Author: Piper Duncan

Apartness: How South Africa’s History of Apartheid Guides the Future for Afghanistan’s Women and Girls 

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by Gregory Fullard

In 1973, after decades of racist policies by South Africa’s National Party, the United Nations ratified a document that officially defined racial apartheid. This convention defined the crime of apartheid as “inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.”  

Apartheid is an Afrikaans word that translates to “apartness.” Now, more than 50 years later, this word describes the actions of the Taliban regime against women and girls in Afghanistan. The Taliban has instituted policies that violate the human rights of women and girls, forcefully parting them from society in the process. 

The official definition of apartheid alone wasn’t enough to end the policies plaguing South Africa. It took both the codification of apartheid and international attention to force the National Party to step aside. Internal pressure wasn’t enough to overcome apartheid politics, but the resistance against these policies by South Africans is what inspired action by the international community. People across the world took notice of South Africa and eventually pressured their governments to stop apartheid in South Africa. Governments, feeling increasing pressure from their citizens, began to sanction South Africa where it hurt — their economy. 

While it took many more steps to end decades-long apartheid in South Africa, it was the label of apartheid that allowed for the mobilization of international advocates and governments. Today, this same process could also work for Afghanistan and lead to the end of Gender Apartheid policies of the Taliban. 

Experts in international law agree that the fastest way to stop the Taliban’s Gender Apartheid policies is through the codification of Gender Apartheid into international law, specifically for the International Criminal Court, which cemented the crime of apartheid in 2002. A proposed convention to add the crime of gender apartheid into law would closely follow the definition of racial apartheid, which is a well-accepted and supported concept that has 110 state parties. 

The codification of Gender Apartheid as a crime against humanity would provide two avenues of redress for women in Afghanistan. First, the International Criminal Court (ICC) could charge top Taliban officials with the crime of Gender Apartheid, which would draw international attention to the human rights violations in the country and would hold the Taliban’s top officials responsible. Upon, signing the Rome Statute in 2003, Afghanistan gave jurisdiction to the ICC.  

Second, the recognition of Gender Apartheid as an international crime would give activists a rallying cry and legitimize the movement, helping increase attention on the human rights situation in Afghanistan 

While writing the crime of Gender Apartheid into international law may be the best and fastest way to improve human rights conditions for women in Afghanistan, it is easier said than done. Currently, some countries are hesitant to ratify the crime of gender apartheid. 

 Some believe that it is unnecessary to add a further law because gender persecution is already a crime under international law; however, gender persecution falls short of describing the comprehensive and systematic policies of apartheid.  

Governments are also worried that by defining gender apartheid, they too could become a target of ICC investigations for their policies against women. This, however, is not adequate justification for not acting. Gender apartheid in Afghanistan is so singular and extreme that few countries come close to the conditions created by the Taliban against women. 

As we approach the third year of the Taliban takeover of the government in Afghanistan and its Gender Apartheid regime, it is crucial for people across the world to put pressure on their home governments to act against the Taliban. The Taliban must not be accepted or legitimized. They must be sanctioned for their actions until they end their systematized persecution against women. To gain the attention of the world, the ICC must codify the crime of Gender Apartheid and hold the Taliban accountable for their actions against women and girls in Afghanistan.  

Sources: UN-International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid; History; The Conversation.

Ohio Man Sentenced to 66 Months in Prison After Threatening a Planned Parenthood 

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by pasa47

On Wednesday July 24, the United States Department of Justice released a statement about the recent sentencing of a man charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act). The convicted 33-year-old, Mohamed Waes, was charged concerning threats he made against the Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio in 2022. 

Waes made threats of arson over the phone to the reproductive health clinic, an explicit violation of the federal FACE Act, which makes threats of violence against reproductive health clinics to intimidate employees — as well as interference with their access — illegal. Waes was charged with a misdemeanor under the FACE Act, which he pled guilty to in February of this year. 

Along with a previous conspiracy to commit money laundering charge, Waes was sentenced to 66 months (5.5 years) in prison, three years of supervised release, and more than $270,000 in restitution for the money he successfully laundered. 

The FACE Act was passed in 1994 after decades of violence against reproductive health clinic patients and providers and the destruction of facilities. The act applies to any reproductive health facility, including abortion clinics, fertility clinics, and pro-life pregnancy services. 

