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?

No need to leave the thread!

OP posed an interesting question: is it possible to be a feminist without being left-wing?

What do you think?

And I agree with you above, that as women move up the ranks (in come countries), it will be interesting to see if there becomes less of a link between capitalism and patriarchy.

As I think about it a bit more, I can see some bits of some political philosophies that resonate with various feminist outlooks. For example the radfem position that transgender people are their gender of birth and not of choice, and to claim otherwise is patently absurd, wouldn't look out of place in The Spectator - even though other radfem ideas probably would. Equally the liberal feminist emphasis on using economics and the rule of law to pursue equality could either take a right-wing slant (if you emphasise career achievement) or a left-wing one (if you focus on using regulations to support gender equality outcomes eg workplace discrimination).

I think what I'm poking at is this: feminism seems to me to cut across a simplistic left/right dichotomy. So if that's the case and in fact feminists are a politically diverse bunch, why does feminism so often seem to be presented in opposition to 'conservative' views and as self-evidently part of a broader leftish 'social justice' schtick?

It slightly depends which conservatism you mean. Republicans seem to be more likely to be anti abortion than democrats, for example.

Is true, Yonic (good NN, btw) - there is a great muddle between small-c conservative and big-C Conservative, and that's even before you get to the IMO in lots of ways frankly bonkers American version of conservative

I know quite a few right-wing feminist politicians. Some are at a local level, rather than national. THey might not call themselves feminist politicians but they act in a way that suggests they are, IYSWIM. They basically believe that the state should not stand in the way of anyone making the best of their life, and that individuals can often accomplish more than the state. They can be quite down-to-earth and downright, but are often very practical, sharp and efficient, certainly in local government.

This is a great thread, thanks for starting it. I'd love to post but my phone won't do me justice. Just popping in now to make sure I flag this for later.

I think you can be a capitalist and a feminist. You could have capitalism without exploitation on the basis of sex. It would require state intervention to ensure compliance because capitalism tends towards exploitation. I don't think Sweden is a socialist country but it has interventions in capitalism that we don't have. We have plenty of state interventions in capitalism (e.g. competition laws) we just make different intervention choices.

I don't see how there can be feminism if you don't recognise the exploitation of women as a class. I find liberal ideologies less compatible with feminism than capitalism.

Show me a socialist country that has an immigration problem.

the radfem position that transgender people are their gender of birth and not of choice, and to claim otherwise is patently absurd, wouldn't look out of place in The Spectator

but also wouldn't look out of place as an example of Marxist dialectical materialism.

Flora, yes Sweden uses a mix of socialist and capitalist principals. Depending on their own position, to some people that's a socialist country, to others a capitalist country.

Might be just me, but I don't find it very helpful to talk in terms of "X is a Y-ist country". Because there's so little agreement on what constitutes being a Y-ist country rather than following some Y-ist principals. China a good eg: ruled by Communist Party but these days home to much vehemently capitalist behaviour.

I didn't really want interesting thread to get bogged down in such labelling! But of course there is a need for some common definition of left-wing, right-wing, etc, to enable discussion at all. There's also, as OP says, some variation in what people think feminism is for.

No brain cells right now, so not going to attempt anything actually, you know, helpful.

www.publicseminar.org/2015/02/feminism-capitalism-and-social-transformation/#.VTg2vRhOKrU

That looks interesting
Fwiw, I do agree that you can be right of centre for some matters and feminist. In some ways it only serves to accentuate other sorts of privilege, but as someone up thread suggested - there are many forms of privilege, and if sex privilege could be eradicated in a capitalist economy, the. Of course that could be perceived as a gain from a gender equality pov. Of course, it's very trendy to be all about the intersectionality, so just being a feminist isn't good enough any more - you have to be up for eradicating every form of inequality or you just aren't good enough.

So, I think the lefty feminists see a broader remit, whereas the righty feminists (technical term) are seeking a narrower form of equality, in the short term, believing that equality within the capitalist model would be a good start.

That is all probably bollocks, but in any case, I see a ton of right of centre feminists. They are the ones usually being accused of trying to emulate masculine traits, while of course they are really trying to oppose the labeling of those traits as masculine, and to encourage some dudes to identify with traits labelled as feminine.

Feminists come in all shapes and political leanings.

Well I honestly think that the right-left dicotomy is well past its sell-by date, in that I think the banks are the problem in this world and neither the right nor the left challenge that.

However, getting back to the traditional difference between right and left, where the right believes in every man for themselves and the left is taking care of the weakest in society, I cannot see how the cause of feminism can exist in the right-wing. A wise man once said that you can tell how well a society is by how it treats its women. In the survival of the fittest concept that the right-wing have, women who are mothers and do not dispose of a large income are among the weakest in society. Before there was welfare for single-parent families, women had to stay in situations of domestic violence or leave their children with their father.

feminism seems to me to cut across a simplistic left/right dichotomy

capitalism without exploitation on the basis of sex would require state intervention to ensure compliance because capitalism tends towards exploitation

I think the issue is that there isn't a nice simple linear scale between being left wing and right wing. It would be perfectly possible to self-define a bunch of principles which are compatible with feminism as broadly right-of-centre, and therefore be both, so my general answer to the op is yes.

But there are a huge number of policies and principles that have generally been associated with right-wing parties that are incompatible with women's rights - e.g. Limiting maternity leave and pay, restricting abortion - that it's clear you just can't say "people who are right wing believe X" on any matter.

So I don't know the answer. But interesting question. Thanks OP

"But there are a huge number of policies and principles that have generally been associated with right-wing parties that are incompatible with women's rights - e.g. Limiting maternity leave and pay, restricting abortion..."

