Do you have to be politically left-wing to be a feminist?

[OTheHugeManatee]

Having posted on the 'why don't people post in feminism' thread in AIBU and in the course of it thought of a few topics that interest me, I figured I'd put my money where my mouth is and start one

So, then: is it possible to be a feminist without being left-wing?

I definitely think of myself as a feminist, but I would also class my politics in many respects as broadly centre-right: I think a lot of things are better solved by markets than by the state, I prefer a smaller and less nannyish government and, at root, have a fairly Hobbesian view of human nature (intrinsically flawed, not susceptible to being perfected either individually or at the social level) that doesn't sit well with the big-R Romantic vision of humanity that underpins a lot of left-wing politics. But I also believe that the position of women within society is problematic in many ways, and needs to be challenged.

Having said all that, though, my sense is that by and large the feminist movement allies more naturally with left-wing perspectives. I can't find many right-wing feminist writers online - at least not many that characterise themselves as such. Or is that true? Liberal feminism could, from some perspectives, be characterised as right-wing in the sense of prioritising economic and bodily autonomy and paying less attention to identity politics. (And from another angle, it doesn't seem to follow that lefties are non-sexist: the political left seems to have its share of dinosaurs on this front.) Russell Brand also springs to mind

So what do people think? If you are a feminist, do you think it follows that the rest of your politics should be left-wing? If not, why does most feminist discussion happen within the context of a broader leftish caucus? Why are there so few right-of-centre people describing themselves as feminists? Is my position hopelessly muddled, or just unusual?

I don't personally see how people can be. I see the patriarchy benefits capitalism and reinforces it so the two go hand in hand.

I am a feminist. I am not left wing. I am pretty much in the centre, being economically centre right, socially centre left. I defy labels politically . However, I do think feminism tends to be allied to the left.

(On your point about sexism and the left Manatee I agree. Some of the worst sexists I have known in my life have been left wing).

You are not alone Manatee

Sexism in lefties politics is a Huge issue. Partly because they can't possibly be sexist. They are all for equality (blah blah blah).

I agree with Bellosom that capitalism is a product of the patriarchy and feeds it so if you are going to unpick misogyny you'd have to unpick capitalism.

But it's possible to enjoy the benefits of Capitalism, not want to lose them and to be Feminist surely?

As more women move up in the ranks will Capitalism not shift away from Patriarchy & gradually become more neutral?

There's certainly no shortage of sexist twats within left wing movements.

But I think there's a fundamental clash between feminism, which states that women are subject to treatment as a class, and any ideology which posits that individualism is supreme and our lives are the outcomes purely of our own actions. Which seems to be a popular ideology among right wingers, in varying degrees of explicitness.

I'm sure it's possible, but I'm intrigued to know how you would want to resolve some of the issues feminism highlights - such as wage equality - through a right-wing doctrine.

I can't find many right-wing feminist writers online

Well, you have Louise Mensch. No doubt she will be summoned to the thread by the mere 'mensch'-ion of her name.

I don't think it is possible to have equality within capitalism. Capitalism supports privilege. Privilege is what feminism (amongst others) is fighting against.

There's a scene in The West Wing where the right-wing lawyer says she's a low maintenance kinda gal and doesn't need special protections in law because she gets all the legal protection she needs under blah blah general employment rights. Or whatever it was.

Which clearly should be true.

But my thought on watching was "And how's that legal equality workin' out for yah?"

Because the statistics showed that in practice women were being disadvantaged.

Keeping women as individuals, forcing them each to fight a separate battle - often from a position of disadvantage in the first place - makes each one less likely to win. When women act as a group they have more power. And group action for the benefit of the many, rather than individual advantage, is an idea seen as left-wing.

True of any disempowered group, obvs.

Yy Pausing. another reason why class analysis is so important (slightly off-topic).

Yes, Ainsley Hayes also argues that wage inequality is caused by women taking time off when having children. Err, because there is so much opportunity for men to take time off when having children? She states 'oftentimes women choose to make less money' - as if choosing from a limited menu represents free choice. (Leaving aside the issues of childfree women also falling behind, the disproportionate burden of caring which falls on women by very virtue of the fact their income tends to be lower thus less of a loss to the family income if, e.g. an elderly relative needs to be cared for).

Another one here who thinks it is perfectly possible to be a feminist and right of centre

Well capitalism is by definition unequal, but then again with the best will in the world neither is life. That said I don't see anyone choosing a right wing stance yet simultaneously addressing gender based inequality (or indeed racial, religious, disabled and anything else) being incompatible.

I think it is dangerous to stereotype political leanings, as previously raised sexism within the left demonstrates. Although I am leaning ever rightward as I age I will always broadly speaking have tremendous respect for anyone framing a discussion with a view to bettering society even if I disagree.