Since 1994, the FACE Act has faced many challenges in federal court on the grounds of free speech but has held up to all legal obstacles. Individuals cannot interfere with access to clinics or intimidate those associated with the clinics but can protest outside with certain limitations. 

This FACE Act allows for up to one year in prison for a first-time offender, while conspiracy to commit money laundering has a maximum sentence of 20 years. This conviction is a win for the safety of patients and employees of reproductive health clinics and a step in the direction of justice for those trying to prevent women from accessing their human right to reproductive care. 

The Impact of the Supreme Court’s Presidential Immunity Ruling  

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by Tim Mossholder

On July 1st, the Supreme Court released its last round of decisions before their summer recess. One of these decisions, Trump vs. the United States (2024), changed the future of the executive office, and possibly our democracy. 

After the January 6th insurrection in 2021, Special Council Jack Smith was assigned to investigate Trump’s involvement in the riots. In August 2023, Trump was indicted by a grand jury on four charges related to the insurrection, which Trump’s legal team argued that he was immune from. Trump claimed that he could not be prosecuted for official acts conducted as a part of the presidential office unless he had first been impeached. While Trump’s trial was initially set for March of 2024, the proceedings were put on hold until Trump’s immunity claim could be ruled on. 

US District Judge Tanya Chutkan and DC Circuit Judges denied Trump’s immunity claims. The Supreme Court expedited the case and ruled in a 6-3 decision on Monday that all former, current, and future presidents have some presidential immunity from criminal acts as long as they were committed as a part of the president’s official acts and duties. 

What exactly constitutes “official” versus “unofficial” duties has been left up to Judge Chutkan; however, in a lower court, one judge asked if Trump could be prosecuted if he ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. Trump’s lawyers said that under their interpretation of presidential immunity, which the Supreme Court affirmed, Trump could not be prosecuted unless he had been impeached and convicted for the act first. On the other hand, an unofficial act could range from something like a speeding ticket or if a president assassinated someone. 

A few days before SCOTUS’s presidential immunity ruling, they also released a decision on another January 6th case involving Trump. After the insurrection, multiple protesters were criminally charged for their involvement, including obstructing an official proceeding. The defendants in the criminal case argued that this statute did not apply to their actions on January 6th. The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the obstruction charge to actions like evidence tampering. While Trump viewed this decision as a significant win, it is unlikely that it will have much of an effect on Trump’s trial on January 6th since he had a drastically different type of involvement than his supporters. 

While Trump’s most important Supreme Court case has been closed, he still has four separate legal proceedings nationwide for various criminal acts. In his January 6th election interference case, Judge Chutkan must rule whether Trump’s actions were official or unofficial presidential acts. The Supreme Court justices made this more difficult for Judge Chutkan by limiting her ability to inquire about Trump’s motives. 

Regardless of the outcomes of Trump’s four pending criminal trials, the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity has fundamentally changed the president’s office and given unprecedented power to those in the position. The feelings of many Americans can best be represented in Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in this case: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” 

Increased Flogging of Women by the Taliban: The Urgent Need for International Accountability to End the Brutality

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by DVIDSHUB 

In March of this year, the Taliban’s Supreme Leader, Hibatullah Akhundzada, announced that the Taliban regime would resume the public stoning of women for crimes like adultery. The Taliban argues that this is “in line with Sharia and Islamic law” and will also punish other “moral crimes” in a similar fashion.  

Since the Taliba returned to power in August 2021, the regime has carried out severe public punishments, including executions, floggings, and stoning. These punishments mirror those carried out during their first regime in the late 1990s. There have been five public executions so far and numerous public floggings.  

Human rights advocates across the world note that religious justification, especially one that has no legitimate basis in the Quran, does not excuse the brutal treatment of women and human rights violations. 

For women accused of “moral crimes” like adultery, there is no way to seek justice or defend themselves. The Taliban has banned women lawyers and judges and installed radical replacements of mullahs, forcing women to accept punishment with no room for recourse. In 2023, the Taliban installed judges who ordered 417 public flogging and executions, which included at least 57 documented women. 

In June 2024, the Taliban announced 63 people were flogged, including 14 women and 49 men, in a sports stadium after having been convicted of various “moral crimes” like adultery and homosexuality.  

