Some variants of feminism are considered more conservative than others.[1][2][3] Historically feminist scholars tend to not have much interest in conservative women but in recent years there have been efforts at greater scholarly analysis of these women and their views.[4][5][6]

Because almost any variant of feminism can have a conservative element, this list does not attempt to list variants of feminism simply with conservative elements. Instead, this list is of feminism variants that are primarily conservative.

List

This list may include organizations or individuals where a conservative feminism is more readily identified that way, but is primarily a list of feminisms per se. Generally, organizations and people related to a feminism should not be in this list but should be found by following links to articles about various feminisms with which such organizations and people are associated.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Adam Smith, pioneer of political economy and philosopher in the 18th century
  2. ^ John Stuart Mill, philosopher and political economist in the 19th century
  3. ^ Herbert Spencer, political theorist and philosopher in the Victorian era
  4. ^ Milton Friedman, economist in the 20th century
  5. ^ This is apparently not entirely the backlash written about by feminist author Susan Faludi.

References

  1. ^ Kersten, Katherine (Spring 1991). "What do women want? A conservative feminist manifesto". Policy Review. The Heritage Foundation (56): 4–15. If the conservative feminist becomes a mother, she accepts the need to make a host of sacrifices - personal, professional, and financial - for her children's sake. She expects her spouse to sacrifice as well, and decides together with him how each can best contribute to the family welfare. She believes that family roles are flexible: men can become primary caregivers, for example, while women can pursue full-time careers. But as she and her spouse make choices about family responsibilities, they take one thing as a given: their primary duty is to ensure their children's physical and emotional well-being, to promote their intellectual development, and to shape their moral characters.
  2. ^ Young, Cathy (9 June 2010). "Right to be feminist: a left-wing litmus test risks losing valuable allies for the women's movement". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 20 February 2011. Yet the audience for a different kind of feminism – one that seeks individualistic and market-oriented solutions, rather than big-government-driven ones, and focuses on women's empowerment rather than oppression – is clearly there. The women who embrace it are likely to transform both feminism and conservatism. The feminist movement ignores them at its peril.
  3. ^ Bradley, Allan (27 June 2010). "Conservative feminism: oxymoron?". HPRgument Blog. Harvard Political Review. Retrieved 20 February 2011. Internal contradictions aside, conservative feminism is not particularly new, and it is a mistake to call it an oxymoron. It is deeply religious, of course, and it views the anti-abortion fight as one of female empowerment. The argument is simply that as women – as the motherly and feminine forces guiding our nation's ethical compass – it is a feminine duty to defend life at its earliest stages. Women are empowered by the defense itself. This cultural theory may be out of date in Cambridge, Massachusetts, but it is at the heart of Palin's sizeable and passionate following. And it is, in its own way, a feminist argument.
    [...]
    My point is that the logic of conservative feminism is plain and obvious for anyone who cares to try to comprehend. It's not new or complicated, and it shouldn't be baffling. Therefore, it is a colossal mistake for Bennett to simply dismiss the self-described pro-life feminists as an oxymoron, because that's no way for her to argue her liberal position. Conservative feminism cannot be dismissively defined away.
  4. ^ Power, Margaret. "More than mere pawns: Right-wing women in Chile." Journal of Women's History 16, no. 3 (2004): 138-151.
  5. ^ Guy-Meakin, Amelia. "Augusto Pinochet and the Support of Chilean Right-Wing Women." E-International Relations Students (2012).
  6. ^ Nielsen, Kim E. "Doing the" right" right." Journal of Women's History 16, no. 3 (2004): 168-172.
  7. ^ Dillard 2005, p. 25 citing Kersten, Katherine, What Do Women Want?: A Conservative Feminists Manifesto. [sic], in Policy Review (1991).
  8. ^ Dillard 2005, pp. 25–26.
  9. ^ Dillard 2005, pp. 26–27.
  10. ^ a b c Dillard 2005, p. 26.
  11. ^ Dillard 2005, p. 27.
  12. ^ Feldmann 2010.
  13. ^ Posner 1989, pp. 191–192 cited in Weisberg 1993, p. 7
  14. ^ Posner 1989, pp. 192–194 and Weisberg 1993, p. 7 (without the rationale about reducing a barrier).
  15. ^ Weisberg 1993, p. 7.
  16. ^ Posner 1989, pp. 195–197.
  17. ^ Posner 1989, pp. 202–203.
  18. ^ Posner 1989, p. 204 n.22.
  19. ^ Posner 1989, pp. 205–206.
  20. ^ Posner 1989, pp. 206–207; also see p. 203 (date and marital rape).
  21. ^ Posner 1989, pp. 207.
  22. ^ Posner 1989, pp. 207–209.
  23. ^ Posner 1989, p. 208 (libertarians being "conservatives in the classical liberal tradition of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill ..., Herbert Spencer ... and Milton Friedman", per id., p. 191.
  24. ^ Posner 1989, p. 215.
  25. ^ Posner 1989, p. 217.
  26. ^ a b Siegel 2007, pp. 122–124, nn.32–34.
  27. ^ Manning 1999, p. 190.
  28. ^ Echols 1989, p. 12.
  29. ^ Stacey 1983, p. 559.
  30. ^ Stacey 1983, p. 574.
  31. ^ Rossi, Alice, A Biosocial Perspective on Parenting, in Daedalus 106 (special issue on the family, Spring, 1977), as cited in Stacey 1983, p. [559] n.3.
  32. ^ Stacey 1983, pp. 562, 567–568.
  33. ^ Stacey 1983, pp. 561–562.
  34. ^ Stacey 1983, pp. 575, n.53 citing, e.g., Epstein, Barbara Leslie, The Politics of Domesticity: Women, Evangelism, and Temperance in Nineteenth-Century America (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan Univ. Press, 1981), Sklar, Kathryn Kish, Catharine Beecher: A Study in American Domesticity (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1973), & DuBois, Ellen Carol, Feminism and Suffrage: The Emergence of an Independent Women's Movement in America, 1848–1869 (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1978).
  35. ^ Bailey 2006, p. 173.
  36. ^ Bailey 2006, p. 175.
  37. ^ Bailey 2006, p. 177.
  38. ^ Bailey 2006, p. 176.
  39. ^ Bailey 2006, p. 174.
  40. ^ Bailey 2006, pp. 180–181.
  41. ^ Bailey 2006, pp. 181–182.
  42. ^ Bailey 2006, p. 182.
  43. ^ a b Castro 1990, pp. 62, 216–218.
  44. ^ a b c d Siegel 2007, p. 83.
  45. ^ Siegel 2007, p. 176 "new feminism" is probably the author's term not referring to the new feminism related to Roman Catholicism but perhaps to second-wave feminism generally) (fragmentation prob. referring to late 1960s–early 1970s in U.S.).
  46. ^ Swift 2018.

Bibliography

Further reading

Books

Articles

Blogs

  1. ^ As cited in Dillard, Angela D., Adventures in Conservative Feminism, op. cit., p. 26.
  2. ^ Burfitt-Dons, Louise. "The Successes and failures of feminism". Conservative Home. Retrieved 21 February 2014.