To be alarmed at the number of women who are throwing support behind causes that are clearly anti-woman?

[DorothyGaleFromKansas]

With the recent threads about flags/immigrants and Charlie Kirk etc, there seem to be a bewildering number of women supporting causes that directly go against their own interests, and it’s baffling and frankly a bit disturbing.

Reform have voted against tougher laws on stalking, sexual harassment and upskirting, against clamping down on revenge porn, and against further protections in the workplace. Farage cited Andrew Tate as “an important voice for men”.

Then you have Trump, who was found to have committed rape, forced himself into changing rooms where teenagers were undressing, made sexual comments about his own daughter, not to mention 34 other felonies, and that’s before we even get to the Epstein files.

Charlie Kirk said that women should only vote if they were voting for the candidate chosen by their husband, that women shouldn’t go on to higher education unless it was to find a husband, that women should have to submit to their husbands, and that little girls as young as 9 or 10 including his own daughters should be forced to give birth to babies conceived as a result of rape.

What has happened to us that there are so many women willing to endorse attitudes like this? And how do we fix it?! How have we sunk so low that there are women who think this is what we all deserve? It’s terrifying.

The reason I think it's close is that this is a thread about how women shouldn't vote against their own interests. Then a woman said: I want to vote for my own interests. The answer was: selfish, you should vote for others' interests.

This wasn't a thread about how men should vote a certain way.

Again, not what I said. Nice try, though.

Actually your first sentence is correct. I muddled up your username with PinnyPree. I apologise for that.

The rest of my post still stands.

FWIW I've posted an answer to the OPs exact question before on other threads. I plan to post it again on this thread once I wrestle MN search into submission.

It is after all hardly an original thought, rather it's something Feminists (and in other contexts, other activists) have been grappling with for years. But of course you wouldn't know that would you? The thing about an echo chamber is that you [think you] can see other people's but it's so very very hard to see your own.

Nailed it.

We need to accept that women's interests are not homogenous and some will conflict with each other. The demand for cheap, easily available childcare will impact the salaries and rights of women nursery staff for example. It's perfectly consistent that stay at home mums with high earning partners will vote for low taxation and public service cuts for childcare. They are voting in THEIR interests.

Almost everyone's met a trans person, and sadly most of them are not very nice. Don't play that line. They said "listen to trans people", and unfortunately for them, we did.

My last encounter involved struggling to work with the most entitled, self-obsessed, childlike man I've ever met who was a they/them. Another incident was a 6'3" male in a women's group, forcing his opinions on everybody and making them fawn over him and his attempts to join a women's football team.

As it happens, Farage isn't particularly interested in the trans creep on women's rights, saying he doesn't think trans males in women's prisons is important.

Anyway, the prominence women rightly place on stopping trans males destroying their rights should show you how important it actually is.

No, not what you said, but pretty close, for the reasons I explained. You don't have to agree. You think that woman (the PP) should make her own view of her own interests subserviant to your view of the needs of others when voting. That's a fair summary. Perhaps you'd have said the same of a man too.

No it wasn’t. That post was a list of reasons, which I agreed with. Feel free to have another look.

I accept your apology.

You have misrepresented what I said.

I didn't call anyone selfish, that was what you inferred. Perhaps you think caring more about tax breaks than women and girls' rights, safety and dignity is selfish?
That is for you to say, but don't attribute that to me. I simply said I found it depressing. Which indeed I do.

I also made no comment about what I think men or women should think about. We're all free to care about whatever we like. But if that's tax breaks at the expense of women's and girls rights, whether you're a man or a woman, that's depressing as hell to me.

And why are some.of the people supporting Reform exactly the same people who.will suffer most when the NHS is sold off, and all the services are starved of cash. It is mind-boggling that people can be THAT brainwashed.

Frustrating isn't it, this assumption so many seem to have that every single issue that affects women needs to have the trans debate dragged into it, and that if you don't agree you must not consider the trans debate important? I've seen it on so many threads recently. I actually got called a TRA a while back for daring to suggest that some issues deserved to be debated in their own right without conflating them with the trans issue. Such a blinkered view.

Farage wants to shrink the state which basically means withdrawing money from all the services

No worse than daft women who not only think men are women just because they say they are, but they are somehow “vulnerable”. Plenty of these anti feminist types, not so much on here but in other online spaces and IRL.

It’s completely tedious.

I'm sure it's been said already OP but I don't have time to rtfr.

You cannot defend women's rights if you cannot define what a woman is.

So I'm afraid that HAS to come first.

Lol. I've met a lot of trans people (of both sexes) because I work in the tech industry. It was contact with them IRL that made me gender critical...

I get just as frustrated as you do when "women's rights" is reductively reduced to exclusively meaning "any time, for any reason" abortion rights.

Women have a variety of interests (yes including PP's interest in paying less in tax); reducing it to solely "bodily autonomy" or "financial independence" or "childbearing" is nonsense. It does help to be able to define "woman" though

If that really is the alternative - I'll take it.

Would you care to enlighten us about your post. You are sounding argumentative for no reason

Actually, no it’s not “completely tedious” the trans debate is just the latest iteration of how society has been manipulated to silence women and remove their voices. It has become so prevalent in shutting down women it is probably the biggest threat to women in a generation. It has been used by men to infiltrate women’s spaces, take away economic freedom, to shut down access to support from rape and Domestic abuse. The “trans debate” isn’t a debate so much about a man wearing a dress it’s about men telling women they have no rights, no bodily autonomy, no right to meet without men, that their right to economic freedom depends on the whims of men.

It’s more tedious having to constantly explain that you can’t even begin to talk about things that affect women if you can’t, at the very least, define what a fucking woman is, or that it includes boundary pushing males with special feelings.

If in great excess, yes, I'd call voting for one's narrow interest against the interests of others selfish. It's a judgment call, and it's gender-netural. You tell me you'd be equally depressed by the voting choices of a man or a woman and I have no reason to disbelieve you.

The thing that I dislike (not pinning this on you) is the idea that women just keep voting against their own interests, rather than women have a wide range of views about what's in their interests, or sometimes women put their values ahead of their interests and those values may differ from mine.

It's a bit like (and I'm definitely not pinning this on you) the old false consciousness stuff from socialism, or the views of some towards working class people who voted for Brexit or non-whites who vote for conservatives/Reform. Yes, sometimes it really is becuase they are thick or tribal (like people on all sides of politics are, and like everyone is sometimes), but mostly it's just because they have a different view of their interests or values from the person doing the judging.

In which case you aren’t a supporter of women

Sorry, I'll try to be as agreeable and cooperative as OP next time...

I'm not clear why wanting to pay less tax inherently conflicts with "women and girls' rights, safety and dignity" ?

Many women rightly resent paying tax to prop up misogynistic institutions from the police (Spycops and Wayne Cousins being two of many examples) to the NHS (and it's treatment of women in labour not to mention the recent cover up of the poor woman raped to death on an ICT ward) to the prison system. I don't think wanting to have more control of our own money is unfeminist?

How does that sound in any way argumentative?

for the record - my post is not argumentative. It’s just asking a question.