Contemporary society is marked by one paradox. On one hand, we have never been closer to gender equality. Although there is plenty of room for progress, reflecting on previous historical periods, gender equality is discussed. There are valuable initiatives that, with great success, solve problem after problem (of gender nature). A woman, in a general sense, becomes more emancipated and more aware of symbolic violence against her and other women. To briefly explain, symbolic violence is violence that is very often not even perceived as violence. It is a concept by Pierre Bourdieu (1998) by which he defined the forced nature of certain cultural patterns. Thus, a woman is a victim of symbolic violence if, after a hard day's work, she feels obligated to cook lunch for her husband and other family members and iron shirts for her partner. What is important about this term is the hiddenness of the violence itself, not only for the victim but also for those who profit from such a form of violence. Symbolic violence, therefore, is a latent structure of values that places women in a subordinate position, which is then within the framework of social relations and seen as not problematic or even natural.

There is no doubt that such a form of violence still exists, but women are more aware of it to a greater extent. That is reason enough for optimism. But we mentioned a paradox. It arises from the fact that, despite the development of women's rights and optimism in that area, there are certain social processes that threaten both the future and the so-far-achieved accomplishments of emancipation. Often characterized by a note of conservatism, these social processes have little to do with tradition per se and more with feelings of personal inadequacy in a world with a slightly altered power structure. In other words, although certain aspects of conservatism are advocated in such movements and processes, this conservatism is rarely initiated by a longing for the past. This conservatism is characterized by a rejection of the present.

Therefore, Habermas (2009) distinguishes between old and new conservatives. New conservatives are not pre-modern, but anti-modern. This is visible in the case of "prayers in the square" in the Republic of Croatia, where every first Saturday of the month, groups of men gather in city squares praying the rosary for certain goals, among which is chastity in dressing (for women) and the aspiration for men to become the spiritual authorities of the family. Although, at first glance, pre-modern elements can be noticed, when one goes deeper into the structure of movements of this type, an antithetical nature is seen. Such a type of movement is a reaction to modern trends in which men have lost certain aspects of their own gender identity. A large part of male gender identity for millennia (to a greater or lesser extent) rested on domination and centrality. The world was in the palm of the subject (a man). The objects of that world were subordinate to him, and one of those objects was also a woman (see Beauvoir, 1949).

For many thinkers (e.g., Hegel) throughout history, man was perceived as an active, existential being and woman as a natural being. The historical development of human rights, however, changed the structure of these (naturalized) constructions of masculinity and femininity. There is no natural essence to the existential primacy of man. But in the process of deconstructing naturalized masculinity (partly and rightly), the existential crisis that was gradually produced in the same man was not taken into account. This unresolved crisis over a certain period of time led to the paradox that we mentioned at the very beginning.

Resistance of men against feminism has existed since the beginnings of feminism. In the spirit of Erich Fromm, we could characterize that resistance, even aggression, with a defensive tone. It was, with all the problems it created, a benign aggression that did not rest on cruelty and destructiveness but on misunderstanding of the false naturalness of the gender order. Indeed, a large number of men were opposition to the feminist order not because they did not want to surrender power but because they were deeply convinced (gender ideologically) that the existing system was good. And it was good, but only for them. Therefore, this type of resistance can rightly be called defensive aggression. For Fromm (1973) defensive aggression can be a result of a real or abstract threat to the identity of an individual or group. The threat to male identity was real insofar as this identity was layered in the deconstruction of the power structure and domination over women. Defensive aggression emerged, we could say, from the defensive aggression of the Other, namely woman as an object in the patriarchal system.

This initial, defensive aggression of male identity through the development, evolution of human rights, however, began to move away from its benign form and crossed into that malignant form of aggression – into the destructiveness we witness today. We witness this destructiveness in the figure and work of certain influencers who encourage man power, Frankenstein stoicism, certain natural laws... We also witness destructiveness in the increasingly refined attempt of young men to find meaning in previous patterns of patriarchal domination. But what has changed compared to past times of patriarchy is the characteristic of contemporary society as fluid, a society that is not taken for granted. In such a world of pronounced individualism with a note of consumerist capitalism, the basic values that were nurtured - egocentrism and hedonism, the aggressiveness of men, devoid of meaning, turned from benign to malignant form of aggression. The malignant form of aggression in terms of contemporary male attitude towards gender rights can be characterized with two types of malignant aggressiveness. These are narcissistic aggression on one hand and necrophilia on the other. Various movements of men, men on social networks - influencers oriented on “fighting against gender ideology” can be reduced to one of or both types of malignant aggressiveness. Let's explain each separately.

