Does Feminism Remove Women's Agency/ Infantilize Them?

[ladsin]

So this was originally going to be a question, but my description was too long so I'm just moving it here, but I'm interested in hearing y'alls opinions. It's still a question, not an assertion of my position.

I'm currently listening to a fellow who is making the argument that feminism today treats women as children who are incapable of making their own choices. In his argument he's giving a few examples where he states that feminists are telling women that they aren't capable of making their own choices. I'll give three of them here.

Grid Girls

-These women chose to be models for Formula 1 races and performed a promotional/ advertising position at these races. A feminist group Women's Sports Trust got Formula 1, Professional Darts Corporation, and a few other organizations to no longer employ these women as they thought it degrading to women.

Louis CK Apology

- About a year ago several women came forward stating that the comedian Louis had been sexually inappropriate with them in that he asked if they wanted to watch him masturbate. He recently apologized stating "I said to myself that what I did was O.K. because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is also true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them. The power I had over these women is that they admired me."

Justin Trudeau

- In 2015-16 Trudeau pushed for and made a gender balanced cabinet. Specifically in his explanation for why this was important to him he said that despite attempting a "get her to run" campaign to incentivize women to run for public office women still did not want to run. In return he apparently strong-armed Chrystia Freeland to uproot her family twice despite her not desiring to do so.

The arguments this fellow made based off these examples are pretty simple, but I'll summarize them below in case there's confusion
1) Women can't choose what profession they want to work in. This treats women like children and takes their agency away.
2) If a woman admires a man she can't refuse his sexual advancements. This treats women like children who aren't capable of choosing to leave an uncomfortable situation.
3) Women didn't want to run for office but were strong armed into doing so, and even when they did they had to have a mandate for a balanced cabinet in order to achieve the same as their male peers. This treats women as not as capable as men, and takes away their agency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/02/01/pc-gone-mad-formula-1-bans-grid-girls-but-some-of-them-arent-happy-about-it/?utm_term=.7f0c9aed8629

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/arts/television/louis-ck-statement.html

I look forward to hearing y'alls opinions.

[Guanfei]

Infantilization and victimization are the 2 key words of modern feminism.

On one side, feminists try to make everything an attack on women from (white) men, and on the other side, while claiming that a woman is free to do whatever she wants, they try to eradicate anything not going their way, such as the grid girls, for example.
For modern feminists, a woman is free to do whatever she wants, as long as it's what feminists tell them she can. Being a housewife, for example, isn't acceptable for them, even if it's the woman choice.
In the end, they're not freeing women, they're just putting them in a new ideological cage, where the rules are to go as far as possible from men, hate them, and if possible, crush them.
And women MUST follow the rules, if they don't, they're treated as traitors, and sometimes even more hated than men.
Modern feminists dictate what woman can and cannot do, and are ready to sacrify any woman for the cause.

The grid girls (since it is so well chosen to illustrate that) are the perfect example of it. They had a good job they choosed to do, they earned quite a good amount of money, enjoyed it, some even had their own fan clubs. They were exactly what an independant woman could be. Yet they were sacrified for the cause, lost their jobs and all the advantages of it.

[ladsin]

Mm. Thanks for the response.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

What you're characterizing as "Feminism" here is very misleading.

For example, yeah there was a Feminist group that got grid girls banned in Formula 1, but there are just as many Feminist organizations that promote women's sexual agency even if they choose to go into professions that traditional Feminists don't like, such as glamour models, booth babes, sex workers, etc. The fact that it's been Feminist groups who advocate for better working conditions for sex workers speaks volumes about how sexual agency is a central issue for most Feminists these days.

On the CK Louis issue, women CAN refuse the advances of men they admire, but not if they wish to retain power in their career or whatever the context is. The fact that #MeToo exists, and that CK Louis made the apology in the first place speaks to this very fact.

Justin Trudeau may have strong-armed a female colleague into public service, but isn't that what heads of state do? How many men throughout history has this happened to? Do you think they lost their agency?

[ladsin]

I’ll take that you just missed the second sentence of this myTake as an accident and not an intentional act of shoehorning me with someone else’s position. To reiterate, these are not my views, these are the arguments of someone else and I was merely asking y’all opinions.
My understanding of your second portion is that surely some feminist groups do things that seem to infantalize women, but others do not and as such we shouldn’t make a hasty generalization.