The Taliban’s Supreme Leader also vowed to enforce public stoning of women, even in the face of backlash from the international community. However, there are no reports of this punishment being ordered over the last three years. The threat of stoning may instead act as a deterrent to maintain the “morality” of the country.  

Until the international community holds the Taliban accountable for their human rights abuses and Gender Apartheid, women will continue to face a harsh and increasingly worsening situation in Afghanistan. 

Sources: The Guardian; VoA News; AP News; Afghan Witness.

U.N. Report: Taliban’s Treatment of Women is Gender Apartheid  

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by by United Nations Photo

On June 18, the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Afghanistan, Richard Bennett, presented a mandated report to the U.N.’s High Commissioner for Human Rights. The report states that the “phenomenon of an institutionalized system of discrimination, segregation, disrespect for human dignity and exclusion of women and girls,” is Gender Apartheid. The report also brought to light the numerous human rights violations being committed against women and girls in Afghanistan by the Taliban. Over 100 edicts have been issued by the Taliban harshly restricting the rights of women and girls. These edicts ban girls from education beyond the 6th grade, from leaving their home without a male chaperone, and from accessing employment opportunities — excluding them from participating in all areas of public life.

In the report, Bennett makes it clear — the Taliban is currently engaging in Gender Apartheid. The term Gender Apartheid is defined by the report as “the institutionalized and systematized nature of the exclusion of and discrimination against women and girls…apartheid regimes enshrine and enforce a complex system of governance–of laws, policies, and practices–to systematically oppress and dominate a subset of society over the course of decades and generations.” 

The labeling of the human rights abuses against women as a Gender Apartheid by the U.N. Special Rapporteur demonstrate the severity of the treatment Afghan women face every day. It also aims to highlight the duty of states to intervene and take action in the protection of Afghan women — much like the international community did during the South African racial apartheid — rather than normalizing the rule of the Taliban. 

The Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan consists of a multitude of policies and practices that flagrantly deny women and girls human rights protected by international treaties. The report by Special Rapporteur Bennett highlighted four rights being violated in Afghanistan as a part of the Taliban’s Gender Apartheid policies: the right to education, the right to work, freedom of movement, and the right to healthcare. These four rights covered in the report only scratch the surface of the current human rights situation in Afghanistan, and while they are listed separately, the document notes explicitly, “This report illustrates how these deprivations do not exist independently of each other. Rather, each deprivation systematically informs and interacts with the other(s), creating a complex convergence of oppression.” 

The Feminist Majority Foundation is participating in a campaign to Stop Gender Apartheid in Afghanistan, actively advocating for the human rights of Afghan women and girls. Afghan women and girls have persisted in opposing this rule of Gender Apartheid, and we will not stop supporting them in the fight against this outrageous restriction of human rights.

The first step towards restoring the rights of Afghan women and girls is the continued non-recognition of the Taliban and the denormalization of their rule. Actions such as the third meeting in Doha on June 30th with the Taliban only serve to grant the Taliban and their actions against women legitimacy by the international community. Afghan women were not allowed to participate in the meeting due to the demands of the Taliban, resulting in passionate protests by some Afghan women leaders.

Edited: July 2nd, 2024

Source: UN Special Rapporteur’s report

Supreme Court Upholds Federal Law Protecting Survivors of Domestic Violence 

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by Tomasz Zielonka

On June 21, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of a federal law prohibiting those with a domestic violence restraining order against them from possessing a firearm. The federal law in question under United States v. Rahimi (2024) was the 1996 Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, often referred to as “the Lautenberg Amendment,” after its sponsor, the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.). While individuals convicted of felonies are banned from owning guns, this law also included those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

The Feminist Majority, partnering with the National Network to End Domestic Violence and its then director, Donna Edwards, played a pivotal role in passing this law to protect survivors of domestic violence. As a result of this Supreme Court ruling, the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban has survived yet another attempt to gut the law and put guns back into the hands of dangerous individuals.

In United States v. Rahimi, Justice Roberts argued that the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban fell in line with America’s regulatory tradition by temporarily disarming an individual who poses a credible threat to another. Multiple justices also argued in favor of the federal law, since the restriction only applied to specific individuals rather than the public as a whole. 

