Nanjing University of Science and Technology Confronts “Extreme Feminism” at Opening Ceremony
南理工在开学典礼上直面极端女权
南理工在开学典礼上直面极端女权的勇气，确实值得认可——敢在高校场景触碰敏感议题，对抗跑偏的性别思潮，这份不回避的态度难能可贵。但遗憾的是，整场表态只聚焦“反对极端”，却未对正常女权的正当性、女性合法权益的保障作出明确呼应，这份关键缺失，反倒让原本的正向初衷大打折扣，甚至直接埋下了校园性别对立的隐患。
极端女权的危害毋庸置疑，煽动性别对立、索要不合理特权、污名化全体男性的行为，本就该被明确抵制、主动纠偏，这是对健康性别关系的守护。但必须厘清的是，正常女权的核心从来不是“对立”，而是追求男女在权利、机会、尊严上的真正平等：是女性不必因性别被限制职业选择，不必因婚恋状态被贴标签，不必在安全、教育等领域承受不公对待，这份诉求是正当且必要的，更是性别平等议题里不可割裂的重要部分。南理工只划清了对极端女权的反对边界，却未清晰传递对正常女权的支持立场，模糊的表态极易引发双向误解：女生会觉得自身的合理权益诉求未被正视，甚至担心“反极端”会变相压缩女性维权的空间；部分男生则可能曲解初衷，将“反极端女权”简单等同于“反对所有女权主张”，把女性争取平等的正常行为也归为“偏激”，这种认知偏差一旦滋生，必然加剧校园里男女生的心理隔阂，让性别对立的氛围悄然蔓延。
更值得警惕的是，事件发酵后，这种误解直接演变成了实质的对立冲突：校内部分男学生借“反极端”之名，对女生的合理诉求无端质疑、刻意针对，甚至将个体矛盾上升为性别对抗；网上的男性群体更借机放大对立情绪，把少数极端行为泛化到全体女性身上，出现无差别攻击、恶意贴标签、否定女性所有权益诉求的现象。原本该是高校引导理性性别观、传递平等理念的教育契机，反倒成了部分人宣泄性别敌意的借口，彻底偏离了抵制极端、守护平等的初衷。
其实对抗极端女权的核心，从来不是否定女性的正当权益，而是在明确抵制偏激思潮的同时，清晰站稳支持正常女权的立场——既反对“女性至上”的极端对立，也守护女性追求平等的合法权利。南理工的勇敢值得肯定，但这份勇敢更需配上完整的价值传递：唯有补齐对正常女权的维护表达，明确界定“极端”与“正当”的边界，引导师生树立真正的平等认知，才能消解误解、化解对立，让性别教育回归理性内核，而非沦为新的矛盾导火索。高校作为思想引导的重要阵地，更该兼顾立场的全面性与导向的正确性，既不纵容极端思潮，也不忽视女性困境，这样才能真正引导师生构建包容、平等的性别关系。
以上为未翻译版本
Nanjing University of Science and Technology’s decision to openly address “extreme feminism” at its opening ceremony is, in itself, commendable—few universities dare to touch on such sensitive issues in an official setting. The courage to confront distorted gender ideologies and take a public stance should be recognized. Yet it is unfortunate that the speech focused solely on condemning “extremes” without simultaneously reaffirming the legitimacy of mainstream feminist concerns or the necessity of protecting women’s legal rights. This missing piece not only weakens the original intention but also quietly plants the seeds of gender conflict on campus.
The harms of extreme feminism are undeniable. Behaviors that incite gender antagonism, demand unreasonable privileges, or stigmatize all men should indeed be openly rejected and corrected; doing so protects a healthy gender environment. But it must be made clear that mainstream feminism has never been about “opposition” at all. Its core has always been the pursuit of true equality in rights, opportunities, and dignity: that women should not be restricted in their career paths because of their gender, should not be labeled for their marital or romantic status, and should not face unequal treatment in safety, education, or everyday life. These demands are legitimate, necessary, and inseparable from any discussion of gender equality.
By drawing a clear boundary against extremism but failing to explicitly voice support for mainstream feminist values, the university’s message becomes vulnerable to misunderstanding from both sides. Female students may feel that their reasonable concerns have been overlooked, or worse, fear that “opposing extremism” will become an excuse to suppress women’s advocacy. Some male students, meanwhile, may misinterpret the message as a rejection of all feminist perspectives, lumping basic equality-seeking behavior together with extremism. Once such misconceptions take root, they inevitably widen psychological distance between male and female students and allow a subtle atmosphere of gender antagonism to spread.
The aftermath proves this risk real. As discussion grew online, misunderstanding quickly escalated into tangible conflict: certain male students on campus began questioning or deliberately targeting women’s reasonable demands under the guise of “opposing extremism,” turning individual issues into gendered confrontations. Online, larger groups of men seized the opportunity to amplify hostility, generalizing the actions of a few extremists to all women—engaging in indiscriminate attacks, derogatory labeling, and dismissing the legitimacy of women’s rights altogether. What could have been a teaching moment for promoting rational gender perspectives and equality became instead an outlet for gender resentment, completely deviating from the initial goal of resisting extremism and protecting fairness.
But opposing extreme feminism has never meant rejecting women’s rightful interests. The real task is to resist polarized ideologies while firmly supporting mainstream feminist principles—to oppose female supremacy just as clearly as we safeguard women’s pursuit of equality. The university’s courage deserves credit, but courage must be accompanied by clarity. Only by supplementing the missing affirmation of mainstream feminism and drawing a clear boundary between “extreme” and “legitimate” can universities guide students toward a genuine understanding of equality, reduce misunderstanding, and prevent conflict. As key spaces for ideological guidance, universities must uphold both comprehensive perspectives and responsible messaging—rejecting extremism without ignoring women’s real challenges—so that gender education can return to rationality rather than become yet another spark for division.
Above is the untranslated version
Written by: Yang Yuwen