Your comment about CK though makes little sense to me. These ladies were not in his employ, they simply liked him because he’s famous/ funny. He asked them if he could masturbate and they said yes. That seems like their own choice to me.

According to Trudeau this does not happen to men. When men are asked to run for public office the first question is “when”, but women ask “why me?” The video of him is only ~15 minutes long if you’d like to watch it and formulate your own opinion.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I apologize if I sounded like I was accusing you of having these views; that wasn't my intention.

The women were not in CK Louis' employ directly, but they were hoping for a 'big break' and denying him could have prevented that from happening. In essence, they were coerced.

www.nytimes.com/.../...s-ck-sexual-misconduct.html

[ladsin]

Mm accidents happen and the text format can be confusing at times. All is well.

I don’t quite see the issue. He asks women if he can masturbate and they say yes. He then masturbates. Life goes on. What else should he do? Refrain from asking any women anything sexual? I really don’t understand this concept. There was an event people frequently call “elevator-gate” in which a guy asked a girl if she wanted to come to his hotel room while on an elevator. She then called it harassment. I call it a question, a proposition. If he were their superior o could at least get it a little bit, but when a woman said no he didn’t do it. All the claims seem to line up. He asked and respected boundaries so far as I can tell.

Perhaps you can clarify who’s allowed to ask another person if they’re interested in sex.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Ideally, people in a position of power, whether real or implied, shouldn't put potential subordinates in a position to accept or deny sex. The case of CK Louis is pretty benign in comparison to others; to the women he propositioned it *could* have sounded like "you'll watch me masturbate if you want to go anywhere in the industry" regardless of how he meant it.

Also, I was wrong: at least one of the women in question was his subordinate (on the Chris Rock Show) when it happened. And, he was married at the time.

So I guess my answer to the question of who is allowed to ask for sex:
- Not people who are in a position of power and who can influence your career
- Not your boss
- Not a married guy

[ladsin]

Wait married guys can’t ask for sex from anyone? What if he’s in an open relationship? What if he’s just an asshole and wants to cheat, you want that to be grounds for losing a job or possible criminal charges?

The one anony woman I think you’re referencing wasn’t necessarily in a position under him, and she consented to watch him masturbate multiple times so I guess again it’s just not something I get.

As I see it Louis was attracted to several women ~15 years ago. He asked them if he could masturbate and they said yes. They then came forward after ~15 years to say that he had acted inappropriately. It doesn't seem to me that he did. If he had not asked for permission or done it despite not receiving permission then I would be right there with you, but I don’t get how you can tell adults not to ask other adults if they’re interested in sex.

[ladsin]

Ah well. Any more thoughts on Trudeau or nah?

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Not really re: Trudeau. I mean, he's a politician. They do all kinds of things that aren't cool.

[ladsin]

Gotcha. Thanks

[Greyskygemini]

That doesn't sound like feminism. Feminism is about empowering women to make their own choices and fighting against oppression. If a man (or woman) tries to dictate or coerce a woman into doing something she feels is wrong for her, that is not feminism. Simply claiming to be a feminist does not make a person one. People who deny women respect and equitable treatment are not feminists. A feminist would not presume to know what is best for a woman/women in their lives. Feminists do not seek to "protect" women from their emotions, their choices, or making mistakes. Feminists do not police women's clothing, behavior, or employment. Basically, feminists respect a woman's right to agency over her own body, choices, and actions. You cannot simultaneously be a feminist and uphold its near opposite, patriarchy. Those who try are either lying or ignorant of actual feminism.

[ladsin]

I mean most people agree that the last two at least are great examples of feminism. The first seems to be more highly contested, but they were still claiming to be feminists and had sufficient backing to enact change as the face of feminism.

[alice55]

I think it's more the reverse, before women were under the authority of their father then after marriage under the one of their husband, only stuff they had to do was to follow and obey all "order" their father and husband gave them so I think this is ways more Infantilizing than the feminism.
Before they didn't have to think of take decision, they had to depend on their make family member / husband like a little kids all their life.

I think some feminism stuff make women to be more immature though, not caring about consequence of their action but I don't consider this to be Infantilizing. At least to don't sound like it to me.