The case’s respondent, Zackey Rahimi, had a domestic violence restraining order taken out against him by his ex-partner after he physically assaulted her in 2019 and attempted to shoot a witness. He was later arrested after being a suspect in six separate shootings where police found firearms in his possession. He was charged with unlawful firearm possession in a federal court due to his domestic violence restraining order. He pleaded guilty to his charge and received six years in prison. 

Rahimi’s case is just one of thousands in the United States, with hundreds of others ending in tragic deaths. Almost half of all women murdered in the United States are killed by an intimate partner, and more than half of these murders are committed with a firearm. Access to a gun by an abuser increases the risk of homicide by five times. Hundreds of women are killed every year as a result of shootings by intimate partners, making the Supreme Court’s decision on this federal law a significant victory for victims of domestic violence. 

Louisiana Passes Law Requiring Public Schools to Display the Ten Commandments in Classrooms 

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by Jeffrey Hamilton

On June 19, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry signed a Republican-sponsored bill requiring public schools — from kindergarten to university — to display a poster of the Ten Commandments in all classrooms by 2025 to maintain state funding. The law specifies that the poster must be at least 11 feet by 14 feet, with the 10 Commandments as the primary subject of the poster in a readable font. Supporters of the legislation noted that including the Ten Commandments in classrooms would provide a moral code in schools and display an essential piece of American history. 

As soon as the bill was signed into law by Governor Landry, multiple civil rights groups across the state announced their intentions to file a lawsuit to fight the law’s constitutionality, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana. The ACLU and other critics of the law argue that the Supreme Court case Stone v. Graham (1980) sets a precedent against the new Louisiana law. The 1980 case struck down a remarkably similar law in Kentucky that also required that the Ten Commandments be displayed in schools. 

On the other hand, proponents of the law argue that the Supreme Court case Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) supports the constitutionality of the new law. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a high school football coach to lead a prayer on a public school’s football field. The court argued that by allowing the coach to lead a prayer, they respected his First Amendment right by allowing religious speech while not violating the Establishment Clause. 

This new bill comes only weeks after another Republican-sponsored bill in Louisiana to label abortion pills as a controlled substance. People found in possession of the abortion drugs mifepristone or misoprostol can be charged with possession and sentenced to fines or jail time. These two bills show increasing conservatism and Christian nationalism within the state, especially among Governor Landry. 

Senate Republicans Block a Bill to Protect IVF

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by noelle 

On June 13, the GOP blocked a bill aimed at protecting and expanding access to in vitro fertilization (IVF). The rejection of this bill demonstrates a concerning trend throughout the country condemning the use of IVF. The Right to IVF Act, introduced by Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), planned to expand access to fertility treatments like IVF by reducing unnecessary regulations on fertility clinics, protecting the right to access fertility treatments, and making treatments more accessible by lowering patient costs. 

Only one day earlier, a Republican-sponsored bill titled the IVF Protection Act failed in the Senate. Democrats claimed that this bill, which would cut Medicaid funding to states that ban access to IVF, had a provision that would allow states to tighten restrictions on fertility clinics further. Expanding access to fertility treatments has become a more controversial topic in recent years. In two famous examples, the Alabama Supreme Court and the recent Southern Baptist Convention, conservatives have condemned the use of IVF due to the belief that life begins at conception. This creates an “ethical issue” since many embryos created during IVF go unused. This increasingly popular belief has made many lawmakers wary of voting in favor of bills expanding access to usually uncontroversial fertility treatments. 

The effects of the Right to IVF bill would have had on women are real. In the United States, 15.4% of women aged between 25 and 49 have issues with infertility. While this rate has been steady, other factors surrounding motherhood have contributed to a rise in women using fertility treatments. For example, the average age of first-time mothers has increased recently, as many women pursue careers or financial stability before choosing to have children. The increased average age of mothers also means an increased infertility rate among those seeking pregnancy, leading many women to pursue fertility treatments. While exact costs vary, a single cycle of IVF in the US can range between $15,000 and $20,000; however, women need an average of 2.5 to achieve cycles for a successful pregnancy. American women can spend more than $40,000 trying to get pregnant from IVF, which most insurance providers do not cover. 