Narcissistic aggression, according to Fromm, arises from a deep sense of insecurity and weakness, which is compensated for through the need for domination, power, and adoration from others. Narcissistic individuals struggle with an inner sense of emptiness and inadequacy, and often resort to aggression to protect their overvalued, but fragile ego. In the context of male gender identity, which has historically been linked with ideas of power, domination, and control, narcissistic aggression can manifest as an attempt to regain a sense of control or superiority that is perceived as lost or threatened in a world that promotes gender equality and challenges traditional gender roles.

Narcissistic aggression, therefore, is not just a mere manifestation of power; it is also a defensive mechanism against the perceived threat to one's own identity and the status quo. In a world increasingly moving towards gender equality, certain men may feel that their traditionally guaranteed position of power and privilege is being questioned. This can lead to feelings of insecurity and vulnerability, prompting narcissistic aggression as a means to re-establish the perceived endangered masculinity. However, unlike pure defensive aggression, in the case of narcissistic aggression there is an awareness of domination over women. It is not a camouflaged form of symbolic violence which was more often the case in the past. In the case of contemporary male aggressiveness towards movements for equality, the prevailing idea is that women are better off in subordination. Thus, it is no longer a matter of something that has the appearance of morality or even paternalism. In narcissistic aggression, it is about direct knowledge that our actions dominate others, which directly corresponds with cruelty as such.

Necrophilia, on the other hand, represents an even darker dimension of malignant aggression. Fromm describes necrophilia as an obsession with death, decay, and destruction, not just in a physical sense but also in terms of destroying life, creativity, and potential. In the context of gender relations, necrophilic aggression can manifest through violence against women, suppression of female expression and creativity, or through cultural and social practices that dehumanize or objectify women. For the contemporary man, faced with the challenges of equality and changes in traditional gender-defined roles, these forms of aggression can become ways in which they try to navigate their identities and relationships with others. While narcissistic aggression reflects the struggle to preserve ego identity in a changing world, necrophilia can be the ultimate expression of rejection of that changing world through resorting to destruction as a way of returning to the "safer" territory of traditional values and hierarchies.

Let's return to the initial paradox. Gender equality is increasingly within our reach, but it rests on fragile foundations and, in the spirit of malignant aggressiveness, can easily collapse. As we have mentioned, contemporary social processes and movements bear witness to this. Here, we will no longer delve into the detailed reasons for the emergence of this malignant aggressiveness among men (since part of it can be attributed to other social forces, not only those we have listed), but we must ask ourselves the following: how can we seriously address this problem? How can we reduce the potential dangers to the gender-legal and gender-cultural goods already acquired (and those we are yet to acquire)?

First and foremost, the responsibility lies with feminism, which must recognize contemporary gender challenges not only from the perspective of subordination but also from the perspective of those who do not want to lose power. Therefore, moving away from gender marginalization in the spirit of contemporary challenges is one of the necessary steps for further progress in gender equality. Feminism must be, using Marx's terminology, universally oriented. This includes the reconstruction of the meaning of masculinity. Feminism, in its newer phase, must deal with the question of reconstructing masculinity. This new masculinity must primarily be distanced from power as a source of identity. The identity of men should be reconstructed on the foundations of solidarity. This is, of course, incompatible with the world we live in. Here, we encounter another paradox. We want a solidary man devoid of power who must establish the meaning of himself in a society of opposing orientations—in a society of consumerist capitalism where money represents the primary fetish. Therefore, feminism is not the only discipline that must touch upon the issue of masculinity.

Sociology, as a science that studies society, must examine and consider the relationship between masculinity and capitalism, which includes not only the economic but also the cultural and social dimensions. The newly arisen polarization of genders must be examined, and based on empirical-theoretical analyses, truths that can become a source of both male and female emancipation should be offered. The synthesis of feminism and sociology thus stands as the basis for further development of gender equality and gender rights in the future of the modern world.