[ladsin]

You don’t think that these examples infantilize women? Why is that? If I got you fired and then preached to you that it’s because you aren’t capable of making your own decisions about your employment would you not think I was treating you as a child?

[alice55]

I wouldn't think so, I would think it's the true.

[ladsin]

You think it’s true that you aren’t capable of choosing your own job?

I must be confused, can you explain?

[CoffeeWC]

I think that feminism does exactly that. It denies women jobs that "degrade" women. Just because something degrades women, doesn't mean that job shouldn't exist. Neither does it mean that women don't want that particular job. It pushes women into jobs solely for the purpose of balancing the gender. Feminists may claim that they are fighting for equal rights. But feminism can do more harm than good. It can lower the efficiency of a society by focusing on how "fair" something and ignoring each gender's strengths and weaknesses.

[MlleCake]

I don't see any of those situations as you do, and no, it has not been my experience that feminism disrespected my agency or abilities.

[ladsin]

I’ll presume that missing my second sentence was accidental and not just intentionally disregarded.

To reiterate though these aren’t my positions these are the examples given by someone else and his use of them to prove his point. If you disagree with his interpretation I’d be happy to hear it. That’s why I asked this

[ATuairiscean]

It is something I can say about a lot of questions/takes on GaG - For me it often comes down to which of the two concepts is the most dangerous to leave out there - Lets flip the arguments
(1) Grid girls - Young girls and boys grow up thinking that it is okay to sexualise a young woman who is a bit of eye candy to appeal to mainly young men's fantasies (Not my beliefs totally but the opposite view)
(2) A man of power can abuse his position to sexually assault a woman
(3) Without quotas, the status quo will never be broken and it will always favour men
My own view:
(1) Possibly gone too far but there has been a spate of TV programmes recently about what was socially acceptable in 1970s on TV, I grew up in 1970s and took it as norm but when I watch it now I go "F****** hell, how were they allowed say that", my point being what is considered normal may seem way out in 2050
(2) Louis CK apology absolutely holds no water for me
(3) Rather than quotas create an environment for women and minorities to progress.
All in all, I do back the suggestion they have gone too far but the response to the response is going too far, I feel a vicious cycle developing where the first two words in any debate on womens' rights will be "Pig" and "Bitch" - These can be widened out to many other issues where you insert the issue and the appropriate words in the sentence.

[englisc]

Yes it does. A prime example is the subject of sex while drunk. I've had conversations with feminists here about this and they never have an answer for it, usually they just go quiet.

If a woman drinks, even just to the point where she's tipsy, according to feminists she's unable to give consent. If she has sex then the man has raped her, even if he had some drinks too. In that case, even though she's not passed out drunk and has an idea of what she's doing, she's not responsible for her actions.

Now, put that same girl in a car. Drunk driving. Now she's somehow responsible for her actions, for endangering herself and others. However since this has nothing to do with gender of course feminists say nothing about that.

So what feminists believe is that if a woman is drunk, she's responsible if she drives a car, but not responsible if she rides a dick instead. Then it's a man's fault.

[ladsin]

A lawyer was talking at my school once and telling us all about a case in which a woman had a few drinks and then asked a fellow home with her. She then told him to grab a condom and said she wanted sex.

He had with her and thought all was well. He asked her out and thanked her for the night. A few days later she went to the police and filed a rape claim. He was found guilty of a felony and had to serve ~3 years I think.

Many people made the same argument you did and the lawyer started calling us rapists/ rape apologists. It didn’t go very wel.

[englisc]

Yeah its ridiculous. I was even told by a certain feminist that because I've had drunken sex I also was a rape victim because I was unable to consent which is even more stupid.

[ladsin]

It makes everyone both a rapist and a rape victim.

[englisc]

Yeah, I really think that feminism is like a cult or a religion. Their views aren't logical and you can't reason with them. They ignore any argument or evidence that contradicts their worldview.

[AlienParasite]

There are different types of feminism. And yes, the mainstream is a totalitarist and puritan (they are like nuns) that treat people outside their moral like children, idiots, or monsters.

Now I'm talking about what happened in Spain, my country, this week. My government call itself "feminist". This government approved a sexual workers labour union as legal, and now they are saying "it's a mistake" and it's going to take away this people's rights to be protected because they say prostitution is "antifeminist". The worst part is that they say that beign prostitution illegal they protect sexual workers, without really listening sexual workers needs. They even treat sexual workers as inferior or victims, even those sexual workers that are there because they have chosen that. They impose their moral to others, and worst, they act like heroes when they are leaving unprotected a very vulnerable group who really needs regulation and laws.

