It is not perfectly compatible with conservatism to think that sex, socio-economic class, or race based hierarchy is a historical system of class based exploitation and domination. That would pretty much be the key belief of materialist leftist politics, and the analysis of

material structural oppression. Conservatives can hold liberal democratic values, and believe in equality. The issue is what they consider the cause of inequality to be. If you think the cause of inequality is structural material oppression, you're not, de facto, a conservative.

Many conservatives believe that social or historical features of our society are there because they are made like that by God and/or nature. Thinking that the nuclear patriarchal family is either naturally or God given, rather than thinking it is a historical structure which

exists to exert proprietorial control over women's bodies and labour, is a conservative position. If you think the patriarchal family exists to exert control over women's reproductive labour - ie, are a feminist - it follows that reproductive rights are absolutely central to

your vision of women's liberation. Ergo, being anti-abortion is antithetical to the project of women's liberation, and feminists are not going to think you are 'in women's corner.' This is not an individualist judgement about someone's moral character. It is a judgement about

someone's political position, and how their position sits with women's material interests and the project of women's liberation. Describing people's political position, and noting that it is antifeminist, is not name calling, and it's not piety. It's having coherent politics.

Thinking that politicians who hold conservative views about the patriarchal family and women's reproductive rights are in women's corner is not, from a feminist perspective, coherent.

Do you think that politics is about representing interests? Because if it isn't what is doing politics about?