As various societal factors have led women to start families later in life, fertility treatments have become more critical than ever to women across the country. While provisions to make IVF more affordable would have been helpful to women, the right to access fertility treatments is much more critical. Women have a right to make reproductive choices for themselves, whether it be abortion or IVF. Reduced access to abortions is forcing women to have unwanted pregnancies, yet reduced access to IVF is preventing women from achieving wanted pregnancies.

Southern Baptists Reject Ban on Women Pastors — Substantive or Semantic? 

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by Debby Hudson

On Wednesday, June 12th, the Southern Baptist Convention voted on a controversial amendment to their constitution — one that would formally ban women from pastoral roles in all affiliated churches. This amendment failed, narrowly missing the 2/3rds supermajority needed by only receiving 61% of the vote. While this measure may have failed, its sheer existence signals further polarization and politicization of the church, as well as exposes a brutal reality for women still affiliated with the convention. 

While many within and outside the church see this vote as a victory for women, it is less substantive and more symbolic than it may appear. The Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) constitution already states that the office of pastor is “limited to men as qualified by the Scripture.” The newly rejected amendment would further affirm the ban on women in pastoral roles by clarifying that women are strictly prohibited from acting as pastors in any capacity, including as associates.  

Even without the failed amendment, the wording in the SBC’s constitution gives the convention the power to oust churches that employ women in pastoral roles; however, the amendment to officially ban women would have increased the power of the SBC to expel these churches. 

Many SBC-affiliated churches threatened to pull out of the convention if the ban on women passed, worried about the consequences of the amendment on women within their church. What effect the amendment would have caused and how the current wording of the constitution will be enforced is still up for debate. Hundreds of churches with the SBC have women in ministry positions, especially as women’s ministry and children’s ministry directors. 

For 83% of women’s ministries across the country, the women holding leadership positions are either unpaid staff or serve as volunteers. During discussions of the ban, many raised questions on if these roles would be considered pastoral and be banned. It seems to come down to an issue of semantics. While the title of pastor or overseer can only be held by a man, the title of director or minister has no constitutional definition or restrictions. Regardless of the semantic difference, many within the SBC worried that a ban on women as pastors would lead to other women serving in church leadership being targeted. 

The issue of semantics is a much larger problem for some in the SBC than others. The National African American Fellowship, a group of predominantly black churches within the SBC, was especially concerned about the vote since many of their churches employ women as assistant pastors for various ministries. 

Questions about the amendment’s wording are further complicated by churches that perform services in various languages. For example, Hispanic and Chinese Baptist churches refer to women in church leadership as titles that can be loosely translated to pastor. In Spanish, pastors’ wives are frequently called “pastora,” even if they have no role in the ministry. 

Examining the many uncertainties around the amendment, including pushback from churches employing women, women volunteering as ministers, and multi-cultural churches, it is unclear why it was proposed. However, other votes proposed at the conference show the increasing politicization and polarization of the convention. SBC is vocally anti-LGBT and pro-life. At this week’s convention, they even voted to oppose the use of IVF among their members, echoing Alabama’s Supreme Court decision. 

While not officially affiliated with the Republican Party, the SBC does not attempt to hide its bias. Trump spoke virtually at an event hosted by a third-party nearby the convention, which SBC leaders and members attended. Former Vice President Pence was also invited to speak and participated in a luncheon at the conference. 

The SBC, while consistently conservative, has become more and more political. This has driven away many members, both individuals and entire congregations. Membership has declined since 2006 and is now below 13 million members, the lowest since 1976.  

Many moderates are leaving the church, leaving fundamentalists behind who support conservative measures within the convention. This creates a positive feedback loop, exacerbating the church’s politicization and polarization, leading to amendments like those to ban women in patronal roles and oppose IVF. As the country itself continues to polarize, so will influential institutions like churches until they contain only the most far-right members of their congregations. 

Study Shows Record-Breaking Voter Turnout for Women in College 

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by Element5 Digital

For years, older generations have often viewed the youth vote as unimportant due to perceived low voter turnout and have stereotyped college students as politically unmotivated or even apathetic. While this may have been true in the past, a 2021 study conducted by Tufts University, entitled Democracy Counts 2020, has disproven this stereotype and shown how the youth vote may be a vital part of the upcoming 2024 Presidential Election. 

