In February, 2024, Nigel Farage, the head of Britain’s far-right ReformUK party, appeared on the “Strike It Big” podcast where he described masculinist influencer Andrew Tate as “an important voice” for men. In the interview, Farage explained that young men’s masculinity was being looked down upon and that they were being told “you can’t be blokes, you can’t do laddish, fun, bloke things”.

The rise of masculinism: Violence and misogyny online (1/3)

According to Alice Apostoly, co-director of France’s Gender in Geopolitics Institute (GGI), said that even though few politicians, even conservative ones, are ready to openly align themselves with Tate’s rhetoric, they use it as a “symptom” of a broader malaise, claiming to “take young men’s mental health and their supposed ‘masculinity crisis’ into account”.

Trumpism was the first to grasp the mobilising force behind this type of rhetoric, which has since been used by other leaders around the world on their route to power. “Autocrats learn from one another,” Lamy remarked.

In Argentina, large mobilisations for women’s rights – including pro-choice and anti-femicide protest – actually ended up paving the way for Javier Milei’s rise to power. “They sparked a backlash from Christian nationalists and libertarians,” Lamy said. “And Milei knew how to unite these groups.”

Similarly, South Korea’s former president Yoon Suk Yeol, successfully courted the so-called Idaenam community, which Lamy described as “young men in their 20s frustrated by their lack of (sexual) opportunities”, to win the 2022 elections.

Researchers say that most of these young men are radicalised online, where they are exposed to misogynistic discourse and fed a masculinist propaganda pushed to them through platform algorithms.

“Masculinism is being used politically and is being offered as a societal project that incorporates not only masculinist proposals but also far-right ideas,” Apostoly said. “Young men are becoming a pool of valuable voters for these political players,” she said.

Last year, the Financial Times published an investigation which analysed recent election results from several countries. The findings showed that men under 30 are now turning out to vote in greater numbers than ever before – and most of them are voting for far-right parties.

Conservative think-tanks have picked up on this trend, and are trying to capitalise on it by rolling back legislation related to equality. Trump, for example, has signed dozens of executive orders that are in line with “Project 2025” – a societal blueprint created by the ultra-conservative American think-tank The Heritage Foundation.
Eroding rights

Apostoly said that for years now, a “coalition” of associations, academic websites and politicians has taken form in a bid to push back against feminist societal gains. This became particularly evident in the aftermath of the #MeToo movement, she said, where some started accusing feminist movements of going “too far” and “taking up way too much space”.

As masculinity networks have grown in both popularity and influence, landmark US legislation protecting abortion and LGBTQ+ rights have been rolled back in recent years.

This push has been driven by a combination of fathers’ rights groups (one of the first masculinist movements, which emerged in the 1960s-1970s), parents’ associations, medical organisations, and last but not least, influential Christian fundamentalist groups, Lamy said, citing a recent report from the European Parliamentary Forum.

“Their victories reinforce each other, more or less explicitly,” she said.

In the US, Trump has surrounded himself with political masculinist influencers, and attacks on gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights have become clear priorities on his agenda.

In South Korea, which is currently experiencing a strong anti-feminist backlash, one of Yoon’s 2022 election promises was to shutter the ministry for gender equality and family – the only public body supporting women who were affected by violence in a nation where the wage gaps and femicide rates are among the highest in the OECD.

“We’re dealing with pure and simple propaganda which is being instrumentalised by the hatred of women and which works at the ballot boxes,” she said, adding that “the radicalisation of young men towards reactionary parties and political projects” is happening on platforms “run by leaders [Marc Zuckerberg and Elon Musk] who have effectively sworn allegiance with Donald Trump, who support his ultra-liberal socio-economic agenda and openly align themselves with certain masculinist values.”

Just a few days ago, the French womens’ rights group La Fondation des Femmes sounded the alarm on Facebook’s parent group Meta, saying it was making certain content published by rights groups in Europe invisible after the company stopped all advertisement about politics, elections and social issues.

“The voices defending womens’ rights are being silenced even more,” the foundation wrote in a post on Instagram. “As if this wasn’t enough, the algorithm isn’t working in our favour, our content is made invisible and our messages are fading away.”

Once this propaganda has been legitimised politically, it no longer seeks to just appeal to those – it starts attacking those opposing it.
Political opponents, feminists and journalists in the visor

“This type of violence has very clear goals: to silence women and make them disappear from both the digital public space and the public space,” Apostoly said.

In India for instance, misogynistic online campaigns were targeting female politicians and journalists critical of Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi’s ruling party, IRIS said in its report.

