A space for men within feminism? A qualitative analysis of Italian men's accounts

Within the academic discussion on gender equality, the focus on men has become increasingly relevant, acknowledging that gender equality cannot be achieved through the efforts of women alone (Van Laar et al., 2024). Our interest in men's role within feminism is not only driven by the belief that feminism can benefit from men's contribution, but also by the conviction that men can benefit from feminism as well. Critical men's studies scholars recognise that men are the main perpetrators of sexism and, through their privileged position, may effectively influence other men's behaviours toward gender harmony (Connell, 2005a; Van Laar et al., 2024). Concurrently, differences in class, ethnicity, nationality, age, ability and sexuality cut across the category of men, distributing the benefits and costs of gender inequality unevenly among them (Connell, 2005a; Kimmel, 2005; Kimmel & Wade, 2018).

According to Connell's theory of masculinity (2005b), multiple configurations of masculinity exist, situated within a hierarchical system of power relations. These configurations are constituted through social practices that position men in relation to one another, and to women, reinforcing or challenging patterns of dominance and subordination. Practices like subordination, complicity and marginalisation enable some groups of men to maintain a hegemonic position over others and over women. Subordination may be enacted through using derogatory language (e.g., ‘sissy’), political and cultural exclusion, economic discrimination, legal and street violence, harassment and even murder. Subordinated groups may have relationships of complicity with hegemonic groups by accepting an overall system of oppression and thus benefitting from the ‘patriarchal dividend’. The interaction of gender with other social categories (e.g., class, ethnicity) produces ‘marginalised masculinities’, which lie outside the privileges of hegemonic masculinities and are subjected to stereotypes and narratives imposed by dominant groups. While Connell frames masculinities as configurations of social practice, we analyse how men discursively make sense of and negotiate these practices in relation to feminism, treating discourse as a space where hegemonic, complicit and subordinated masculinities are interpreted, justified and contested (Wetherell & Edley, 1999).

Within the intersectional framework, men are conceived of as both oppressors and oppressed; and feminism can benefit men as well as women by tackling multiple, intersecting forms of oppression (Tarrant, 2009). Historically, men's involvement has elicited mixed feelings within feminist movements: some groups reject male input entirely and claim exclusively female spaces (separatist groups; Tarrant, 2009), while others prefer male allies who take a backseat and offer autonomy-oriented support (Wiley & Dunne, 2019). Hostility towards men through some feminist actions has further fuelled the stigma around feminism, recognisable in a long-standing slew of stereotypes portraying feminists as angry, men-hating women willing to overrule men (Anderson, 2009; hooks, 2014). Although most of the literature on feminism addresses women's attitudes and identification (Siegel & Calogero, 2021), interest in men's talk about feminism keeps growing. Qualitative research has identified a pervasive dualistic ‘good/bad’ construction of feminism among women and men in Western countries. On one side, there is feminism's acceptable face: a reasonable and legitimate feminism that claims gender equality; on the other side, aggressive, men-hating, unfeminine and extreme feminism (Calder-Dawe & Gavey, 2016; Edley & Wetherell, 2001; Riley, 2001). Holding such negative stereotypes about feminists results in a reduced willingness to identify themselves as feminists and, thus, to engage in collective action for gender equality (e.g., Moore & Stathi, 2019).

Beyond investigating men's constructions of feminism, research has mainly focused on how men can support gender equality (e.g., Madsen et al., 2020; Wiley & Dunne, 2019). Less is known about the ways in which men's constructions of feminism intertwine with their positioning and feminist identity development. Gaining a deeper insight into these dimensions provides a clearer understanding of men's internal work towards feminist identification, how they negotiate such (non)identification in relation to their gender socialisation and the underlying motivations and implications of their discursive practices.

Several forms of male positioning related to feminism have been reported: the postfeminists, the pro-feminists or ‘allies’, the ‘unsure’ and the ones who explicitly call themselves feminists.

Postfeminism refers to the claim that gender equality has already been achieved, dismissing feminism as no longer necessary (McRobbie, 2009). Such a claim has been described as backlash against feminism but also as a media and cultural discourse linked to neoliberalism. Postfeminist discourse conceives the concepts of ‘empowerment’ and ‘choice’ as consumer activities, dismissing political engagement and collective action. As a result, feminism as a political and social movement is undermined (O’Neill, 2015). Such discourses are disseminated by the media and used by Western governments to demonstrate their ‘progressive’ stance on gender issues (McRobbie, 2009). Postfeminism has also been linked to third- and fourth-wave feminists, focused on personal empowerment and choice, where the body is presented as a source of women's power without any critical analysis of the sociocultural barriers facing women (Day & Wray, 2018). Between antifeminists and pro-feminists, there is a ‘grey area’ made of men who reject any label because they are ‘unsure’ of their own placement or because of the stigma attached to the feminist label, despite showing antisexist attitudes (Silver et al., 2019).