[RetroAlpha]

I think concepts such "male gaze" and objectification and quite a few other relevant feminist buzz words carry an undertone that they are subject to men's whims. While there is some truth in that, it says nothing about the decisions the woman in question might have made to exacerbate a random situation.

When something goes wrong in my life, no matter how small, I always wonder what I did wrong, first, and then think about the other person. It seems feminists do this in reverse. "What did HE do?" "Why did HE do that?", without dragging up the possibility that maybe the woman may have done something wrong until way later - usually when they're older.

[WhitePanther88]

Yes. Some good points. Feminist should be encouraging women to take responsibility for themselves instead of promoting the hatred of men and demanding special treatment.

[ladsin]

Cool thanks

[lilaqua]

It's like saying giving certain benefits to help black people is some how infantilising. It would be infantilising if we were on an even playing field, but we're not, it's about righting historical wrongs. The grid girls thing I don't agree with, but that issue has split the feminist movement quite significantly so it's not unanimous in opinion. The Louis CK incidents aren't even relevant and the Canadian cabinet has good intentions, but the problem isn't getting girls into politics (they outnumber men in the field at uni) but defeating the old boys club that keeps them out of higher levels. For example our most capable prime minister in ten years was bullied and victimised constantly for being a women, this was from 2010-13, it's an issue that faces people today.

[ladsin]

I’ve seen some black men arguing that giving them special benefits is infantilising, I was just being more specific with this question.

Grid girls- you presumably find this infantilizing, but don’t think of it as indicative of the movement as a whole, is that right?

Louis- how is it not? The argument is that feminists are treating women as though they cannot be trusted with the consent they give. Did you think you were consenting to sex? Nope, you admired the person and you therefor couldn’t deny them. You’re not capable of doing so.

Canada- this was specifically about Canada I’m not sure of where you lived how it works. Trudeau made it though so that women would be 2.5x more likely to make it into cabinet not because of their merit, but because of what they have between their legs. The idea being that women could not achieve sufficient merit on their own and as such needed a man to put them into power.

Thanks for the response!

[lilaqua]

The grid girls thing is just stupid. I see it as the sexist media basically trying to demonise social justice in any way they can. It's making a mountain out of a molehill, and concerns extremists, whom one way or another have always existed.

I think you just don't get the me too movement, it's not that women cannot be trusted it's that men in positions of power can abuse it to the detriment of women. How you assumed anything else is beyond me.

This is actually a very complicated issue, mostly because it concerns tackling pre-conceived biases with other biases. You also have to understand that politics isn't a meritocratic system, it's one of nepotism and who you know. If it gives women who were not allowed into men's clubs and make those connections a back entry then more power to them. Actually get to know people in politics, you'll soon understand why this seemingly unfair system is working to equalise one that was already unequal.

[ladsin]

1) this isn’t a small minority. They managed to eat these women to lose their jobs, they’re not impotent fringe feminists. If you think they are you’re just not looking.

2) I never mentioned meToo, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. Louis was accused and admitted to having “sexually harassed” women because he asked to masturbate in front of them and they consented. Both he and the women stated that he should have known that since they admired him they could not give consent.

3) I know that in my society both men and women are allowed to run for office and attain it. I do not want men or women to have institutional bid affecting whether or not they get in, I want them to get in based on their merit. In this case were talking about elected officials and if they garner the vote they deserve the position.

[lilaqua]

1. It's not important. It's not an issue I care about because I personally believe it is a purely capitalist decision by F1 to appeal more progressive, they have all the power, not the feminists. If you're angry about it appeal to unions and become a communist.
2. No it's the idea that Louis is in a position of power and he abused it. A bit like how a university student can be taken advantage of by an older teacher because they're in a position of power, and can attract them by offering benefits. It's not saying they're too stupid to consent, its that the condition overrides normal decision making.
3. The problem is that the political system IS NOT BASED ON MERIT. Women have a harder time getting in because they lack the social institutions that propel men there in the first place and tend to get discouraged. Happens all the time, it's not against the law but it's a powerful process.

