What comments did Candace Owens make about feminism and gender that caused controversy?
Executive summary
Candace Owens has repeatedly said she is “not a feminist,” arguing that feminism has harmed women by encouraging animosity toward men and eroding traditional family structures, comments that have sparked debate and backlash [1] [2]. In a June 2025 debate she defended four provocative claims — including that the sexual revolution devalued women and that feminism made life easier for men — prompting sharp pushback from feminists who said she mischaracterized the movement’s goals and history [3] [4].
1. How Owens frames feminism: personal rejection and college origin story
Owens frames her opposition to feminism as rooted in personal experience, telling stories of a college women’s studies course she says blamed men for societal problems and even linked men to her own eating disorder; she wrote explicitly “I am NOT a feminist” and described feminism as “broken” in a 2017 column [1]. That anecdotal origin recurs in later appearances, where she again says classroom discussions taught animosity toward men rather than equality [5] [2].
2. The core claims that ignited controversy
In public debates and podcasts Owens has defended several blunt claims: that the sexual revolution devalued women; that raising children is more fulfilling than any career; that we live in a matriarchy; and that feminism has made life easier for men — positions she laid out in a June 29, 2025 Surrounded episode in which she debated 20 feminists [3]. Those four points are explicitly framed as “controversial claims” and were presented to a highly critical feminist audience [3].
3. Reaction from critics and feminist interlocutors
Participants and commentators rejected Owens’ framing. In coverage of the debate, feminists argued that feminism empowered women in workplaces, politics and personal autonomy, pointing to movements like #MeToo as evidence that feminism holds men accountable rather than abetting them — a direct rebuttal to Owens’ “made life easier for men” claim [4]. Media and commentators described the exchanges as charged and polarizing [4].
4. Messaging strategy: provocation + personal narrative
Owens’ approach mixes sharp provocations with autobiographical anecdotes: public declarations (“I am NOT a feminist”) and college stories give emotional weight to abstract critiques of modern feminism [1] [5]. That strategy guarantees attention and controversy because it reframes systemic debates about gender into personal grievances and broad cultural diagnoses [1] [5].
5. How supporters and some neutral observers interpret her remarks
Supporters and some commentators treat Owens’ statements as a legitimate counterargument to what they see as excesses of modern progressive feminism — a corrective that emphasizes family, traditional roles and perceived harms of sexual liberation [2] [3]. Coverage of her Surrounded appearance shows an audience drawn to her willingness to confront mainstream feminist positions directly [3].
6. Limits of the available reporting and what’s not found
Available sources document Owens’ claims and debates through a 2017 column and multiple 2024–2025 appearances and a June 2025 debate [1] [3] [2] [4]. Available sources do not mention detailed longitudinal evidence she uses to prove broad causal claims (for example, that feminism caused a widespread “breakdown of the traditional family”) nor do they provide peer-reviewed studies backing her causal links; critiques in the coverage focus on rhetorical and political pushback rather than systematic empirical rebuttals [4] [2].
7. Why this remains combustible: competing definitions and stakes
The controversy stems from competing definitions: Owens treats “modern feminism” as an ideological force responsible for social breakdown, while critics define feminism as a rights movement that expanded women’s autonomy and accountability for abuse [4] [2]. That fundamental disagreement turns every empirical claim — about marriage, career satisfaction, or cultural values — into a political battleground rather than a shared fact-finding exercise [4].
8. Bottom line for readers
Owens’ comments provoke because they compress complex social histories into bold, personal claims and because she pairs moral judgments with anecdotes that many find dismissive of systemic harms feminism aims to address [1] [4] [2]. The public response splits along familiar lines: supporters laud her willingness to challenge orthodoxy; detractors say she misrepresents feminism’s aims and effects [3] [4].