In contemporary discourse, associating Emma Goldman with masculinism often appears provocative, even contradictory. Goldman is commonly classified as a radical feminist figure, while masculinism is routinely caricatured as reactionary, misogynistic, or patriarchal.
Yet this opposition is largely artificial. A serious and honest reading of Goldman reveals that it is not only possible—but intellectually coherent—to defend masculine sovereignty while remaining fully aligned with a genuinely Goldmanian framework.
Emma Goldman Against Moralistic and Statist Feminism
Emma Goldman never defended abstract equality, bureaucratic emancipation, or permanent victimhood. On the contrary, she strongly opposed:
- bourgeois feminism, which sought to integrate women into an already oppressive system;
- marriage, which she viewed as an economic and moral institution of domination;
- the moralization of relations between the sexes, grounded in duty rather than desire.
For Goldman, liberation was not about redistributing power roles, but about abolishing the structures that made such roles necessary in the first place.
She explicitly rejected the notion that women were morally superior to men or eternally oppressed victims. In her view, the State, imposed morality, and social authority deform both men and women, though in different ways.
The Misunderstanding Surrounding “Masculinism”
The issue is not masculinism per se, but what is meant by the term.
If masculinism implies:
- resentment toward women,
- nostalgia for authoritarian patriarchy,
- sexual or social domination,
then it is incompatible with Goldman and should be rejected outright.
But this is not the only possible interpretation of masculinism.
A Masculinism Compatible with Emma Goldman
There exists a libertarian masculinism, centered not on domination, but on individual masculine sovereignty. This masculinism holds that:
- men are not a collectively guilty class;
- they must not be sacrificed morally, economically, or biologically (war, compulsory labor, collective guilt);
- their worth does not lie in their social utility or their obligation to protect or serve others;
- they have a right to desire, refusal, autonomy, and boundaries—just as women do.
This is not an ideology of power, but an ideology of refusal of sacrifice.
And this refusal lies at the very heart of Goldman’s thought.
Refusing Male Submission and Relational Games
One essential point must be stated clearly:
a man must not be subordinate to a woman, just as a woman must not be subordinate to a man.
Domination is not only institutional; it can also be relational, emotional, and moral. A masculinism consistent with Goldman rejects:
- emotional submission disguised as virtue;
- the obligation to constantly please, reassure, or “prove one’s worth”;
- manipulative relational games—jealousy, emotional leverage, moral blackmail.
Entering such dynamics is not free love, but another form of alienation.
Goldman insisted that relationships must be grounded in mutual willingness, not fear of loss, guilt, or psychological dependence. A free man must neither dominate nor submit. He must retain the right to withdraw, refuse, and set boundaries—without being shamed as immature, selfish, or emotionally deficient.
Refusing games is not a rejection of women; it is a rejection of manipulation, regardless of who employs it.
Individual Sovereignty as the Point of Convergence
The true point of reconciliation between Emma Goldman and masculinism lies in a simple principle:
No individual should be instrumentalized in the name of a collective or relational cause.
Not the man for the woman,
not the woman for the man,
not either for society.
Goldman rejected moral debt—sexual, emotional, or social. Love was to be free or not at all. Responsibility was to be chosen, never imposed.
A masculinism faithful to this principle does not seek to restore a past order, but to free itself from a new moral order in which men are expected to be guilty, useful, protective, or emotionally available in one direction only.
Chosen Masculinity, Not Prescribed Masculinity
Goldman never theorized masculinity explicitly, but her position implies a clear vision:
- masculinity as voluntary, not institutionalized;
- responsibility as freely assumed, not demanded;
- relationships based on mutual desire, not duty or moral pressure.
She would likely have held contempt for the morally domesticated man just as she rejected the woman confined to purity, victimhood, or moral superiority.
Conclusion: The Free Man—Neither Submissive nor Dominant
Reconciling Emma Goldman and masculinism does not require intellectual contortions, but moral clarity.
Defending men does not mean dominating women.
Rejecting collective guilt does not mean denying injustice.
Refusing submission does not mean declaring war between the sexes.
It is precisely this narrow ridge—the free man, neither sacrificed, nor submissive, nor dominating—that Emma Goldman would have recognized as legitimate.
A truly libertarian masculinism is not Goldman’s enemy, but one of her most coherent heirs.
Leave a Reply