[ladsin]

1) uhhh so these feminist organizations don’t have lobbying power? Can you at least agree that it’s infantilizing to tel women they aren’t capable of choosing their own profession?

2) that wasn’t stated and he was in no position of power over these women. They were fans not job applicants or students.

3) what institutions?

[lilaqua]

1. certain jobs die. A lot of men have been laid off because car production plants are moved overseas, is it infantilising to men because they cannot choose their professions any more? no. The grid girls thing is an always was economic, it probably wasn't profitable any more that's why they got rid of it. If they want to objectify themselves the option is still there, no one (except conservatives) are telling them they cannot work in the sex industry.
2. I just read the reports. The problem is not even that complicated. Louis CK committed sexual assault. Women did not consent to being masturbated in front of. The fact that it was hidden for over a decade is what people are getting angry about. There is no consent argument.
3. Stuff like men's clubs, boys private schools, also older, conservative rules have a tendency to root themselves in politics. It happens here in Australia as I said, misogynistic men in power can prevent women into the field.

[ladsin]

1) I think you’re being dishonest. The grid girls were not gotten rid of because they were too costly, there was societal pressure because some feminists believed that the job was derogatory towards women. Your analogy is deeply flawed. If MRAs were arguing that male nurses should be fired because they view the role of compassionate men to be derogatory and got them fired that would be analogous, and I would think that infantilizing.

2) ”At the time, I said to myself that what I did was O. K. because I never showed a woman my dick” you must’ve read something other than what I read or posted.

3) what’s the argument here? That boys private schools better prepare someone for political office, or that they build valuable contacts that help later in life? I’m not entirely sure I understand.

[ladsin]

*2 “without asking first, which is also true.” sorry it cut that part out.

[lilaqua]

1. You don't get it. The whole "feminism ruined grid girls" is a ploy to just scapegoat someone other than F1. Media won't tell you the whole story.
2. There's situations were he just got his dick out masturbated and ejaculated, all before the women consented. Not an argument.
3. It's more complicated than that. It's basically trying to actually break down the inequalities in the first place. Take down workplace bullying that places women seconds and forces them to leave. It's not a preparation thing, women graduate from political education more frequently then men but are underrepresented. This is an issue people are trying to tackle.

[ladsin]

1) I’ve watched the interview in which the feminist organization took credit, I’ve read the statement by F1 and I’ve heard the women who lost their jobs because of it. I think you’re just denying what evidently happened.

2) which? The one where he asked the women? They laughed about it and then he undressed and did it? I think that’s the one you’re referencing. The other he asked a woman and she said no. I agree it was uncouth, but if you ask someone for consent and they appear to give it... I don’t know how you could fault them for thinking they had it. I’ve had people ask to have sexual relations with me and denied them. That’s not problematic, they’re adults they could’ve said no or left as far as I can tell.

3) sure politics is a shitshow for everyone and as such I would not want to get involved. I don’t think that’s a valid reason to grant women a 2.5x better chance just because of their genitals.

[bente2]

I get what you mean, and I agree to an extent. Feminism has put women in a victim role, even when they sometimes are not. I think we still need feminism, because women’s lives can be drastically improved compared to men’s (which still deserve improvement, but since men aren’t in immediate danger in most cases, I plea for women faster).

But feminism also makes it so a woman is seen as underprivileged. It belittles her in a way.

Overall though, feminism does more FOR than AGAINST women.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Of course, their entire position is that they are perpetual victims, nothing is their fault and they should be babied. You can't treat some one like that as equal because they are stating they are not equal. That's been my problem with a lot of feminist arguments (along with the patently false statements they make).

[TheBigSoftie]

More or less.
It teaches women that they can get away with anything they want to, even if it means mutilating men, just because they're women and it's accepted in society, but I wouldn't say it turns them into whiny bratty infants who can't take care of themselves, cos a lot of women are able to take care of themselves, whether they are feminists/feminazis or not.

[Bananaman177]

Every woman I admire and respect has zero respect for other women.

That's not what I admire and respect about them, I just can't help but notice, I don't respect very many women, but all the ones I do, they all hate other women and say shit about other women that is more sexist than anything I've ever heard a man say.

Smartest woman I've ever personally known actually told me once that she didn't think women should be allowed to vote. I've heard men say that, but only as a ridiculous joke! She was dead serious and said the reason why is that most women aren't intelligent enough to know what they're voting for, and the ones who are intelligent are so few and far between that it would be better for all women if only men could vote.

