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.

It’s not ‘trans rights’ that are the issue but the wholesale push to change their meaning of the word ‘woman’ to include men and make it illegal to exclude men from any female knly space. If we don’t have our own words or the protection of the law then we can’t advocate for our rights effectively.

In case you are not clear, quite a few men who claim to be women ARE straight white men. Removing normal safeguards for them will only harm even more women.

So can you tell me how any of those things in the OP are in women’s best interests then?

Women who support causes that subjugate their rights to those of men usually do so from a position of great privilege, where patriarchal structures have served their interests well. Women who prefer domestic duties and childcare to employment, who prefer not to have to bother with finances and big decisions, and who are fortunate enough to have men in their lives who are benign dictators.
Typically sufficiently well off and cosseted to be sheltered from the bad men in the wild, they often genuinely don't see a problem that needs to be fixed. They fear feminism as a force that divides women from men, and because their own comfort and security is derived from men, that's the last thing they want.
They have found happiness and advantage by supporting and pleasing men and it would not be in their interests to change that behaviour.

By demanding all these extra protection laws, you're sounding like a poor, weak damsels in distress.
How do you think women ever coped without any law in the workplace to protect them? They stood up for themselves and paved the way for modern women who bleat about a glance from a male colleague at the water cooler to HR.

You’re no different OP, in that you want women to ascribe to the moral values which you believe to be correct.

And you’re voting out of self-interest and for sex-based policies, when others vote depending on what they’d be good for the society, community or nation as a whole.

They might feel them to be so - it’s up to them to decide. You don’t have the right to do it for them.

I will. If you can tell me how women giving up their sex based rights is in women’s best interest?

I mean there's such a thing as I objectivity here. It is objectively bad for women to have their lives restricted by default. We know this because we've been there and a big chunk of the world is still there. There's a reason we battled long and hard for rights and it's because things were utterly shite for enough women that they bothered to form their own movements in the first place.

Objectively, hanging on the coattails of men to reverse progress isn't the same as that.

Except the workplace laws in question weren’t designed specifically for women. They were not in any way gender specific. It covered better protections for victims of sexual harassment, better workers rights in terms of redundancies and job security such as clamping down on zero hour contracts.

And what you are saying ignores the fact that women are 1. Far more likely to experience harassment at work 2. Far more likely to have a CV gap and have to find their way back in to the workplace 3. Statistically still paid less than men for equal work.

Nobody is asking for extra. They are asking for level.

This is why I'm politically homeless.

No party is standing up for women.

Women do what suits them best. For example - bringing boys aged 7 (when perfectly able to change themselves in male changing areas) to 11/12 years of age into girls toilets and changing rooms (shops and pools) - doing this because they think this is safer for their child, completely disregarding the rights of young women to have privacy in these areas. Are they women 'anti women'?

I agree with this and you @DorothyGaleFromKansas .

It is a highly polarised time politically, tensions are high and people seem very angry. It seems impossible on here to have sensible discussions about these topics that doesn’t descend into name calling and insults.

I think there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance at play, and othering. Definitely a lack of empathy. There seems to be a flat out denial that misogyny, bigotry and racism even exist (going by posts on a recent CK thread).

It’s obviously a very defensive stance. They will usually be benefitting in some way as pointed out in @5128gap ’s excellent post.

Re kirk. I have no particular interest in him, but I would be wary of assuming he said all (any) of the wilder things attributed to him online. For example Stephen King has just retracted a tweet on Twitter claiming Kirk said X, Y & Z and I've seen other people unable to give links / sources when challenged.

As for the interests of women - I think abortion is completely unethical and that ideally babies & young children should be raised by their parents (note parents not just mothers) as much as possible rather than spending hours upon hours in childcare. Plenty of people would tell me those are against "the interests of women". Likewise I'm tired of self-identified feminists defending porn & surrogacy & solemnly telling us that women can have penises. So I'm instinctively wary of anyone trying to tell me what my interests are as a woman.

@DorothyGaleFromKansas
I don’t think it’s as straightforward as this because you would need to believe that there are a clear set of ideas which benefit all women.
If there were such a thing then you could say that women were choosing to vote against their best interests, but there isn’t any such thing.

What you are saying is that there are women who are backing people and ideas which you personally believe go against what is best for the type of woman you would like to see more of.

Many people have a very clear vision of how the lives of men and women should interact and feel that the the closer we get to this ideal the better it will be for everyone .
This goes both for those who think that men /women should be as indistinguishable as possible and those who believe in a patriarchal society. Both groups feel that if everyone thought the way they did the world would be better.

The fact is that there are stupid people of both sexes.

Are you able to say anything without bringing it round to trans rights? Anything at all?

It is. I know a couple of Christian families in the Midwest and the conservative, traditional women in them just vote for the party their husbands do. Or, it's just "I am a democrat" or "I am a republican" for life.

I don’t know if you’re quoting Kirk directly, but it does say in the bible that wives should submit to their husbands, and husbands submit to their wives - it’s a mutual approach, emphasizing service and humility and prioritising each others needs - not as a hierarchy but as a partnership, each helping the other.

That seems to be in both parties best interests 🙂

What i'm obsessed with is the gays supporting the Tommy Robinson March 😭😭😭

The alternative is worse! And Charlie’s Kirk was not anti-woman. I don’t agree with all his views but for the most his talked sense. And all you people do is insult people who don’t agree with you. That’s sad really!

Women who are opposed to abortion can still maintain a pro-woman position that doesn't involve judgement and castigation. You don't see them often though, because many default to a position of name calling and the attempted removal of rights.

Just to clarify, everything I have attributed to him in my OP there is documented video of him saying.

FFS Reform aren’t the Nazis but well done in being the first poster to use the N word.

All of those things I’ve attributed to CK in my OP, he’s on video saying. Can you explain how you think those aren’t anti-woman please?

I agree with at least one statement you attribute to him in your OP, and certainly see it as being in the best interests of women.