Rana Ayyub, a prominent journalist, and Kavita Krishnan, an activist, have both been targeted. Lamy said that in Krishnan’s case – where the online harassment included daily rape and torture threats – “we finally realised that Prime Minister Narendra Modi was encouraging these acts and followed the accounts that were harassing her”.

Diane Shima Rwigara, the main opponent challenging Rwanda’s Paul Kagame in the 2017 presidential race, was subject to similar tactics.

A few days after announcing her candidacy, fake nude photos began to circulate online. “The goal was to accuse her of sexual immorality, to attack her sexuality, her person. Pro-government commentators and news outlets shared the photos to mock her without questioning whether the photos were real, making fun of her as a depraved woman,” Apostoly said.

The national electoral commission ended up rejecting Rwigara’s candidacy on administrative grounds, and Kagame was re-elected with 98.8 percent of the vote.

“Misogyny is an extremely powerful unifying force, and goes beyond partisan lines,” Lamy said, noting that while masculine supremacy is a gateway to the far right, radical masculinist circles can be found across the political spectrum.

“We are in a reactionary, fascist societal project,” Apostoly concluded. “This backlash against gender equality is symptomatic of a democracy that is sick. A democracy that’s in danger.”

This article was adapted from the original in French by Louise Nordstrom.

The rise of masculinism (3/3): Nine misogynistic propaganda arguments debunked

ANALYSIS


For the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, FRANCE 24 examines a sharp rise in masculinist discourse that seeks to normalise and legitimise misogyny. In this third and final part of the series, we look at some of the main arguments pushed by masculinist propaganda – and the facts and figures that debunk them.


Issued on: 25/11/2025 
By: Pauline ROUQUETTE

For the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, FRANCE 24 examines a sharp rise in masculinist discourse that seeks to normalise and legitimise misogyny. © Studio Graphique France Médias Monde

Claiming to rely on science, statistics or just first-hand stories presented as proof, masculinist propaganda spreads many ideas that might seem plausible at first glance. But this glib mix of distorted figures, poorly analysed studies and patchy rhetoric collapses in the face of hard evidence.

Studies and statistics in hand, FRANCE 24 dismantles some of the main arguments commonly pushed by masculinist movements.

• Argument 1: 'Just as many men as women are victims of intimate partner violence'

What the propaganda says:

This argument paints intimate partner violence as “symmetrical” or “reciprocal” – that is to say, that just as many men as women experience it in their lives. If this is the case, the argument made by masculinist movements goes, pointing the finger at men as the sole perpetrators of this kind of violence is blatant “misandry” – a prejudice or hatred/hostility towards men.

What the facts say:

Almost one in three women across the world – some 840 million people – are subjected to violence at the hands of their current or former partner, or face other forms of sexual violence from someone other than their partner, over the course of their life.

Within the European Union, 17.7 percent of women experience the threat or reality of physical and/or sexual violence throughout their lives at the hand of an intimate partner. This number grows if we take psychological violence into account, reaching 31.8 percent of women, according to figures published by the Fundamental Rights Agency in November 2024.

In France, 84 percent of people experiencing intimate partner violence in 2024 were women, placing the number of male victims in a clear minority. Women also represented 98 percent of those who had experienced sexual violence.

Violence against women: What is masculinism?

ENTRE NOUS © FRANCE 24
06:39

And while men also experience intimate partner violence, the structure of that violence is far from symmetrical. Intimate partner violence against women tends to be repeated more than that against men, and the broader context of male domination within society often means that the long-term consequences of that violence fall heavier on women.

“The structural inequalities that still persist in society and the learning of a culture of stereotypes contribute to the foundation on which intimate partner violence is built,” the Citizens and Justice Federation said.

The Canadian NGO SOS Violence Conjugale, which offers shelter as well as information, outreach and reference services to people who have experienced intimate partner violence, wrote in an article that it is also important to draw a difference between the violence of the aggressor – in most cases, a man – from the violence of someone defending themselves, sometimes called “reactive violence” or “violent resistance”.

What we need to understand:

Speaking about gendered violence doesn’t mean “forgetting” men who experience intimate partner violence. It just means accurately describing a massive phenomenon in which women remain far and away the main targets.

By claiming that intimate partner violence is largely “symmetrical”, this argument turns the balance of power on its head and erases the systematic nature of violence against women, instead framing it as a straightforward conflict between individuals.

