In her new book, Good Guys, Bad Guys: The Perils of Men’s Gender Activism (NYU Press), Emily Carian, UC Irvine assistant professor of teaching of sociology, explores the motivations behind men's gender activism. Using in-depth interviews with men’s rights activists and feminist men, she finds a surprising driving force behind their engagement: to be perceived as "good men." Below, Carian shares how this desire shapes men’s trajectories into gender activism, why – intriguingly - even feminist men may inadvertently be reinforcing gender inequality, and what strategies could help to move beyond superficial motivations to actively challenge gender inequality.

Q: What motivated your deep dive into men's gender activism?

A: I first became interested in the men’s rights movement when I came across it online shortly after I graduated from college. The movement’s foundational belief is that men are disadvantaged or discriminated against because of their gender, while women are privileged, and that feminism is to blame. Men’s rights activists engage in different forms of activism, online and in person to improve men’s group position and outcomes. I was curious how men came to identify with the movement and believe in its ideology. When it came time to do this research, feminism was having a sort of cultural resurgence with the release of Sheryl Sandberg’s Lean In and several celebrities publicly calling themselves feminists. I thought men who are feminists were an interesting comparison case for men’s rights activists. Feminist men believe that women are disadvantaged and that they, as men, are privileged. They engage in feminist activism that aims to dismantle men’s privilege and improve women’s outcomes. So I wanted to compare feminist men and men’s rights activists because they’re very different in terms of what they believe and the implications of their activism for gender inequality in our society.

Q: In your book, you explain that both feminist men and men's rights activists share a common aim to be seen as "good men." Elaborate for us and explain how this shapes their trajectories into gender activism.

A: I was surprised to find that there were a lot of commonalities between feminist men and men’s rights activists. In the book, I focus on the similarities in their motivations for joining their respective social movements and doing gender activism. Both groups of men are keenly aware of the feminist claim that men are privileged because of their gender. They interpret this to mean that others see them as immoral, which conflicts with their own understanding of themselves: they see themselves and want to be seen as good men. The idea that men are privileged evokes discomfort and negative emotions, like guilt and anger, and threatens their moral sense of self. Gender activism is what I call a “privilege renegotiation strategy”: it helps men navigate negative emotions and moral identity threat in light of this new information about their privilege. Feminism allows men to feel like they are exceptions to the rule that men are the bad guys. Men’s rights activism allows men to claim that they themselves are victims of gender discrimination and so are morally blameless. Feminism and men’s rights activism are two very different strategies with different implications for dealing with the same identity challenge.

Q: It's intriguing that even feminist men can inadvertently reinforce gender inequality. How do they do this?

A: Men are motivated to become feminists to feel like and be seen as good men, and this means they are often more focused on that identity work than the actual work of activism. To construct their identities as feminist allies, they often engage in boundary-making that compares themselves to other, nonfeminist men who they position as less morally good than themselves. For instance, many feminist men described themselves as more agentic and braver than nonfeminist men because they were able to rise above their own gender socialization and challenge themselves and their privilege by becoming feminists. Agency and bravery are masculine-typed traits. When feminist men did this sort of boundary-making, they reinforced the association between masculinity, morality, and superiority. They not only reified inequality among men, but also between masculinity and femininity.

Q: How do the motivations of both groups hinder their ability to effectively challenge gender inequality? Can you share some examples from your interviews and research? Were any of your findings surprising or unexpected? How so?

A: In the book, I focus a lot on how feminist men’s motivation limits what they can accomplish for the feminist movement. Feminists want to recruit men to the movement so that men can contribute their labor, resources, and power toward feminist change. The feminist men I interviewed are genuinely interested in making society a more equitable place, but they’re also motivated subconsciously by a personal, almost self-centered reason: they want to feel like and be seen as good men. This carries into any activism they do.

One example from the book is Theo, who was a thirty-something professional working at a university. He created programming for men students to discuss masculinity and work together to make their campus more equitable and inclusive. In one of these workshops, a student talked about a recent experience during an internship, when his boss asked him which of the women interns he would like to sleep with. The student didn’t know how to respond in the situation. He didn’t want to engage in sexist talk but also didn’t want to risk retaliation from his boss. The student did nothing, which is understandable given his position as an intern, but also objectionable given how egregious the sexism was. Theo didn’t push his students to see how their inaction in situations like these make them complicit. Their conversations never moved beyond how men can deal with the tensions and difficulties of being feminist allies. That’s because Theo’s activism is borne out of his concerns about his own identity and so centers the feelings and challenges of people like him, not women, trans men, non-binary people, people of color, or queer people who would benefit most from dismantling privilege.

I saw similar themes in the activism of men’s rights activists. The difference is that men’s rights activists’ identity work and discomfort with their own privilege invested them in a misogynist movement with an agenda that would exacerbate inequality. In the book, I compare Theo to Alex, who is a thirty-something men’s rights activist and also a straight, white man. He talked about the idea of straight, white, and male privilege as very uncomfortable and threatening his sense of self. Alex turned to the men’s rights movement and the white racial politics of Donald Trump’s campaign and presidency to deal with his emotions.

Q: Given the challenges presented in the book, what concrete and effective strategies can you suggest for moving beyond superficial motivations and actively challenging gender inequality?

A: Many of my interviews showed the importance of gender studies and social sciences courses in exposing men to information about gender inequality and motivating them to engage in gender activism more seriously. Universities should offer these courses and fund these programs, including with more tenure-track positions.

I also found that men became more meaningfully engaged in feminist activism if they had been invited to participate in low-stakes activism by a friend. Feminist organizations could partner with gender studies and social sciences instructors to offer well-timed opportunities to get men involved. Then feminist organizations can provide easy on-ramping to more serious activism.

Finally, we need to contest narratives that excuse or obscure misogyny and male supremacism. When journalists and even researchers talk about the men’s rights movement and other misogynist groups like incels, they often do not point out their misogyny, danger, and violence. This allows these groups to deny accusations of misogyny and men looking for ways to construct themselves as good people can use the movement as a privilege renegotiation strategy.