“There is no democracy without women’s rights.”
Can a democracy where women have never been equal ever really thrive? How are attacks on democracy tied to gender equity? What can we learn from past fights to protect and expand women’s rights in order to chart a path forward?
A two-part virtual discussion hosted by Ms. magazine in partnership with NYU Law’s Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center and the 92NY explored these questions, plus how women’s rights are inextricably tied to the integrity and durability of democratic institutions.
This event is part of 92NY’s Newmark Civic Life Series: lectures and conversations with leading experts exploring pro-democracy efforts at this critical moment in the U.S. and around the world, supported by Craig Newmark Philanthropies.
Part One: U.S. Democracy
The conversation was moderated by Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, executive director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center at NYU Law and executive director of partnerships and strategy at Ms. magazine, with panelists:
- Alexis McGill-Johnson: president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund
- Melissa Murray: Frederick I. and Grace Stokes professor of law and faculty director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center at NYU Law
- Pamela Shifman: president of the Democracy Alliance
Watch the full recording below, or read on for key excerpts.
Alexis McGill-Johnson: Patients come to us for sexual and reproductive healthcare, but they go out into the world, and they are experiencing the harms of not being able to engage in the political process because their voting rights have been undermined by restrictive anti-democratic laws. They are worried about the criminalization, the very real criminalization that we just saw Brittany Watts experience in Ohio, after a miscarriage. Attacks on bodily autonomy and freedom and control are inextricably linked to our ability to express ourselves through our voice and our vote, and that has been very intentional.
Melissa Murray: When the Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it noted that Roe and Casey had a “democracy problem”—that abortion should have been decided by the people through their state legislatures. It takes a lot of cheek for the Court to say that, because at precisely the moment the Court claims to be restoring this question to the democratic process, the Court has done quite a lot to make it much more difficult for the people to express their preferences through electoral politics.
Dobbs comes on the heels of Rucho v. Common Cause, a 2018 ruling that there is no role for federal courts to play in policing partisan gerrymandering. That means that in states like Texas, that have grossly gerrymandered their state legislatures, it is much easier to not only pass oppressive voting laws, but also laws that restrict abortion and other forms of equal rights.
The Court is returning these very important questions of women’s equality to the political process, and is doing so precisely at the moment where it has intervened to make democracy more elusive.
Pamela Shifman: In the mid-’90s, during South Africa’s first post-apartheid government, I was really lucky to be able to work as the legal advisor to the African National Congress Parliamentary Women’s Caucus in this first democratically-elected parliament.
Leading up to the election in 1994, there was this unbelievably powerful grassroots effort led by women around the country. And that resulted in the Women’s Charter, which says, “Democracy and human rights, if they are to be meaningful to women, must address our historic subordination and oppression. For women to be able to participate in, and shape the nature and form of our democracy, the concepts of both human rights and democracy must be redefined and interpreted in ways which encompass women’s diverse experiences.”
There is no democracy without women’s rights. And while our side has been a little bit slow to connect those dots, I think what is very clear is that the authoritarian right has been making those connections for decades. While we know that women’s rights are central to democracy, they know that patriarchy and control of women’s bodies are central to authoritarianism. So, when they crack down on gender and racial justice, it’s not just a side strategy. It’s literally fundamental to the political project that they are putting forward.
I’d be worried if there were apathy, I’d be worried if there were indifference, and that is not what we see.
Alexis McGill-Johnson
Jennifer Weiss-Wolf: When we think of movement energy and activism, both what’s happening in state legislatures, and I imagine we will see actively on the campaign trail this year, this goes beyond abortion, and goes beyond reproductive rights. How do we thread that needle for everyday voters?
Shifman: We are seeing the scariest laws being developed and implemented, and we are also seeing really exciting opportunities, in ways that really impact people’s lives.
For example, Minnesota codified abortion rights, paid family medical leave, paid sick leave, transgender rights and protections, driver’s licenses for undocumented residents, restoration of voting rights for formerly-incarcerated people, a tax credit aimed at low-income parents with kids, background checks for gun transfers and so much more. And they were able to do that because they prepared to govern, and they had a really bold commitment to move quickly when they could.
While we know that women’s rights are central to democracy, they know that patriarchy and control of women’s bodies are central to authoritarianism.
Pamela Shifman
Murray: I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that democracy is on the line, and I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that abortion politics is a winning message for those who want to further a multi-racial, plural democracy. We’ve seen that over and over again. We’ve also seen the backlash to that, and the attempt to curb democracy.
For a group of people who were so excited about Dobbs returning the abortion question to democratic deliberation, abortion opponents don’t seem to like it when the people deliberate and choose to expand or preserve access.
McGill-Johnson: I think a freedom agenda is incredibly compelling, and I think that’s one of the ways in which we see the wins, starting with Kansas last cycle. We saw the focus on asking what freedom from government interference means. That has been a very powerful lesson.
Weiss-Wolf: What is giving you hope and inspiration right now?
Shifman: The organizers on the ground, the people who are going door to door all over the country, who are demanding to be part of the democratic process and saying, “This is my country, this is my world, too, and I’m going to make it be so.”
Murray: Democracy is not a sprint, it’s a marathon, and getting there is going to take a long time, and we’re doing the work now.
McGill-Johnson: I’d be worried if there were apathy, I’d be worried if there were indifference, and that is not what we see.