Whereas in China, abortion in certain circumstances is pretty much compulsory. Want to live there?

That's the thing about left-wing regimes. They try to set up a system that regulates people's behaviour for (as they're quick to say) everyone's good. So, if they think the birth rate needs to be reduced, there's a one-child policy.

By the way, there's an election coming up in Britain, and nobody knows which party is going to win. That's not the kind of thing that happens in socialist countries. Just try saying "The Conservatives are terrible, let's have Labour" in Cuba, and see where you end up.

I'm sure you can be right-wing and a feminist, but it would require a bit mental gymnastics to make it all add up.
To grab a random example from the air, I don't see how markets would have got us to the current position of maternity leave without 'nanny state' intervention.

It occurs to me that maybe people on the right are less likely to label themselves as feminists, even if they do believe in equality etc?

Few right wingers believe in completely unfettered capitalism - safety regulations, maximum hours per week etc are not about to be repealed if the Tories win the next election.

Although interestingly, yonic, one of the first Tory moves blocked by the Lib Dems was a proposal to allow bosses to fire workers at will with no reason, wasn't it?

And one person's 'sensible regulations for worker protection' is another's 'elf and safety gorn mad'. Or 'red tape', that's another one. So... you never know.

Reading these very interesting responses, a few other things have occurred to me. I tend to characterise broadly right or left-wing worldviews less by specific economic or social policies than by the core vision of human nature and society that supports those policies. Very reductively, a right-wing view of humans and society isn't every man for himself (to be specific, that's Thatcherite and even she saw it as being about individuals and families) but one that sees humans as broadly decent but conflict as inescapable between individuals and groups, as different interests are never fully reconcilable. The role of the state, in this view, is to interfere to the bare minimum in order to manage these unavoidable conflicts and ensure reasonable levels of harmony overall for the large part of society. But perfection is impossible and some conflict and unfairness is bound to happen, because humans are flawed and that's never going to change.

Again very reductively (there are of course huge variations on both sides) left-wing perspectives tend to see human nature and society as in theory capable of being perfected. The nature of the obstacle to that perfection varies but rather than being intrinsic to human nature it's generally the patriarchy, the rich or some other form or combination of vested interests. In this view the role of the state is usually to intervene to the extent required to control or even eradicate those vested interests so that social justice can flourish. Another common if not fundamental feature of these worldviews is that all solutions to social justice issues are assumed to be compatible with one another. That is, the solution to racism is assumed to be compatible with the solutions to poverty, sexism and other injustices. Fix the root cause of injustice - privilege, capitalism or whatever - and the good society will obtain for all oppressed or suffering groups. Hence, I think - though I am not well informed on this front so please correct me - intersectionality, which says it's not enough just to tackle sexism but rather all forms of social injustice must be addressed together. Pretty much by definition this view must see the solutions to all types of injustice as internally compatible, and by implication those oppressed groups as not in competition with one another, or at least some kind of society imaginable where this competition doesn't happen.

I guess from where I sit, this is by no means a given. I don't think human nature can be perfected (or legislated for that matter) to the point where we have a form of the good life in which all social justice issues have been addressed in ways that are fair and also compatible with one another. Call me a pessimist, but it seems more likely to me that in fact there is no perfect 100% solution to the oppression of one group that is free of the risk of accidentally creating some other form of oppression. As I said before, I'm with John Gray in seeing impossible political projects as tending to authoritarian solutions; that is to say, a pragmatically imperfect solution might in my view risk creating some other injustice but the attempt to achieve a perfect one is guaranteed to do so.

The broad aims of feminism, on the whole, don't seem impossible to me, but as part of a perfect social solution that somehow addresses all conflicts and injustices of all types? Not plausible IMO, because I think interest groups are always going to have a level of conflict. Which I guess makes me a right-wing feminist

No, you can be a feminist and be an economic conservative. However I dont know how you would marry social conservatism with being a feminist

I think you could be right of centre and a feminist if you believe in a meritocracy. The feminists I have most difficulty getting my head round (apart from the rads) is the left wing, christian feminists as the message they send out is completely confused.

The feminists I have most difficulty getting my head round (apart from the rads) is the left wing, christian feminists as the message they send out is completely confused.

I've never heard of such a thing as left-wing Christian feminists How does that work?

However, getting back to the traditional difference between right and left, where the right believes in every man for themselves and the left is taking care of the weakest in society, I cannot see how the cause of feminism can exist in the right-wing

This is where I differ. Upthread I said I was right of centre economically and left of centre socially. I don't find that view incompatible with each other or with feminism.

I want, as much as the next person, to protect the vulnerable. The question for me is a pragmatic one. How do we best do that? One can talk all one likes about poverty, the weak, the vulnerable, how much you care etc. but the fact is that to alleviate these problems you need money. You need money directly for those groups and you need money to pay for the valuable public services of social work, nursing, medicine etc. that are state funded. Words cost nothing and all the caring in the world is useless without a strong economy. Bleeding hearts don't pay bills.

Capitalism does need to have brakes on (the bankers were the obvious example of that) but a capitalist society encourages enterprise, business start ups and expansion, (good) risk taking by the individual prepared to go out on a limb, share investment to boost the economy etc. and it does not bother me at all that some people become rich on it because their taxes contribute disproportionally highly to the tax take (despite the tax evasion/avoidance issue, which is a separate question).

I think this right/left divide is over simplistic and I still don't know of a better way, despite all its weaknesses, than capitalism to produce the funds the state and society needs.

And I have been as anti-patriarchal and as feminist as it comes right from my childhood.

What's wrong with being left wing, Christian and a feminist?