The number of women who voted for President Trump proves a rather inconvenient statistic for the much rehashed media / celebrity narrative that Trump is a dictatorial misogynist eagerly waiting to deprive women of their hard fought and apparently ephemerally fragile rights. The fraught question of why women would vote for such a candidate is explained away by some as being all about the economy.
Former President Obama, imparting his wisdom in particular to the “the brothers”, aired his suspicions that if you weren’t supporting Harris, it’s because you weren’t “feeling…a woman….president”. Sadly, it appears to have escaped the notice of some of the most educated and influential within American society that some of the Trump policies were more pro-women then the candidate the country was supposed to vote for because of her gender.
Under the Biden presidency of which Harris was second in command, the administration openly touted so called “gender affirming” care for children. Other policies sparked concern about the protection of women only spaces such as bathrooms and women’s sports. Trump on the other hand, pledged to make efforts prohibiting men from participating in women’s sports. This could explain why a Trump rally featured a women’s sports team who supported him because of his stance on this issue.
As for the most vulnerable of the female species, the future generation of women growing in the womb, their chances under a Harris Walz ticket were questionable, Walz signing a law in Minnesota protecting a “fundamental right” to “obtain an abortion” and further mandating that a local unit of government “may not regulate an individual’s ability to freely exercise the fundament right […]”. An apparent victory for women’s rights, the said provision does not appear to mention the word “woman” or “women”, purporting instead to protect “individuals”. Given that this is the key women’s rights issue of our time, the reticence to use the seminal word is rather curious. Abortion was a regular rallying cry for Harris during the campaign, and she reportedly voted against a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. For the women in the United States who see abortion not as a women’s rights issue, but an anti-human one, the candidate who wasn’t endorsed by Planned Parenthood, and who didn’t have abortion trucks at rallies, was the obvious choice.
One might also consider that women do not view women’s rights as being advanced by being represented by a female who appeared to avoid combative interviews (an appearance on Fox being a rare example), was often evasive on openly explaining what her policies actually were and was notorious for her repetition of platitudes which were at times difficult to understand.
Ireland is of course in its own election season. The current administration has enshrined in legislation a radical definition of gender in the newly passed Criminal Justice (Hate Offences) Act, which takes the obviously progressive step of enlightening the Irish people that there are in fact more than two genders. This Act does not take the trouble to explain this particular phenomenon further. We are of course privileged to be amongst the generation who has made the remarkable discovery of a scientific fact hidden from centuries of our ignorant ancestors.
Our current administration has been anxious to impart the gems of knowledge of this particular ideology upon the next generation, encouraging teachers in class to introduce themselves to students with their “preferred pronouns” and the curriculum enlightening the next generation that gender identity is “a person’s felt internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond with the sex registered at birth.” In HSE handbooks fifth and sixth class students are benevolently informed that “As well as a biological sex, we all have a gender identity. This is how we think of ourselves as a boy, a girl, neither or both.”
As for the next generation of women growing in the womb, this administration has, presumably under the rallying cry of “choice,” endeavoured to ensure that women are in no way “influenced” within 100 metres of abortion providers (though you may be surprised to find the “a” word does not feature in this legislation, nor indeed does the “w” word). This legislation goes on to criminalise in certain circumstances in protected zones, the societally reprehensible activity of “communicat[ing] material to the public or a section of the public in a manner that is likely to influence the decision of another person in relation to availing of…termination of pregnancy services.” The government has had the foresight to include within the prohibited area “windows” and “doorways” open to a public place. The attention to detail of our current political representatives in making efforts to shield women (or should I say “person[s]”) from information they may receive while journeying to an abortion (mea culpa, “termination of pregnancy”) services provider, is truly commendable.
The US election results lead to the obvious conclusion that women are not some sort of homogenous body engaging in mindless group think. The movement that purports to represent women, with a heavy focus on the “women’s rights” issue of our time, that is, abortion rebranded as “reproductive rights,” ironically appears anxious to avoid making explicit references to women when enshrining said rights. For women whose concerns gravitate towards protecting the next generation from harmful ideology, and who wish to champion the next generation of women to have a chance at life, this movement purporting to represent them is antithetical to everything it means to be a woman.
Here’s to hoping that in this and future election cycles, the voices of women who offer a different narrative to the current constant fixation on “reproductive rights” and who remain unafraid to speak for the next generation, despite the potential personal cost of doing so, will be heard not only in ballot boxes, but in the houses of the Dáil and Seanad.
Grace Sullivan is a practising barrister. She has an LL.B. from Trinity College Dublin and a BCL from Oxford University. She worked for a defence team at the International Criminal Court in The Hague for a number of years before returning to Ireland to obtain her domestic qualification.