Conservative women believe complicity will save them. But an emboldened far-right is gunning for their rights - and therefore all women in the USA

I don't think that the current US government will end female suffrage. But I do think they will ignore court decisions against them, including potentially supreme court decisions. Trump is busy politicising the US Marshal Service, who are responsible for enforcing court decisions. The aim is clearly to insulate himself from any enforcement actions. Musk's personal bodyguards have even been deputised as Marshals.

Trump is building a Praetorian guard across multiple law enforcement agencies to ensure that he is untouchable and can ignore court rulings against him with impunity. I would not be at all surprised if he attempted to run for a third term.

Yes.

I always think - do people spouting this rhetoric not know any conservative, or Republican, women? Or know of them? Like .... all the ones in Trump's administration? Or people like Condi Rice? Do they really see these women as barefoot in a kitchen? There are a lot of Republican women in the American Senate now, and in recent years they've elected the first Cherokee woman and first Korean woman. I just can't get over this casual claim that Republicans are looking to disenfranchise women, it's a complete fantasy.

The whole "women in the kitchen" thing is at the level of saying any woman who is aligned with the Democrats believes in the dissolution of the family or wants infants gestated in bags.

More generally - the article in the OP is 20 years out of date. The Christian evangelicals aren't a powerhouse in the party these days at the federal level. It's more variable at the state level I believe, but state politics are a different beast and not something that people in the UK seem to have a very good handle on.

Why not answer the question? Are any states currently proposing to remove the right to vote from women?

Which is bolder: backing Russia or ending female suffrage ?

E2A: To be clear I do not see what is happening in the US currently as being in anyway good for womens rights. I believe it will look to history like cutting off a leg to cure an ingrowing toenail.

That's quite a bold take. Do you know of any states that are proposing to end female suffrage?

The other thing about Project 2025 is, any politician with even a bit of savvy knows that they shouldn't outsource their whole programmes to ideological think tanks.

Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng were thoroughly trained by the Institute for Economic Affairs. The Conservatives may be the Stupid Party, but I don't see them repeating that experiment soon.

This works both ways, presumably anyone who votes Democrat is complicit in the sterilization of children, and putting men in women's prisons?

No one becomes a voting citizen without their paperwork in order. Migrants who haven't been regularized aren't voting.

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, establishing female suffrage, has been around since 1920. To repeal it would require not only majorities in both houses of Congress, but ratification by 75% of the states.

Only if the courts enforce it.

The 19th Amendment to the Constitution, establishing female suffrage, has been around since 1920. To repeal it would require not only majorities in both houses of Congress, but ratification by 75% of the states.

We're really at the point here of Joe Biden in 2012 telling a black audience that Mitt Romney (!) was going to "put y'all back in chains".

Apologies, I meant head of government of course.

@Mielikki we have a system in the UK where the head of state is held to account by the leader of the opposition on a weekly basis

Badanoch has a crack at the King every week? Are you sure?

No. They will give the womans vote to the man of the house. Because all women will be the property of a man.

@Brefugee absolutely

And also all those who derided concerns throughout because they backed Harris

Why didn't anyone say yes women have a point, let's listen

@WandaSiri precisely, Trump denied all knowledge of Project 2025 and those who warned that he would put it into practice if he won were accused of TDS.

The democrats were completely asleep at the wheel, and still are. Thank god we have a system in the UK where the head of state is held to account by the leader of the opposition on a weekly basis (not at the moment obviously, as Badanoch is about as effectual as a damp sock).

Trump's administration has done and will do some awful things. None of that is caused by women having rights.

Well said 👏

Thanks, I remember you talking about this before and that was what was at the back of my mind when I posted.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves
Project 2025 was not explicitly official Republican policy during the election campaign as far as I am aware. The people who professed to believe it was all going to come to pass - Democrat leadership and party machine - did not think it was sufficiently terrifying a prospect that they had to drop their commitment to extreme gender identity ideology. They had a choice, they chose men over women. Just like the far right.

To return to your earlier post, can you please demonstrate the connection between supporting women's rights to be identified as a discrete sex class and to have the rights to privacy, dignity and safety, the right to equal educational and sport opportunities - and supporting transactivism? You seem to think that there is one.

Trump's administration has done and will do some awful things. None of that is caused by women having rights.

that, @EasternStandard is the $64,000 dollar question. Ask Kamala Harris.

Why didn't the left pick up on the concerns from women instead of deriding them?

You can only say 'this is what you voted for ' to people who voted Republican when things have actually been enacted. I think we all know that women aren't going to lose the vote in the US in the next four years. Tightening up voting id will affect some people - mostly poorer ones - but it's not a shocking betrayal of women's rights to have voting id rules. There will always be extremists in any political party. It doesn't mean that the party will adopt their extreme views. I think the Trump presidency is shocking but I don't know if that will be all bad. Perhaps we need to be shocked, to be forced to evaluate what we really stand for, rather than drifting along with the crowd.

but nobody said MAGA were pro-women, did they? PP made a good point upthread in that conservative republican women are often those who believe that self-reliance is what counts, and so on. Just because we're born female, doesn't mean that we were born left wing. Women like Thatcher exist and they have to align with a party if they want to vote or get on in politics.

The Democrats totally cocked up. They failed dramatically to address the actual issues voters care about in favour of some college debating topics of equality and diversity. Yes, equality and diversity are hugely important (to me, less so to others, probably more so to some) but so are a whole raft of other things to do with healthcare, employment, defence and the environment. We must prioritise, and many many many people vote holding their noses for that reason.

it doesn't mean you have to stop marching for women's rights, or environmental rights or whatever you hold dear to your heart even if the party you voted for gets in.

And in other news, the US has pressured Romania to release suspected women traffickers and rapists the Tate brothers, who are currently on a private jet to the US, where they will no doubt be lauded by the "pro women" MAGA movement.

i think it is reasonable to vote according to which party/candidate most aligns with most of your beliefs/views/requirements.

In my case it was hold nose and vote Labour/SDP. Some women decided that on balance they preferred Republicans - and single issue voters are as entitled as anyone else to vote for whoever they want.

That doesn't mean that they are now unable or unwelcome when they campaign, as they always have, on women's rights issues. There must be very very very few women who voted for Republicans based on gender identity issues who weren't fully aware that, actually, Republicans prefer women pregnant, barefoot and in the kitchen.

We have always had to campaign for our rights, nothing has changed. What will be interesting is to see how many trans people are up there with the women in the US campaigning for women's rights, which they say they hold dear to their hearts. I, for one, will not be holding my breath.

I've said this before but I don't mind repeating it. The Democrats had some success memeing Project 2025 because hardly anyone is going to actually read this 900 page tome.

The Heritage Foundation has been producing these volumes of proposed policies for future GOP administrations every four years since the early 1980s. Left-leaning think tanks like the Center for American Progress produce similar volumes meant to inform future Democratic administrations. This is what think tanks do.

90% of what's in Project 2025 is boilerplate Reaganite conservatism. There are a few gestures to Trumpian populism.

Some policy bods in the administration will read the volume, cherrypick any policies that look popular and ignore the rest. This is what politicians do with think tank product.

There will certainly be policy proposals coming down the line that need to be opposed. But I really doubt that an administration that's got Pam Bondi and Harmeet Dhillon leading the Department of Justice is going to try and impose a tradwife regime on America.

It's a shame some on the left have tried so comprehensively to dismiss women.

From abuse, to attacks and violence from men.

Whereas women say no I don't consent.

Overriding that is their mistake.