By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Within the Turning Point USA Women’s Leadership Summit, young Christian conservatives, instrumental in the MAGA movement, reveal a growing division in their support for U.S. President Donald Trump. CBC News’s Katie Simpson observed firsthand the complex sentiments among these women, highlighting that while many remain loyal, some express significant concerns. These emerging fractures suggest a potential shift in the demographic’s unwavering commitment, indicating a critical juncture for Trump’s appeal.
Read the original article here
It’s a fascinating and frankly, rather unsettling, conversation unfolding around a specific segment of women who are reportedly drawn to figures like Donald Trump, and how this attraction intersects with their views on their own right to vote. There seems to be a deep division, even amongst those who might lean towards conservative ideologies, regarding the fundamental right to participate in democracy.
Some women, when expressing their political desires, indicate a willingness to surrender their right to vote if it means achieving a more conservative nation. This sentiment is particularly striking, suggesting a prioritization of ideological outcomes over individual suffrage. One perspective voiced is that a woman might gladly give up her vote for a country that aligns with her conservative values, with another remarking that she would be comfortable if her daughter didn’t have the right to vote, assuming she would marry a “biblical man.” A similar sentiment is echoed by a Christian woman who states she votes the same way as her husband and would be fine relinquishing her own vote.
These sentiments immediately spark a strong reaction, with the idea of willingly giving up one’s vote being met with incredulity and criticism. There’s a strong pushback against the notion that anyone should have the authority to decide that others should forfeit their right to vote, especially when the desire stems from an ideological preference rather than a lack of capacity. The suggestion is made that if these women are so fervent about their conservative ideals, they should simply choose not to vote, rather than advocate for the disenfranchisement of others. The argument is that voting is not compulsory, and the choice not to participate is already available.
The comparison to cult-like behavior arises when discussing these women’s willingness to diminish their own rights. It raises questions about the extent to which individuals can be swayed by a particular political movement or leader, to the point of advocating for the erosion of freedoms they themselves possess. The idea is floated that such a stance is indicative of being “brainwashed,” with a parallel drawn to men who might also be willing to give up their rights to empower those they consider their masters.
There’s a palpable sense of concern that the desire to give up one’s vote is a gateway to losing other fundamental rights as well. This is illustrated by the suggestion that if a woman is willing to forgo her vote for a conservative country, she should then be asked if she’s willing to give up her right to drive, or even to have a bank account and credit card. The underlying fear is that this surrender of a core right could lead to a domino effect, where other freedoms are systematically dismantled, leaving women dependent on male permission for basic autonomy.
The criticism extends to the perceived lack of critical thinking among these women. Some comments suggest that their opinions are secondary to those of their husbands or pastors, implying a lack of independent thought. The idea that these women are “clueless” about what they are advocating for is prevalent, with a call to examine historical contexts where women had fewer rights to understand the potential consequences of such desires. The period before women had the right to vote is recalled, where women were considered property, subject to spousal abuse, and lacked control over their finances and reproductive choices.
The notion that these women are not advocating for their own rights, but rather for the restriction of rights for those they disagree with, is a recurring theme. It’s suggested that their motivations are not about empowerment for themselves, but about diminishing the power or presence of others they perceive as different or opposing. The inherent contradiction is highlighted: women who espouse conservative values and may even participate in conservative-leaning organizations, while simultaneously enjoying the rights and freedoms that come with being an independent, voting citizen.
Ultimately, the core of the discussion revolves around a profound disillusionment with the idea that women, who have fought so hard for suffrage, would now express a willingness to relinquish it. There’s a call for these women to practice what they preach by simply not voting, rather than attempting to influence broader societal changes that could impact others. The fear is that such a mindset, if widespread, could lead to a regression of societal progress and a reversal of hard-won freedoms, with women finding themselves in a far worse position than they currently are. The overall tone is one of bewilderment and a strong condemnation of any stance that seeks to undermine the right to vote, especially when it comes from within the very group that has benefited most from its expansion.