Pro-feminist men support feminism without assuming a feminist identification, believe that men can never fully understand what it is like to be a woman and that a man who calls himself ‘feminist’ runs the risk of colonising feminism or looking like he has all the answers (Flood, 1998). For men, pro-feminism has been considered one of the main forms of resistance to hegemonic masculinity (Pease, 2000); its history can be traced back to the first- and second-wave feminist movements, when several pro-feminist men joined the feminist movements or men's self-consciousness groups to deconstruct gendered cultural conditioning (Tarrant, 2009). Some research has specifically focused on men's feminist identity development. Baird et al. (2007) found that feminist identity resulted from personal experiences that raised men's awareness of sexism and male privilege and challenged their acceptance of traditional gender roles. Concurrently, these men experienced isolation resulting from a lack of support from women who questioned their feminist identification, as well as from difficulties in connecting with other men. Similarly, Siegel et al. (2022) defined feminist identification as an ongoing process revolving around several dimensions (e.g., upbringing environment, internal work, activism). Again, some participants reported experiencing backlash from women who questioned their role. These studies were the first to investigate men's experiences as feminists by highlighting some challenges to feminist identity development and engagement in feminist movements.

Another related line of research investigated how men's feminist identification translates into activism. Kelly (2015) found that men were less likely to identify as feminists because they associated feminism with women. Those who identified publicly as feminists were more likely to define feminism as ‘equality for everyone’ and to translate their feminist identity into activism. Our work aims to further develop these lines of research by delving into Italian men's discursive practices about feminists and feminism and into men's roles within it, exploring how they negotiate their space and identities on the path to feminist identification and action.

Situating the research

Our empirical research took place in Italy in 2022 as part of the first author's PhD project.

Italy is among the few European countries where sexuality and affectivity education programmes in schools are not yet mandatory, despite growing public concern about violence against women. One hundred and eleven women were killed in 2024, and 96 of those cases occurred within the family/affective relationships (Ministero dell’Interno, 2025). Generally, public reaction to femicide is strong indignation towards the male offender, but still, too often, the well-known ‘not all men’ defensive argument arises, stifling calls for collective accountability and awareness (Basilicata, 2025). More than 6 million 16- to 75-year-old women in Italy have endured some form of physical or sexual violence during their lifetime, but still, the victims, mostly women, face cultural obstacles that might hinder their willingness to report (Istituto Nazionale di Statistica [Istat], 2025). Although some efforts to recognise and address violence against women have been made, such as the so-called ‘Red Code’ (Legge 19 luglio 2019, n.69, 2019), an enduring resistance prevents a deeper insight into our cultural heritage and men's education. Women who experience violence are often targets of victim-blaming discourses that subtly justify male perpetrators (Fullone, 2021).

In Italy as well as in other contexts, far-right parties have promoted hegemonic national masculinity, providing the image of the tough man in charge, who devalues the masculinity of others and views migrant males as dangerous, in line with a logic of Western White male supremacism (Pacilli, 2020). Furthermore, Italy's first female prime minister requested to be named using the masculine article before the title ‘president’, and implemented policies against affective and sex education, dismissing any possibility that ‘the first woman in power’ could advance feminist demands. Feminist issues are used to advance xenophobic and racist campaigns in order to promote a traditionalist view of women as mothers and the natural heterosexual family (Pacilli, 2020). Gender oppression is portrayed as a non-Western problem, with an emphasis on the issue of physical violence against women while neglecting to address the root causes of women's discrimination (Pacilli, 2020).

Concurrently, feminism in Italy, mainly in the forms of transfeminism or intersectional feminism, acts online and offline to demand the end of male violence against women and sexual minorities and to promote self-determination (Semia Women's Fund, 2023). In recent years, several men have joined feminism as pro-feminists or feminists, raised their voices and created spaces to question traditional gender roles to provide men with new models and opportunities for self-expression (Mancini, 2023). The model of traditional masculinity in Italy has been linked to characteristics such as showing oneself as dominant, self-confident, independent, risk-taking and successful. Conversely, qualities traditionally attributed to femininity, such as emotionality, kindness, sensitivity and care, are systematically rejected and devalued, which is why some scholars talk about the mandates of antifemininity and heterosexuality as pillars of traditional masculinity (Pacilli, 2020; Volpato, 2022). Claims for cultural change are growing, despite obstacles such as the problematic cultural narratives around feminism and the ‘postfeminist’ sensibility. In this context, we explored how participants’ constructions of feminism translate into different discursive positions (Wetherell & Edley, 2014), and how men negotiate their space and identity within feminism.

Methodology

Our research is grounded in social constructionism. Thus, we acknowledge that meanings are co-constructed through language in interaction, and that our knowledge is historically, socially and culturally situated. Accordingly, this paper focuses on how men discursively construct ‘feminist’ and ‘nonfeminist’ positions, rather than on determining who qualifies as a ‘true’ feminist. Reflexively, we recognise our own theoretical and metatheoretical stance, including the constructionist and social psychology approach, as well as our feminist theoretical background. We also acknowledge how our interpretations are filtered by our social location as White, well-educated, Italian, cisgender, heterosexual, feminist women.

Analysis and discussion

We generated three overarching themes. Each theme was developed as a constellation of discursive positions, outlining the interplay between participants’ constructions and positioning regarding feminism and the development of feminist identification and awareness.

