Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What has Candace Owens said about modern feminism and its impact on women?
Executive summary
Candace Owens repeatedly rejects modern feminism, arguing it harms women, weakens families, and at times conflicts with Black Americans’ interests — she calls modern feminism “broken,” claims it promotes Marxist ideas that destroy traditional family values, and says the sexual revolution devalued women [1] [2] [3]. Available sources show she makes several recurring claims: feminism is taught rather than experienced, it can be anti-family or anti-men in practice, and it has historically conflicted with Black liberation [1] [2] [3].
1. “I am NOT a feminist” — rejecting the label and the movement
Owens has explicitly declared she is “not a feminist,” framing modern feminism as a set of conditional, performative statements rather than a lived commitment to equality; she says feminism’s rhetoric — for example, casting non-supporters as complicit — amounts to an “insult to human intelligence” and that women are being taught feminism instead of experiencing it [1]. That 2017 piece lays the foundation for her long-term position: the label, as used today, is unacceptable to her [1].
2. Feminism as a threat to the family — linking it to Marxist ideas
In recent appearances Owens has tied “modern feminism” to what she calls Marxist or anti-family notions promoted by government and culture, arguing these forces together reduce the concept of family and allow stronger government to take root [2]. She warns that feminism, along with other movements she criticizes, “destroys traditional family values,” a thematic through-line in her talks to college audiences [2].
3. The sexual revolution and the claim that feminism devalued women
Owens contends that the sexual revolution — often associated with modern feminist gains — ultimately devalued women by encouraging independence to a point that “emasculates or even replaces men,” and by making women less interested in traditional family roles [3]. In debate formats, she has spelled out claims that feminism has mischaracterized itself as anti-men and may, paradoxically, benefit men by allowing them to disengage from long-term responsibilities [4].
4. Feminism and Black Americans — describing a historical rift
Owens argues feminism has historically been “at odds” with Black Americans’ liberation, citing suffrage-era disputes and contemporary policy areas such as welfare and abortion where she says feminist priorities diverged from Black community interests [3]. She stresses an emphasis on intact family units as a corrective, presenting feminism as sometimes harming the Black population’s political and social aims [3].
5. Formats and venues — where these arguments appear
Her arguments appear across op-eds, debates, and media productions: a 2017 opinion piece lays out her early rejection of feminism [1]; campus talks and interviews frame feminism as a cultural threat [2]; book excerpts and guides summarize her longer critiques of feminism’s history and effects on Black Americans [3]; and debate appearances (e.g., Jubilee, podcasts) present compressed versions of her claims — including that feminism benefits men by enabling shirking of commitments [4] [5].
6. Points of contention and alternate perspectives (what the sources show and don’t show)
The provided sources document Owens’ assertions but do not present direct empirical evidence in support of broad causal claims (for example, that feminism “destroys” family structures) within these excerpts; they report her positions and the reactions of audiences or interlocutors [1] [2] [4]. Some audience members and interlocutors in these accounts explicitly disagreed with her framing — for instance, students challenged her suggestion that feminism is about hating men [2]. The sources do not include detailed statistical rebuttals or comprehensive scholarly counterarguments; available sources do not mention systematic evidence for or against many of Owens’ causal claims.
7. Why this framing matters — implicit agendas to note
Owens consistently ties cultural critiques (feminism, climate change, LGBTQ+ advocacy) to a narrative about weakened family and expanded government, an ideological framework that foregrounds traditional family as a social good and sees progressive movements as interconnected threats [2]. That framing aligns with conservative critiques of cultural change; critics in audience reactions and debate settings push back, suggesting her claims are generalizing or oversimplifying complex social phenomena [2] [4].
8. Bottom line for readers
If you’re evaluating Owens’ assertions, the sources here clearly record her core claims: modern feminism is harmful to women and families, has been antagonistic toward Black Americans, and enables men’s disengagement in relationships [1] [2] [3] [4]. However, these items are presented as argument and commentary in the cited materials; the sources do not provide independent, comprehensive empirical validation or extended counter-evidence within the same excerpts — readers should weigh her rhetorical case against sociological and historical research not included in these sources (not found in current reporting).