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.

No, they are protecting their children from potential predators.
I wouldn’t let my 7 year old son go alone into a male only changing room even though I know statistically nothing is likely to happen. I’d take him into a family changing room, or as a last resort, the women’s if there were cubicles (I’m not a fan of having young boys in female spaces myself, I’d shove him in a cubicle or have him face the wall).

I don’t want to comment on everything he said because I feel I wouldn’t agree with much of it, as a vaguely centre left Gen X British woman, but a lot of what people have “reported” has been twisted, and they either know this, or are just faithfully repeating soundbites from their own echo chambers.

This - and these are exactly the sort of hard of thinking people the likes of Trump, Farage and Kirk use to further their own personal cause.

Charlie’s “vision” https://tpusa.com/ a load of incoherent bullshit 🙄

Are you genuinely interested to know what other women think OP? Because some have put forward points here and they have been dismissed and not engaged with, eg the definition of woman instantly being “anti-trans”. If we want to stop the increased polarisation of politics then we need to actually listen to what people are saying, especially when we disagree with them. One of the reasons people are flocking to populists like Farage and Trump is that they are sick of being told their opinions are “wrong” and so they end up thinking if they’re going to get sneered at for not being politically correct then they might as well go all in with the people that give the appearance of listening to them and their concerns.

The one thing I can admire about Kirk was that he appeared to believe in respectful discussion and engagement with people with different opinions. The horrible irony of his death being that it appears to have been done to shut him up.

Afraid to say, I expect the women who blindly “support those causes”, were indoctrinated since birth. ‘Daddy’s little girl’?! If it’s been normalised for your entire existence it’s very difficult or impossible to escape because most can’t even recognise it’s happened to them.
I see that Mr Kirk’s widow has now vowed she’ll “continue his work”.…
Its quite interesting Kirk’s widows christian name* is actually just a feminised male name! *(Erika)

It’s actually less supporting him but more empathy to him essentially being assassinated for his views. Regardless of your views nobody deserves to be killed

You are not wrong. It’s infantilising, and autonomy is better for women. I don’t think it’s an evil belief though, as long as it isn’t forced on anyone. Communities where women are raised to believe they have to submit to men are problematic, and I would work against them through our schools and through churches with a different theology.

I’m a believer in teaching all children safe autonomy. It’s a key skill, and under valued in favour of respect for authority and doing as you’re told.

Fully agree.

Charlie Kirk was charismatic and to some, good looking. At the least a clean cut, articulate guy, who smiled right on cue in a debate. I think women are weirdly attracted to him in one way or another

He was a politician he is credited with mobilising the vote to get Trump re-elected and away from the rape charges

There's probably a really simple explanation.

I can only speak for myself but I imagine im not alone at all.

Its not all or nothing. I can agree with someone's views on one matter and support them for those views. And disagree with them on other matters and, umm, not support them for those views.

Thats it really.

Thats a truly ridiculous reach. She didn’t name herself and plenty of women are called feminine versions of a name.

He did not say it was a benefit he said it should be her primary purpose and he called on Swift to submit in line with a conservative understanding of marriage which he has also discussed on his wife’s podcast.

To pretend his feelings on female submission in marriage is just about Swift is woefully disingenuous.

"I don’t want to have to find a man to protect me. I just want to be left alone."

But a lot of women will take any vaguely ok-ish bloke as a partner. It makes me want to scream seeing nice women who will put up with crap from a bloke as they aren't financially and/or emotionally able to manage alone.

And I disagree with him - but that’s not what the OP claims he said. At all

Like I said there’s lots of misogynists to accurately quote, rather than a man who’s just been killed and will one day fade into obscurity

Or they are just shocked at seeing people shot to death on university campuses for their opinions, however controversial.

“Kindness for the win” 🙄

But not in schools surprisingly…no grief about shooting children

Yes

Yes, I remember being concerned about that at the time, although I can certainly understand why it seemed a viable option. As well as simply not being able to talk about this subject in most spaces due to the risk of losing friendships or even work, there was a strong reaction against the harmful idea that you shouldn't even read or listen to 'the enemy'. However, I do think we've ended up with extremes: giving airtime and respect to viewpoints that would have been dismissed as fanatical a few decades ago in the pursuit of being open or fair or purity spirals and bubbles.

But even if I don't buy that it's the reason so many women are going with far right politics, the extremity of the trans movement has certainly provided a good excuse to turn on the mainstream parties and organisations that embraced it so uncritically. And, yes, perhaps an initial engagement with the far right that wouldn't have happened otherwise. It really has a lot to answer for.

I've been disturbed by the number of sociopaths among us cheering on a murder and justifying it with bullshit. It's impossible to unsee and when called out on it they tend to back pedal, victim blame and finally cry.
It wasn't as noticeable with the Luigi Magnione supporters but it was similar energy. I wouldn't trust such people to handle food or hold a baby as they are fucked in the head.

Show where it is claimed that she “named herself”?

Quick summary of some of the more objectionable things he said https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/11/charlie-kirk-quotes-beliefs

Why do people keep saying this? When has anybody, on either side, ever expressed anything other than horror at school shootings?

I think you are mistaking women who have stated that they disagree with someone being killed for their views, with said women agreeing with those views and 'supporting them'.

It's simply not the same.

I agree with free speech, absolute free speech actually - people can say things (and frequently do) that I find abhorrent but I think they have the right to say them.

In fact I would go further and say it is much safer for us all to allow people to speak openly on what they believe and to discuss and challenge that. In shutting down speech we may silence people in the public sphere but make them feel resentful, reinforcing their views that they are being oppressed and actually making the situation worse.

I think that many views have been silenced - many people do not feel free to speak what they believe and this has allowed others to assume that they agree with their opinions, that their opinion is the prevailing view, when it isn't.