“This argument of the symmetry of violence allows people to trivialise or even deny violence against women … and ultimately to deny the very existence of a heteropatriarchal system, a hierarchical system that gives privileges to men and oppresses women,” wrote Quebecois sociologist Louise Brossard.

• Argument 2: 'Women lie about violence to destroy men’s lives'
Variations: By accusing men of violence, women “are looking for fame” or “want to tear down men’s careers”

What the propaganda says:

Accusations of rape, assault or intimate partner violence are largely built on lies and used as a weapon to make money, gain legal advantage or destroy a man’s reputation or career.

What the facts say:

Most research on the subject agrees that the false rape allegations are rare, ranging from two to eight percent of charges filed depending on how the study is conducted.

Roughly three to five percent of rape or sexual assault charges are dismissed as false or misleading after investigation, the French ACI criminal law firm said.

According to the UK’s Channel4 fact-checking services, a British man is 230-times more likely to be raped than to be falsely accused of rape

In fact, the problem is largely the opposite than that described by masculinists – a massive percentage of violence against women never gets reported. According to the French justice ministry, “four out of five women impacted by violence don’t file charges”.

Meanwhile, the many controversies around male celebrities accused of sexual violence these past few years somewhat undercuts the idea that men accused of rape or other forms of sexual assault would see their career fall apart as a result.

“In general, the careers of wealthy or powerful men who are accused or even convicted of violence are not impacted that much,” said researcher Stéphanie Lamy, the author of “The Masculinist Terror”. “Especially if they are white.”

What we need to understand:

Spinning a few highly publicised cases into a general rule is a disinformation strategy.

False accusations exist, and they should be dealt with and punished. But they remain an incredibly small minority, dwarfed by the scale of very real violence that women are subjected to every day, whether it’s reported or not.
• Argument 3: 'The justice system is biased against men and fathers'
What the propaganda says:

Judges are biased towards mothers, and fathers are systematically robbed of custody of their children.

What the facts say:

It’s true that in France, after a couple is separated, the child’s primary residence is still largely that of their mother (around 70 to 80 percent of cases). But in most cases, this is the result of an amicable agreement between both parties (around 80 to 85 percent of cases), not a decision handed down against the father after a bitter fight in front of a judge.

Gender-based violence in Pakistan: Female influencers targeted

FOCUS © FRANCE 24
06:11

What’s more, cases of shared custody have been rising steadily for more than 20 years. If a father asks for shared custody, the request is granted in 86 percent of cases, as podcaster Cédric Rostein pointed out on social media.

Several studies have shown that most custody decisions favour the person who had already been most responsible for the child’s care before the separation rather than open favouritism towards one gender over another.
What we need to understand:

Masculinist narratives distort reality to conceal very real problems that mothers face in the French justice system: unpaid child support (in 25 to 35 percent of cases), mothers who bear the mental and material burden of raising a child alone, the struggle to have family violence recognised by a court of law.

These movements paint family courts as “pro-women”, neglecting to mention the fact that women are left disproportionately poorer after a separation and remain over-represented among those most vulnerable to violence.

• Argument 4: 'Feminism is destroying society, the family and even desire'
What the propaganda says:

Feminism is responsible for the “crisis of the family”, declining birth rates, celibacy and male sexual frustration.
What the facts say:

As for the family, the data shows above all that the rise of feminism coincides with a decrease in forced marriages and child marriages, as well as a decline in intimate partner violence in countries that invest heavily in pro-equality policies.

And when it comes to desire, investigations into marital satisfaction show that the most stable couples are often those in which the domestic division of labour and manner of communicating are shared in the most equal way.

What we need to understand:

The argument that a given movement is “destroying society” has long been a staple of counter-revolutions: it was used to argue against the abolition of slavery, the right of women to vote and the expansion of civil rights.

Enduring inequalities are presented as necessary for “the survival of civilisation”, despite the fact that data show that the most equal societies are also the most stable and prosperous.
• Argument 5: 'A woman who has already had multiple sexual partners can no longer become attached to just one man'
What the propaganda says:

A “good” woman is supposed to have little or no previous sexual experience.

The “bodycount” theory is based on a pseudo-scientific argument built around oxytocin, a hormone linked to emotional attachment. With each sexual encounter, the theory claims, a woman will “release” a certain amount of oxytocin that will “bond” her to her sexual partner. A woman who has had “too many” sexual encounters will exhaust her stockpiles of oxytocin, leaving her unable to form further bonds or become securely attached to a future partner.
What the facts say:

The body synthesises oxytocin continuously throughout a person’s life. There is no serious scientific study that suggests that having a higher number of sexual partners has any negative impact on the production of oxytocin for women, or its effect on them.

