theguardian.com
Erosion of Women's Suffrage in the US: A Rising Threat
Influential figures in the US are increasingly expressing views that challenge women's right to vote, raising concerns about a potential rollback of suffrage.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of this trend and what actions could counteract it?
- The gradual erosion of women's voting rights through restrictive legislation or manipulative tactics is a serious threat. Countering this requires active vigilance, public awareness campaigns highlighting the historical and ongoing struggle for women's suffrage, and robust legal challenges to discriminatory voting practices.
- How are these views being amplified and what is their potential impact on the political landscape?
- Sorbo's views reach 1.9 million TikTok followers, while Hegseth's retweet, though not explicitly endorsing the video's content, carries significant weight due to his position. Thiel's past statements, despite later clarification, contribute to a narrative questioning women's suffrage. The combined effect normalizes these views within certain segments of the population.
- What specific actions or statements by prominent figures demonstrate a challenge to women's voting rights?
- Braeden Sorbo, a conservative influencer, claims many young women wish to relinquish their right to vote to prevent liberal women from voting. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth retweeted a video of pastors advocating for household voting, where the head of the household would cast the sole vote. Peter Thiel, a tech billionaire, questioned the wisdom of granting women suffrage in a past essay.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the discussion around the right of women to vote by highlighting the opinions of men who oppose it, giving undue weight to their views and potentially marginalizing counterarguments from women's rights advocates. The opening lines immediately set a dismissive and condescending tone towards women's participation in the debate. The use of phrases like "America's finest male intellectuals" and "sit this one out, ladies" is overtly biased and creates a framing that prioritizes male opinions. The article also presents anecdotal evidence from Braeden Sorbo without critical evaluation, while simultaneously highlighting the large following he has on social media, further amplifying his potentially misogynistic views. The inclusion of prominent figures like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, even if their statements are not directly advocating for the removal of women's suffrage, adds to the framing, giving the impression that the idea is gaining traction within influential circles.
Language Bias
The language used throughout the article is highly charged and subjective. Terms like "jamoke," "far-right YouTube show," and "nepo baby" are used to disparage Braeden Sorbo and his views, demonstrating a clear lack of neutrality. Phrases like "fairer sex" and "too emotional for such muscular discussion" are patronizing and sexist. The article employs sarcasm and irony ("we live in hell") to express its disapproval, rather than maintaining a neutral tone. The overall tone is highly critical and accusatory towards those who express views against women's suffrage. Neutral alternatives include using more objective language and avoiding loaded terms.
Bias by Omission
While the article details the views of several prominent figures who express skepticism towards women's suffrage, it lacks substantial counterarguments from women's rights activists and organizations. It omits the historical context and the ongoing struggles for women's rights and political participation. There's also a lack of statistical data to support or refute the claims made by individuals like Braeden Sorbo. The article might benefit from including diverse perspectives and providing more robust evidence to create a more balanced picture. Although the article acknowledges that the views expressed are fringe views, it might be improved with a further assessment of the potential spread and impact of this misinformation.
False Dichotomy
The article doesn't explicitly present a false dichotomy, but it creates an implicit one by focusing heavily on the voices arguing against women's suffrage and largely ignoring or downplaying the overwhelming historical and contemporary support for women's voting rights. By concentrating on the negative voices, the article inadvertently constructs a narrative where the issue is somehow still open for debate, when in reality, the right of women to vote is widely accepted in mainstream society. This framing underplays the consensus on this issue and could mislead readers into believing there's more widespread disagreement than actually exists.
Gender Bias
The article itself exhibits a significant gender bias, primarily in its framing and tone. The article uses dismissive and condescending language towards women, treating their perspectives as irrelevant. While mentioning the negative opinions of men, the article fails to adequately represent women's voices and their active participation in defending their voting rights. The article's structure focuses on the opinions of men opposing women's suffrage, which disproportionately presents the issue from a masculine perspective, thus reinforcing gender inequality within political discourse. The article should include more balanced representation of women's perspectives and experiences related to their right to vote.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the alarming resurgence of discussions and actions aimed at undermining women