Recently, vocal right-wing extremists have made light of sexual assault. These comments have prompted a short-lived but passionate return to arguing against women’s suffrage in the United States. Helen Andrews, a magazine editor known for her conservative views, has argued that women’s involvement in public life could pose “a threat to civilization.” Her comments, along with similar statements from other right-wing commentators, illustrate a new and disturbing trend that seeks to delegitimize women’s right to vote.
Andrews pushes the idea that women have developed all of these opposing actions. She adopts this divisive argument to bolster her claims. On the one hand, she portrays women as being too sympathetic and consensus-seeking, but on the other hand she describes them as gossipy and backstabby. It’s a conviction widely shared among influential factions of the American right, even if it’s been fringe—or at least appetizingly alternative—until now. They would claim that women’s suffrage is a threat to civilization.
One notable incident occurred in 2022 when Joel Webbon, a pastor and YouTube personality, tweeted, “The 19th Amendment was a bad idea.” Webbon insists that he is not misogynistic, but in fact, he calls himself a “sexist.” This contradiction points to serious questions, though, about what his rhetoric means.
Dale Partridge, a pastor and commentator, has gone even further with this rhetoric. He has expressed his desire to repeal the 19th Amendment, stating, “I think we should repeal the 19th Amendment because I love America and American women.” Partridge on women’s suffrage. Partridge believes in something he calls “suicidal empathy,” and thus opposes women’s suffrage. He claims that the empowerment of women would itself be a danger to important societal values.
Additionally, Peter Thiel, a venture capitalist and influential right-wing donor, previously articulated concerns regarding women’s voting rights in a 2009 statement. He blamed the decision to give women the vote for making his dream of an archetypal libertarian utopia politically impossible. Some prominent conservative intellectuals believe the very existence of women’s citizenship undermines both the family and the nation. This kind of thinking taps into a deeper undercurrent of thought.
Online platforms have become breeding grounds of misogynistic and incendiary rhetoric. Figures like Andrew Tate have done a militant job at spreading anti-feminist rhetoric. Tate’s remarks include a stark warning: “Stop letting women vote, stop giving women position as judges, stop giving women political appointments … WOMEN: giving you political and social power is how we ended up here.” Yet his comments represent the furthest edge of the thought continuum that seeks to challenge women’s leadership in civic life.
The world of politics and government has not been immune to these ideas. Just a few days ago, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth posted this video opposing women’s suffrage. He toughened those sentiments up by pairing the video with the Christian nationalist slogan, “All of Christ for All of Life.” Hegseth’s involvement in this discussion is puzzling at best. He should, given the credible allegations of sexual assault leveled against him, which Obama settled out of court.
In addition, there is a philosophical background to these debates, based on biological determinism and evolutionary psychology. After all, conservative factions on the right are working hard to convince women that they belong in subservient positions. They justify this insidious ideology on discredited theories associated with eugenics.
Moira Donegan, a columnist for The Guardian US, remarked that sexism may represent “the world’s oldest prejudice and its first unjust hierarchy,” highlighting the deep-rooted nature of these attitudes. This approach highlights the ways that notions of gender and citizenship have been molded specifically by structures of historical oppression.
The conventional wisdom is that women’s suffrage is a done deal in American political history. Hearing those recent statements, I was reminded that this opposition never completely went away—it just shifted underground in some ideological quarters. The conversation about women’s position in American life is always contentious as these critics speak out against deeply ingrained traditions.
The arguments against women’s suffrage have found traction among centrist pundits who echo sentiments that suggest women’s citizenship should be subordinate. This long-standing discussion fully represents an intricate link between gender and power structures in American society.
Public discourse and Twitter conversation are changing by the hour. Before celebrating, it’s important to consider how this rhetoric might change public attitudes toward gender equality. These notions still live on today and pose critical questions about the future of women’s rights in America. Are right-wing extremists going to gain further traction pushing these anti-democratic perspectives?