‘Double-faced feminism: From bad to good feminism’ refers to participants’ construction of feminism as dualistic: ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ feminism.

Conclusion

Consistent with the extant literature (e.g., Calder-Dawe & Gavey, 2016), we identified a binary construction of feminism: a moderate and liberal side pursuing equality for everyone, open to men, thus legitimate; and the other side, referred to as extreme, shallow, aggressive, men-hating, wanting to overrule men, thus dismissed as illegitimate. This binary construction and the widespread narrative of ‘feminism is about women’ were shared among participants regardless of feminist identification, despite resulting in different positionings. For nonfeminists, the focus on the controversial aspects of feminism and the belief that feminism is for women justified their role as outsiders. For feminists, feminist identification resulted in a challenging process of negotiation as they attempted to define what space they are allowed in within feminism. Feminist interviewees distanced themselves from the ‘toxic’ behaviours of certain feminists, depicted as counterproductive and as negatively affecting the whole movement. The fear of external backlash risks confining feminists to ‘a narrow interactional choreography of unruffled calm that demands considerable emotional labour’ to avoid accidentally confirming antifeminist arguments (Calder-Dawe & Gavey, 2016, p. 502), thus partially depriving feminism of its radical potential (Edley & Wetherell, 2001).

The narrative linking feminism to women fuels the belief that men cannot qualify as ‘100% feminists’ but as ‘allies’ at most. Like tightrope walkers, male feminists try to balance between the urgency to join the feminist fight and the need to give space to women due to fear of being perceived as ‘intruders’, a fear validated by feminist women's preference for male allies who take the back seat and offer autonomy-oriented support (Wiley & Dunne, 2019). Action was used to measure one's level of commitment to feminism. For some, feminist identification was disconnected from participation in (extreme) feminist movements, resulting in ‘outsider’ or ‘isolated feminist’ positionings. For others, there was the necessity of both individual and collective action. However, the risk of internal backlash – the tendency of some feminist women to question feminist men's identification and action – justifies men's tendency to step back and give space to women. On the other hand, this gives rise to uncertainty among men about their role, which makes them feel unwelcome and excluded (Siegel et al., 2022).

Feminists described their journey toward feminist consciousness as a work in progress, wherein having significant relationships with women was one of the main catalysts for this self-questioning process (Siegel et al., 2022). For some, feminism was something that one believes, while for more ‘committed feminists’, being a feminist required a deeper engagement with themselves, and thus recognising the problems embedded in traditional masculinity and acting to be part of the change. Feminists viewed the theoretical lens of feminism as useful for men in deconstructing gender norms. For some, feelings of isolation stemming from poor interactions with other men, due to a lack of emotional vocabulary or endorsement of sexist attitudes, was an additional incentive to approach feminism.

Our analysis extends previous work on men and feminism (Calder-Dawe & Gavey, 2016; Edley & Wetherell, 2001) by highlighting the deep entanglement between men's constructions of feminism and their feminist identification and action, conceived of as a constellation of discursive positionings whose meaning is constantly open to interpretation and negotiation. Moreover, we delved into the path towards feminist identity development, showing different ways in which men assume or avoid the ‘feminist’ label, and how participants’ discursive practices were deployed to affirm their belonging to or distance from feminism. Importantly, our work sheds light on the complexity of men's internal work towards feminist identification, conceived of as practices developed and negotiated in relation to masculinity (Wetherell & Edley, 2014). In line with Connell's theory (Connell, 2005b), we interpret participants’ nonfeminist and feminist discursive positions as masculine accomplishments: the former is seen as subtly complicit with the hierarchical gender system of power, while the latter is seen as pursuing the ‘demolition’ of hegemonic masculinity while adopting masculinities resistant to patriarchy. However, that men self-identify as feminist is not necessarily good news if this identification is equated with a minimal belief in equality, just as the existence of nonfeminists is not intrinsically problematic if their refusal reflects a sensitivity to issues of appropriation. What matters, instead, are the ways in which men discursively construct their place within feminism – whether through active participation, supportive withdrawal or rhetorical distancing.

Our work also has some practical implications, such as the importance of creating spaces where men can process their gender socialisation and deconstruct the roles that undermine their well-being. In the absence of these spaces, the discomfort reported by some men could make them susceptible to men's rights activists' movements (Pacilli, 2020). This is especially true in the age of digital feminism, where certain forms of communication are experienced by some men as exclusionary, contributing to a gender struggle of mutual hostility that ultimately risks distancing men and women from the cause. Applying intersectional and critical men's studies frameworks (Connell, 2005a; Tarrant, 2009) to our analysis, we claim that feminist identification appears as an ongoing and challenging work of deconstruction and reconstruction where men negotiate their space to contribute to the cause while simultaneously redefining their role as men. This work contributes to feminist psychology by showing both the boundaries and possibilities of men's identification with feminism and how their claims are tied to broader negotiations of power, legitimacy and gendered expectations. To understand these dynamics, men's engagement in feminism must be analysed as a situated practice that either sustains or undermines feminism's transformative potential.