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?

This is a really interesting thread and has helped me sort out some of my ideas, esp about human nature. Arundhati Roy said something in one of her books like, 'Ah, yes communism - one of the great products of the human mind, totally ruined by human nature.' Fab in theory, but runs up against the buffers of human greed (for money and power), venality and self-delusion in short order. With no check on the powerful, it all goes downhill (the same can be said for right-wing totalitarian regimes)

I think it is very possible to be right of centre and be a feminist: I've met a few.

Like some PPs, I don't think you can blame capitalism for misogyny - its a word with its roots in Ancient Greek for a good reason.

Yonic its not so much that's it's wrong, but contradictory. I'd define myself as all three, but I have to cherry pick. Eg sanctity of life v. Reproductive rights.

From what I see here, the people who describe themselves as right of centre are defining being left-wing by the practices of so-called "communist" countries, but no one person has mentioned the practices of extreme right-wing regimes, like Pinochet and most of South America in the 70s and 80s.

From where I stand I see nearly all countries are losing social welfare provisions. In the UK, thanks to the left-wing, you started from a really strong place, but now you have families going hungry. To my mind the right-wing will keep on chipping away at the social safety net you have all enjoyed for so long.

I've been a feminist all my life as long as I can remember and it is how I identify..

I'm also a ( bloody good!) Tory Councillor.

I could argue ( at length and eloquently) that many recent Labur /left policies have actively disenfranchsied women, devalued motherhood, devalued marriage ( which protects women) and impoverished women.

Single motherhood on benefits is nothing to aim for and yet we have thousands of women in such a position, abandoened by men who know The State will pay.

Women bear 85% of burden after Coalition’s tax and benefit tweaks

As a Lib Dem, I need to cop for this as well, but there's no denying that women have been hardest hit by the coalition.

Didn't read the whole thread but I spat out my food when I read that one poster believes Cuba to be a socialist utopia.

You're kidding, right? When I went there, people were so desperate to leave they were begging me to help them. People are poor as poor. Some are visibly hungry. They are desperate for material goods, just like everyone else. And there is a massive power elite, getting fatter and fatter. Just like there are in any political system.

The closest I can think of to a socialist utopia is Norway and Sweden. NZ used to be pretty good but is worsening every day with a larger division between rich and poor. All three are examples of 'blue green' politics - liberal macroeconomic settings in relation to trade and finance, substantial help in the form of funded education/social welfare, increasing devolution of what might have previously been considered state responsibility (such as social housing) to NGOs and private enterprise.

FWIW Norway, Sweden and NZ all score extremely highly on the global Gender Gap report.

Basically the recipe seems to be, help out those at the bottom with transfers for health, social welfare and education. And butt out of pretty much everything else.

Nrft but I don't think you do. I've read Andrea dworkins and Beatrix Campbell's books on this topic (right wing/Tory feminists)

It is true that most feminists are of the leftie persuasion.

I think it's to do with the feminisation of poverty and the value of money in our society. Those factors make gender issues and poverty/economic equality issues overlap to a great extent.

I'm a left-leaning feminist.

I have to say that I'm intrigued by this idea that conservative governments butt out of everyone's lives, and leave the 'nannying' to the left-of-centre parties when in government.

Does anyone actually believe this to be true in reality?

I see absolutely no evidence of it from Cameron's government, for example, which has changed the landscape for so many everyday people beyond recognition during his term in power.

We have a right-leaning government in power too, and I don't see them interfering any less, either...

It does make me smile wryly when conservatives say that governments interfere less in people's lives.

As an example of how conservatives want to interfere less with women's lives, can we discuss US State's legislatures desperate need to interfere with women's reproductive lives? And please, it's not all down to religion, even confirmed atheist conservatives believe they should be allowed to make decisions about women's bodies.

Yes indeed Puffins.

My feeling is that control of women's bodies and reproduction simply finds expression through different routes in different political systems.

So in China there is the one-child system. In the US, states keep trying to legislate about women's reproductive systems. In Spain under Franco 30,000 children were taken from "politically unsuitable parents", and Argentina did something similar on a smaller scale.

The last two regimes identified as right-wing: they certainly saw themselves as the antithesis of Communism. But I don't think they could be described as wanting small states or butting out of people's lives!

By the same token, countries like Zimbabwe identified as socialist, but women who miscarried had to undergo police investigations (past tense as I'm not up to date). A Zim friend now a refugee in the UK actually phoned me to ask what was going to happen to her. I didn't even understand her question - thought she was asking about medical care. Imagine: you're having a miscarriage and the first thing you worry about is the police.

I think being left-wing does sit better with feminism in many ways... I think that what I would actually call the capital R-Romantic cult of the individual espoused by the right, and the idea that anyone can make it if they only try (so background shouldn't be a barrier, and nor should gender or race) works against feminism because it is often against the idea of positive discrimination, all-female shortlists, etc.

Where the right will tend to argue that jobs should be given 'on merit', and right wing women will often argue that they wouldn't want to be 'patronised' by being on an all-female shortlist, this Romantic individualism seems to remain optimistic that 'the cream will rise' or whatever, rather than considering - and seeking to mitigate - the reasons why the cream doesn't rise, as the left tend to do.

I think also that what would be considered feminist ideas tend to be more readily espoused by the left than the right - abortion on demand being the most obvious example of this.

Simplistically, the left tend to be a bit more interested in unfairness and attempting to prevent it than the right, where that unfairness is felt by a disadvantaged or minority group.

I also find talk of 'core human nature' and so on fundamentally opposite to feminist thinking - for me, one of the key things about being a feminist and left-wing is that there's no such thing: we're made, not born, whether that relates to gender or anything else.

" right wing women will often argue that they wouldn't want to be 'patronised' by being on an all-female shortlist,"

I don't see this as linked to political leaning.

Feminism does seem to sit more easily with the left although I disagree that you have to be left wing to be feminist.

As far as controlling women's bodies are concerned - the controller can be left wing or right wing. The common factor is misogyny. Misogyny knows no "wings".

Yonic I'm not saying it necessarily must be, but rather that arguments against short-lists tend to come from the right rather than the left.

But I do actually think it's related to leaning, for the reasons I gave above - it's closely related to one's perspective on the individual, and individualism.

One can believe In Individual merit but recognise that those judging "merit" are socialised in a particular way (quite possibly looking for "people like us")

Yes, true.
I suppose there is also the obvious equation of Conservative with conservative ... Of course not all Tories are small-c conservative, but people who are are more likely to find their place in that party, I'd say.

Fair point Grimble. Although it seems to have reached it's ultimate zenith in the US and Southern American right wing countries.

My problem might be that I think very few people in the UK vote ideologically, for individualism vs socialism or whatever. I think they vote for whichever mish mash of policies most appeals, or because they have a couple of key issues they definitely don't want Party Y's policy on, or because they dislike A but hate B and C has no chance so they'll vote A.

And that's based on politics in the UK being largely moderate - as others have posted, extreme left or extreme right wing governments are both shitty for women!

And then there are whatever feelings one might have about one's M.P. personally--there are some who'd make you think less about the party and vote for or against the individual. (Depending on how ideological you really are.) For feminists, there might be a conflict if there's a woman running, and she seems pretty decent, but she's not in the party you like, and then what?

I wouldn't find a conflict there - a woman doesn't represent me by dint of being a woman, particularly not if she doesn't in any way espouse a feminist world view.