On Being a Male Feminist in the Army

“The British Army’s culture is built upon strong values, high standards and a sense of belonging to an effective fighting force.” 

~Director Personnel

The British Army, a venerable organisation steeped in tradition and defined by its hierarchical structure, command approach, and the regimental system, now navigates a difficult and complex time of cultural change.

While official policies champion diversity, inclusion, and modernised leadership, a persistent undercurrent of cultural resistance shapes the lived experiences of those within its ranks. And for progressive male feminists who actively challenge entrenched viewpoints and advocate for our sisters in arms, this experience can be fraught with needless challenges. This can exact a heavy toll; career stagnation, reputational damage, social isolation, and targeted harassment both online and in person because, at the moment, this type of ally represents the few and not the many. The Army wishes to modernise and harness the full potential of its people to help eradicate unacceptable behaviours, and it must. In that case, it would do well to add to its battlebox a critical examination of the barriers that exist for those advocating change. It is the responsibility of leadership, after all, to nurture a cultural mindset where active bystanding and progressive ideals are wholly valued and widely encouraged.

Those who challenge unacceptable behaviours can be a powerful weapon against systemic issues that put our service personnel at risk. However, this article will explore some challenges male feminists can face when they live and breathe that role within the Army.

A male feminist?

Male feminism is not about claiming space in the feminist movement but instead using one’s position to encourage meaningful progress in, in our case, a resistant environment. Male feminists actively challenge the status quo and outdated norms, support those advocating for change, and confront discrimination whether in policy, culture, or daily interactions. In organisations like the Army this means not just genuinely believing in fairness but working to dismantle systemic barriers, amplifying marginalised voices, and doing what we can to ensure that opportunities, leadership, and recognition are based on true merit rather than tradition or bias.

Male feminists fit the model of active bystanders in every way. They:

• Educate themselves: Foremost, they learn about feminism, equity, and systemic barriers because understanding the issues is the first step to meaningful change.
• Listen and amplify women’s voices: They seek to understand women’s perspectives and support their leadership. This allows their insights to drive progress and belonging.
• Challenge sexist behaviour: They call out discrimination and outdated attitudes which helps to build a culture where sexism isn’t tolerated.
• Support policies: They advocate for fairness and inclusivity in the Army because long-term progress comes from structural change.
• Be an ally in everyday life: They support colleagues and challenge bias in decisions because small, consistent actions create cultural change.
• Promote intersectionality: They recognise how factors like race and neurotype affect inequality because different women face unique barriers.
• Engage in community activities: They take part in discussions (face to face and online), mentoring, and initiatives to build momentum for change.

Resistance to evolution

The Army prides itself on adaptability, yet internal cultural transformation can be glacial, hindered by the weight of slow decisions (for big-ticket issues) and poor accountability. While important for operational effectiveness, hierarchy, discipline, and traditions can encourage an environment where questioning unacceptable behaviours, ill-informed decisions, or challenging established norms can be met with fierce resistance. Power imbalances within the Army can silence our people and make it feel perilous to raise concerns about sexism, bullying, toxic leadership, or whatever else they witness. And despite official commitment to improvements, those who challenge the status quo at low levels can find themselves subtly undermined or outright ostracised, their voices becoming stifled by fear of reprisal. 

Then there’s culture in a male-dominated organisation, but I’ve unpacked that more than once before. Which, I’ll add, led to online attacks and verbal rebukes for some time thereafter: people really loved using the term “Lizard”, and people really hated my use of the sexual violence pyramid, for example. But, I contend, unpack those articles from a position of impartiality, and readers will see there’s no attempt to be abrasive whatsoever. Yet in so doing, I made enemies. 

Feminism versus hyper masculinity

While the Army’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, TEAMWORK, and respect for others could theoretically align with progressive feminism, to some in the military community the latter can be perceived as an affront to the traditional masculinity that many appear to believe underpins military strength. This perception often stems from a misunderstanding of feminist principles, conflating feminism with a perceived erosion of Army lethality. 

Some people, both serving and veteran, view feminism as a divisive force, failing to recognise that inclusivity strengthens (rather than weakens) operational effectiveness. Many Army units get it, and the culture is as good as can be while chasing an unrelenting search for excellence. But don’t think for one second that all units do. 

In-person resistance can manifest in various ways, from dismissive shrugs and veiled rebukes to overt hostility in small, unchallenged groups that can turn a unit culture into something less than acceptable with incredibly serious consequences. Virtue-signalling, facetiming, SJAR hunting, DS-watching, brown-nosing, troublemaker… labels easily applied by peers and leaders to someone who calls stuff out. Too easily, in fact. And pushback like this, subtle or not so subtle, can create a formidable obstacle for feminist advocates, who must, often unbeknownst to them at least initially, navigate prejudice and misunderstanding. 

I acknowledge a fair few assumptions in these paragraphs. And to counter that I offer one challenge: be an active bystander by default with no filter and, before long, you’ll see. 