So I naturally asked her about all the stupid men who shouldn't vote, she cut me off and said, "Yeah, but the difference is worthless men are a percentage, worthless women are the majority."

[Anonymous]

It seems modern day feminism wants women to do for the interests of all women, and not what is good for themselves. For example, I may want to be a housewife. I may feel that the best thing for me is to be at home with my children. Extreme feminism would view me as a traitor to the cause. It's about women having a choice, as long as they approve. It's no longer women being controlled by men, it's women being controlled by other women.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

I'd say yes.

I like to think about the implications of what it would mean if we actually took this seriously. Like, well I guess I can't not be sexually assaulted by women because I admire them... how much admiration does it take? Does it only apply to women? And so on. It's ridiculous in my opinion.

[Aynsof]

I do not think feminists and associated organisations infantilise women but some of them do present women and womens issues in such a way and thus perpetuating a victimization culture in order to leverage influence

[ladsin]

If I’m understanding you correctly you’re saying that feminism on the whole does not infantalise women, but some organizations do. Is that correct?

[Aynsof]

Sort of yes
Certain feminist groups and individuals does present women in a certain light that can be said to infantilise women but feminism isn't a singular pure "ideology" it encompasses different viewpoints that share some core ideals
But also what I was trying to say is that these groups they do not really make women behave in certain ways directly at least they paint women in a certain light because doing so helps their cause and organisations
Of course some women over time may internalize these messages but I do not believe that to be the primary purpose

[ladsin]

“they do not really make women behave in certain ways directly” they made women lose their job in the first example.

[Aynsof]

Yes but that was not quite what I meant
They got these women fired on the notion that their jobs were degrading to women they did not make the women quit on the notion that their jobs were degrading to them

[ladsin]

Oh, I’m still not understanding you, perhaps you could explain. One group of women forced these women to lose their jobs because they (first group) thought that the job was demeaning and it didn’t matter what these women (second group) wanted or felt.

These women (second group) actually found the job empowering and a symbol of their freedom of choice, but that was taken from them (second group).

You don’t think that in this scenario the first group is removing the agency or infantilizing the second group?

[Aynsof]

Well yes the first group treated and prortrayed the second group as children
The first group did not make the second group behave as children
So what I am saying in one sense yes they did in another no

[ladsin]

Uhh ok. Thanks bud.

[Volvagia]

I'd say modern feminism is victimizing rather than infantilizing women as it teaches women to not hold themselves accountable by pegging the blame on something or someone else (ex: men - particularly white men, sexism, patriarchy, etc.)

[AllThatSweetJazz]

Isn't that exactly what infantilizing is?

[Volvagia]

@AllThatSweetJazz No.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

I mean, it sounds very similar. It's basically denying them the ability to take responsibility for anything.

[Volvagia]

@AllThatSweetJazz infantilization refers to treating someone like a child whereas victimization obviously refers to treating someone like a helpless victim. I mean there's some overlap between the two but they still are two distinct terms.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

Yes they are somewhat different things but infantalization is present here. To treat them as a child is to deny them a say in what they choose to do or not hold them responsible for their choices. You might say they're victimized because they're infantilized and infantilized because they're considered perpetual victims.

[John_Doesnt]

Feminism is about fighting for choice, not trying to force women to behave a certain way. None of the feminists have said women shouldn't be allowed to choose a life of a house wife or to enjoy girly things. Gender equality is about making things completely fair.

[ladsin]

Except for the feminists that shut down the grid girls choice...

[FakeName123]

Yes, it does. It also invalidates a womans achievements, because you don't know if she worked hard for it or got pushed into it for political/quota reasons.

[SpaceMarine]

The Codex Astartes does not mention feminism but upon closer study it seems that it will lead to corruption by Chaos. First of all feminism does not recognize the divine authority of the Emperor of Mankind. Second of all feminism is not in any way related to the Adepta Sororitas. Third of all have you seen some higher level feminists? They look like they were tainted by Chaos.

[Guanfei]

Good ol' exterminatus, that's what we need, eh?

[SpaceMarine]

@Guanfei Or some good old flamers.

[Celtero]

Hmm... yes. Feminism is a perpetrator of sexism of lower expectations.