I’ll leave you with my favorite quote, the one I meditate on every day by Alice Walker. It’s the title of a poem, “Hope Is A Woman Who Has Lost Her Fear.” And every time I turn around, there are people who are unapologetic, they are unafraid, they are demanding their democracy, and they’re demanding their rights, and that should give us a lot of hope.
I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that democracy is on the line, and I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to say that abortion politics is a winning message for those who want to further a multi-racial, plural democracy.
Melissa Murray
Part Two: Democracies Around the Globe
The conversation was moderated by Laleh Ispahani, executive director of Open Society-U.S., with panelists:
- Suyen Barahona, director, Women’s Political Leadership Fund
- Ruth Ben-Ghiat, professor of history and Italian studies at NYU
- Regina Tamés, deputy director of the Women’s Rights Division at Human Rights Watch, Mexico City
- Christine Ryan, director of the Religious Liberty and Reproductive Rights Project at Columbia Law School’s Center for Gender and Sexuality Law
Watch the full recording below, or read on for key excerpts.
Laleh Ispahani: How do you explain the interplay between gender and democracy in the work you do?
Suyen Barahona: There is absolutely an interdependent relationship between gender and democracy. Greater democracy leads to better gender equality and vice versa.
Also, research is showing that increased representation of women in elected office has a role in counteracting corruption. Confidence in democracy is related to women’s political involvement; so too is the possibility of cooperation across party lines, which in turn plays a crucial role in peace and security efforts.
Women are a pro-democratic force in many places of the world—essential in rolling back authoritarianism, essential in strengthening democracy—and unfortunately, they continue to be under-represented. It will take 130 years, at this rate, to reach equality at the highest positions of power. So we can’t talk about full democracy when we are excluding 50 percent of the population.
Regina Tamés: Fighting for a healthy democracy and fighting for women’s rights go hand in hand.
It is clear that two of the main objectives of democracy are the pursuit of equality, the pursuit of inclusion, and therefore, fully recognizing women’s rights is inherently democratic. But simultaneously, it contributes to strengthening democracy. It might seem obvious to us, but it was not the case during the first decades of democracy building; I think many political actors, even those with democratic convictions, still today do not recognize this fully. It is important to acknowledge that it is not just under authoritarian governments that women’s rights are violated.
When men feel that their economic or social status is declining, and they perceive that women’s status is increasing, this is when they are susceptible to charismatic demagogues.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat
Christine Ryan: In the post-Dobbs era, there are lawsuits in states across the country challenging abortion bans as violations of free exercise rights or as unconstitutional establishments of religion—a strategy animated by gender and democracy.
Some plaintiffs are religious minorities trying to reclaim space in their democracy, which, to them, has become distorted by Christian nationalists. Other plaintiffs are what I call ‘dissenters’ within their own faith tradition; they reject the orthodoxy of their religious leaders in favor of their own understanding of their faith. This is important from the perspective of seeking a democracy that serves gender equality because infringement on religious freedom has been used with stunning success by right-wing actors to undermine contemporary advances in gender equality.
Ruth Ben-Ghiat: When I wrote my book, Strongmen, it was the first book that looked at the autocratic tools of rule that included, on purpose, a chapter about masculinity and how it interacted with propaganda, violence and corruption—and how it destroys democracies and props up autocracies.
My research shows that when men feel that their economic or social status is declining, and they perceive that women’s status is increasing, this is when they are susceptible to charismatic demagogues. This becomes an explicit part of the authoritarian platform, as well as the removal of restrictions on men. So, whenever we hear talk about a crisis of masculinity from the far right, this is a sign that people are gunning for democracy.
Women are a pro-democratic force in many places of the world—essential in rolling back authoritarianism, essential in strengthening democracy—and unfortunately, they continue to be under-represented.
Suyen Barahona
Ispahani: Suyen, you served as president of the Nicaraguan Unión Democrática Renovadora, and you were jailed, with hundreds of women, for 600-plus days, for political and human rights activism. What would you say about why authoritarians are so threatened by feminist leadership?
Barahona: When there have been assaults on democracy globally, you’ve seen feminist leaders and those who have been historically marginalized at the forefront, advocating for democracy, for freedom, for equity, and also responding to the ongoing attacks on human rights, despite the risk, despite the threats. And I think they’re threatened because we are talking also about shifting existing power dynamics. And that means there’s an understanding that power is at the heart of all of these injustices—the discrimination, the inequalities, the exclusion, the violence—and that threatens their regimes.
I feel like this very difficult personal experience, instead of silencing me or breaking me, has strengthened my convictions and really deepened my commitment to further democracy and justice around the world.
Up next:
U.S. democracy is at a dangerous inflection point—from the demise of abortion rights, to a lack of pay equity and parental leave, to skyrocketing maternal mortality, and attacks on trans health. Left unchecked, these crises will lead to wider gaps in political participation and representation. For 50 years, Ms. has been forging feminist journalism—reporting, rebelling and truth-telling from the front-lines, championing the Equal Rights Amendment, and centering the stories of those most impacted. With all that’s at stake for equality, we are redoubling our commitment for the next 50 years. In turn, we need your help, Support Ms. today with a donation—any amount that is meaningful to you. For as little as $5 each month, you’ll receive the print magazine along with our e-newsletters, action alerts, and invitations to Ms. Studios events and podcasts. We are grateful for your loyalty and ferocity.