'Manosphere' influencers prey on the insecurities of young men, expert says

© France 24
10:25

What we need to understand:

This argument is built on a double standard: male sexuality is considered neutral or praise-worthy while female sexuality is considered degrading for women.

This pseudo-scientific theory also justifies the control of both the body and private life of women, as well as pathologising women who have an independent sexual life.
• Argument 6: 'Women have too many privileges'
Variations: “Feminism has gone too far – women now have more rights than men do”
What the propaganda says:

Feminists have gained “too many” rights: protective laws, hiring quotas, public policies based on gender – men are now at a glaring disadvantage.
What the facts say:

Economically speaking, it’s a hard case to make. According to figures published by Equal Measures 2030, more than 2.4 billion women and girls live in countries scoring “bad” or “very bad” in terms of gender equality.

At this rate, the report reads, “no country [of the 139 examined] is on path to reach gender equality by 2030.”

In France, women still make less than men – even in the same job – and their annual income is on average 22 percent lower, often due to interruptions to their career caused by having and raising children.

Despite this, women still shoulder the lion’s share of unpaid domestic and care work, are less represented in positions of political and economic power and continue to be the main victims of sexist and sexual violence.
What we need to understand:

The “privileges” denounced by masculinist movements are really efforts to correct a massive imbalance between men and women, not an attempt to put women in a dominant position over men.

The gender pay gap is back: What’s behind America’s backslide on equal pa

51 PERCENT © FRANCE 24
12:37

• Argument 7: 'Laws around consent have gone too far, you can’t even ask women out anymore'

What the propaganda says:

Trying to build a “culture of consent” will make “everything” punishable under the law: coming on too strong, giving someone a kiss, a harmless misunderstanding – we’ll all become crippled by paranoia.
What the facts say:

Recent laws related to consent do not criminalise flirting, but sexual acts without free and informed consent. They replace the logic of “Did she try to fight?” with “Did she clearly say ‘yes’?”

Studies show that what is being targeted by these laws is not one-off misunderstandings, but persistent patterns of harassment, pressure and duress, whether explicit or implicit – all things described by those subjected to them as clearly unwanted.

Several investigations into the sexual lives of young people show that teaching consent improves the quality of relationships while reducing the risk of violence – none of which stops people from flirting.
What we need to understand:

The refrain that “you can’t even ask women out anymore” only serves to delegitimise the basic idea that a woman’s desire counts just as much as a man’s.
• Argument 8: 'Men are the real victims'
What the propaganda says:

Men will be crushed by feminism, abandoned to suffer alone with their own burdens (higher rates of suicide, increased risk of struggling at school and experiencing unemployment) while all the money goes to women.
What the facts say:

While there are very real mental health problems that impact men more than women – including higher rates of suicide, addiction and violence against other men, research suggests that these are strongly connected to norms traditionally considered masculine such as an unwillingness to ask for help or higher readiness to take risks.

Masculinist narratives use these very real struggles to attack feminism rather than questioning the worldview that underpins them.
What we need to understand:

Masculinism weaponises real distress by turning it against women rather than challenging its structural causes such as precarity, toxic masculinity and a lack of appropriate public policy measures.
• Argument 9: 'Femicides are just individual crimes rather than a systematic problem'
What the propaganda says:

The murders of women are tragic individual events, but there’s no connecting line between them. To frame them as “femicides” is just ideological.
What the facts say:

In 2024, 83,000 women and girls were intentionally killed across the world, including roughly 50,000 who were killed by their intimate partner or a family member, according to UN Women. To put it another way, 137 women and girls lose their lives every day at the hands of their companion or their kin – murders that are “often the culmination of repeated episodes of gender-based violence”.

Every year in France, almost 120 women are killed by their current or former partner. On November 20 alone, four women were killed by their former partners. Official reports show the same factors repeating over and over: past instances of violence, a recent separation or a refusal to respect judicial protection orders.

These figures call for a structural interpretation: to view these murders not as individual outbreaks of violence, but as the tip of an iceberg of gender-based and intimate partner violence.
What we need to understand:

Reducing femicides to simple isolated tragedies allows masculinist movements to deny the systematic character of male-perpetrated violence and ignore the collective responsibility of aggressors.

By depoliticising these crimes, this argument blocks any kind of ambitious political response and perpetuates the myth that “feminists are exaggerating” and that “men are the real victims”.

This article has been adapted from the original in French.