Interesting replies, thanks everyone! One thing it's pointing up for me is that there are some variations in what people think feminism is for. scallops states that 'Privilege is what feminism is fighting against' - is that unequivocally true? I don't think it's possible to achieve some sort of perfect utopia of privilege-free equality. And I share John Gray's view that impossible political projects always tend towards totalitarian outcomes. Or in other words, that fighting against privilege is unachievable and therefore tends towards totalitarianism, and therefore is not a goal for me.

But even if the world is fundamentally unfair (which I do believe), I don't think that means one shouldn't challenge instances of unfairness or even subject general tendencies of unfairness to some form of class analysis.

I would also question the idea that misogyny produces or is produced by capitalism. Women were being treated unequally long before capitalist economies emerged - so in what sense are capitalism and misogyny inextricable? I don't see any reason why a capitalist economy should be incompatible with gender equality (whether or not you think that desirable is surely another debate). Indeed, couldn't you argue that modern feminism is in some senses a product of capitalism, in that this has produced the labour-saving devices and ideology of personal self-fulfilment that create the conditions for demands for equality? Personally I thank my lucky stars for capitalism, as it seems to me that being an woman with reproductive control and financial autonomy is in many ways predicated on the technologies and social circumstances it has created.

Bear with me, I'm thinking most of this out as I go...

Are there any working examples of a socialist utopia then?

May be best to try & better the situation under Capitalism as it's likely to be the form of society we'll be living in for the foreseeable future...

Xpost

Privilege is what feminism is fighting against is interesting, I would have thought that an equal chance of being privileged is also a valid goal...

I see right-wing neo-liberal free market capitalism as very much 'survival of the fittest' and I would say that no matter how kick ass some women are, in general it is women who bear and care for children and are therefore not in a position to fight their way to the top in the same way men are.

I also think capitalism enforces privilege of all types.

Right wing politics tend to be very individualistic too so I am not sure how that would sit with fighting for the rights of any 'class' such as females.

However, within the narrow band of left/right that our everyday politics sit i'm sure there's no reason somebody can't be centre-right and feminist but i'd be surprised if they were fundamentally far-right.

No mainstream uk party is trying to smash capitalism, surely? Constrain it to greater or lesser extents, surely? And any party could argue that a given anti-sexist policy was a sensible constraint.

The only socialist states I can think of off the top of my head are (correct me if I'm wrong) North Korea and the former USSR.

Both had many, many women in the military, factories etc but absolutely none in any positions of influence or power.

I'm with Manatee. (Perhaps we should start a political oddballs club…)The oppression of women long predates capitalism and exists in economies that are not capitalist (think China particularly pre its shift towards state capitalism). In fact state capitalism has opened up more opportunities, in urban areas at least, than communism has for women.

I am 100% for genuine equality of opportunity. We are not there yet and must strive for it. However, equality of outcomes is much more dependent on what we make of opportunity, whether we are men or women.

I think my father was a wise old bird. He said, if Government gave every person a sum of money to give them an equal start in life (he used to say £1,000 but that was a long time ago) and followed them for say 20 years, you would find some would save it, some would spend it, some would invest it, some would start businesses with it and make money (or go bust) etc. - whatever permutation you can think of.

What you would not find is everyone would be equal or that life might be fairer at the end of the 20 years. And on top of that you have to layer on cultural attitudes as well and ability, which also affects how people behave. Not to mention that fairness does not necessarily equal equality.

Sadly, there will always be elites. Left wing governments merely change one sort of elite for another i.e. a financial elite for a political elite and with a political elite the tendency is for more restrictions on the individual. All we can practically do is strive to give everyone the chance to make of their life as much as they can and to set in place compassionate systems to help those who cannot help themselves.

Capitalism is not a wonderful system, agreed. It's a bit like the Churchill quote about democracy though - the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried so far.

IKnow, I'm not sure that's going anywhere.

There have been plenty of outright communist governments (China, parts of India, parts of Italy, some African countries post independence), without even getting on to merely socialist governments (eg Sweden).

Many of them have had women in various positions of political and economic power although not always the top spot (so no worse than most capitalist countries). Then there are notable examples such as Kerala in India which was (is?) a communist state with massively higher female literacy and rights than its capitalist neighbours.

It's a bit tedious to turn this into another binary Capitalism/Socialism seesaw, particularly of the oversimplistic "if you're not the USA then you're North Korea" type.

The OP asked a more subtle question that, and an interesting one.

Yes, I've always liked the Churchill quote too.

It's a good reminder that whatever system we have it won't be perfect, and will have flaws that have to be handled.

We can't complacently say, "We've chosen the Right System™ so now we can sit back and it'll turn out the best economy or society of it's own accord."

OK, I've never really looked into it in much depth with regards to Socialist/Communist etc. Very high level views I'm afraid.

Apologies for raising the tedium levels, I shall leave you to your subtleties.

Iknow
Are there any working examples of a socialist utopia then?

Cuba has lower infant mortality and higher life expectancy and literacy than USA

US Literacy

Infant mortality