Tufts University’s Institute for Democracy & Higher Education (IDHE) released its ground-breaking report, Democracy Counts 2020, a few months after the end of the 2020 Presidential Election. This report focused on the National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement (NSLVE), a combined database of university students and voting records dating back to the 2012 election. The NSLVE was created to help research the correlation between college education and political participation. The study’s early data about voter turnout in the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections showed that student voter turnout was concerningly low. In more recent years, however, student voter turnout has increased drastically. 

The Tufts study found that in 2016, 52% of college students in their database voted, compared to 61% of Americans. In 2020, however, the voter turnout for college students jumped to 66%, a shocking 14 percentage point jump from the 2016 election. This is especially important compared to the change in voter turnout among the general American public, which only increased by 6 points (67%). This unprecedented change in voter behavior among young people has closed the gap between generations, meaning that university students come within 1% of the national voting rate, shattering stereotypes about low voter turnout for young people. 

While the turnout rate among college students is impressive enough, the voting rate of women is even more monumental. At women’s colleges nationwide, 76% of students vote, following trends of high voter turnout among women. In 2020, women in university saw a 12-point increase in voter turnout, with 64% of women in university, compared to 58% of university men in 2020. The highest voting rate when comparing sex and race was white women, at 73% (a 14-point increase since 2016). Black women had the lowest relative turnout since 2012. Still, this demographic maintained an impressive 66% voter turnout (the smallest increase at 8 points since 2016), which could be attributed to a change in enrollment in universities, among other factors. 

The upcoming election encapsulates dozens of controversial issues that have plagued the country, with many being especially important to young people. While results about youth turnout for the 2024 election remain to be seen, it is not presumptuous to say that college students, especially women, will play a significant role in the outcome of America’s future if trends from 2020 continue. 

The Ever-Widening “Gender Chasm” of the Upcoming 2024 Presidential Election 

Posted on by Piper Duncan

Photo by Oxana Melis

The  gender gap, coined by Feminist Majority Foundation founder and president, Eleanor Smeal, describes the percentage difference between women and men voting for a specific candidate and has existed since at least the 1980 presidential election. In that election, while a slim majority of women did vote for Ronald Reagan, they did so at a rate of 8 points less than their male counterparts. As Smeal wrote in The Feminization of Power, “the gender gap in voting and public opinion shows that a significantly larger percentage of women voters than men voters support women’s rights, civil rights, legal abortion, and increasing public spending for social programs.”

Since 1996, women have consistently favored Democratic candidates, including in 2016, when most women voted for Hillary Clinton. The 2016 election marked a spike in the gender gap, with an 11-point difference between women and men votes for Donald Trump. Since 2016, the gender gap has continued to widen into a chasm as Gen Z has begun voting and more issues continue to divide our country. 

In 2020, according to the Roper Center of Cornell University, the gender gap continued to widen, with 57% of women voting for Biden, as opposed to 45% of men. This marked a new record for the gender gap in American politics of 12 points. However, landmark decisions regarding women’s rights, including the overturn of Roe v. Wade, as well as increasingly polarizing politics have rocked the country, making the gender gap an even more remarkable aspect of the upcoming 2024 election.

Recent polls have predicted this widening of the gender gap, including one conducted on May 22, 2024 by Quinnipiac University. The poll showed that the margins between Biden and Trump are small, yet the gender gap has increased since 2020. When asked who they would vote for if given the option between Trump and Biden, 58% of women said they would vote for Biden, and only 37% for Trump. For men, 37% said they would vote for Biden, and 57% said they would vote for Trump. This is a 21-point gender difference between Biden voters and a 20-point gender difference between Trump voters. With the election still months away, these polls may change, however, as of now there is a massive gender gap in voter preference for Biden and Trump.

Many factors have led to this drastic shift in voting behaviors between men and women. One of the most impactful has been the introduction of Gen Z into the voting pool. Overall, Gen Z women tend to be significantly more liberal than men of the same age, with one poll showing a 15-point difference between the two groups. Factors like less religiosity among Gen Z women, a higher percentage of them identifying as LGBTQ+, and recent events like the overturning of Roe vs. Wade have all been attributed to the Gen Z gender gap.  

Women have political power — they just have to use it.

Edited: July 2, 2024

>

Support eh ERA banner