The perils of speaking out

Active bystanding can trigger a cascade of consequences. Though integrity and courage are lauded values, those who speak truths can face professional and social repercussions that can significantly impact their careers and personal lives.

Repercussions of active bystanding:

• Reputational damage: Individuals questioning the established norms may be branded as troublemakers or disloyal, hindering perceived or actual performance.
• Career stagnation: Those who challenge unacceptable behaviours may find themselves sidelined, passed over for promotions, or denied leadership and development opportunities.
• Social isolation: Peers, fearing association or repercussions, can distance themselves, leaving advocates vulnerable within their units.
• Learned helplessness: When informal or formal complaints are explored, the chain of command is currently able to prioritise protecting reputations over addressing systemic issues, leading to disillusionment and frustration.

Online abuse

The commitment to active bystanding doesn’t end at the front gate. In today’s digital age, where open and anonymous social media accounts hold significant influence in public discourse, male feminists can become easy targets for heavy pushback. Emboldened by anonymity, of currently serving and veterans alike, these people are free to unleash sharp, persistent assaults (the kind few would dare to perpetrate under their own name).

Forms of online silencing:

• Vitriol and threats designed to intimidate and silence.
• Outright bullying.
• Coordinated smear campaigns aimed at discrediting individuals and damaging their reputations.
• Mass harassment from anonymous accounts creating a sense of overwhelming pressure.
• The risk of personal information being exposed, posing real-world dangers or constraints.

Plausible fiction: Quiet quitting

Corporal Tom Smith was known for his dedication to his team and his steadfast support for fairness and a whole-team approach both at work and on social media. He was a vocal advocate and digital leader, consistently challenging subtle sexism and promoting a culture of respect across the organisation.

Initially, his efforts were met with mixed reactions. While some appreciated his commitment, he increasingly faced dismissive comments and subtle forms of exclusion. He found his concerns were often labelled as ‘overly sensitive’ or being an ‘emotional’ leader, and he was gradually sidelined from informal networks. On social media, anonymous accounts began to target him with personal attacks and attempts to discredit his character.

The constant pushback, both overt and subtle, began to wear him down. Tom, once a passionate advocate, found himself increasingly hesitant to speak up. He began to second-guess his own judgment, wondering if his efforts were doing more harm than good. The weight of the constant resistance, the feeling of being misunderstood, and increasingly relentless online attacks led to a growing sense of exhaustion.

One day, a junior soldier approached him with a concern about a misogynistic comment made by a senior rank. Tom listened, but instead of offering his usual support and guidance, he simply nodded and said, “It’s probably best to just let it go.” He found himself unable to muster the energy to challenge the behaviour, his will to advocate sapped by futility and constant barrage of negativity.

The Mental Cost of Advocacy

Tom’s hypothetical story highlights two real costs of unsupported advocacy. First, the withdrawal of a dedicated advocate as the cumulative effect of subtle toxicity, social isolation, and online harassment leads to disillusionment and a loss of will to fight for change. Second, the long-term confluence of professional isolation, online harassment, and workplace hostility accrues, risking an overbearing toll on mental well-being and leading to lasting consequences.

Psychological impact:

• Stress and anxiety: Persistent conflict, feeling wronged for doing something right, leading to emotional exhaustion.
• Self doubt: The weight of relentless opposition, eroding confidence and resilience.
• Hypervigilance: A constant state of unease, fearing further attacks or backlash.
• Trauma-like symptoms: The trauma of sustained multifaceted personal attacks can linger, affecting long-term mental health, encouraging an abandonment of advocacy. 

Let me be clear. Some serving soldiers have a powerful and innate sense of justice and injustice. And, I say with some confidence, being a vocal male feminist in today’s Army can tick all of the above. Protect your active bystanders.  

Final thoughts

The path of a progressive male feminist and active bystander within the Army is fraught with obstacles, and those pushing for progress have carried the burden long enough. The resistance encountered within the ranks and online can be overwhelming to the point of being permanently silenced. 

And yet, the pursuit of progression and modern leadership remains essential. Every act of advocacy, every challenge to outdated norms, contributes to the slow and enduring shift towards a more inclusive and professional Army mindset. 

The Army yearns to be a modern fighting force that upholds operational excellence and moral integrity. I offer one thinking person’s lived experience to add a perspective and provide food for thought for its continuing journey. Should the Army employ the power of its personnel to liberate active bystanding, and I do mean liberate, it should seek to understand the above challenges and actively work to dismantle them. 

In his recent letter, CGS wrote that our people “must feel safe and supported”. People who challenge unacceptable behaviours are part of the solution not the problem. Our enemies are outside the perimeter fence. To advocates I say this; keep going but look after yourselves. To senior leaders and decision-makers I say this; take these realities seriously if progressives are to be increasingly called upon.

And to the chain of command I say this: protect your active bystanders. 

 

 

 

Photo by Lucas Santos on Unsplash