Well, we’ve arrived in this duration between International Women’s Day and Mother’s Day. The distinctness of this year lies in the fact that a large number of women have voted to eliminate the only mention of “woman” in the Constitution as well as the sole reference to “mother” in the singular form.
One might argue this doesn’t much display reciprocal female support when there is a vote to expunge the only acknowledgement of women’s invaluable service through domestic chores to society, only to favour a revamped clause that numerous caregivers perceive as condescending and facilitating state avoidance of obligations.
Many women may have voted for the removal of words directly referencing women, perhaps justified by their commitment to inclusivity and variety. But it strikes as odd inclusivity when such an action seemingly obliterates women, immersed within a generic care definition so expansive that one might overlook that the lion’s share of it is provided by women. It sparks a question of the authenticity of sisterhood and unity among women. How extensive can it, or should it, be?
Presently, the prevalence of tribalism, characterised as selecting a group to associate with and persistently sticking by it, is ubiquitous. This practice was conspicuous in the mediocre efforts leading up to the referendums.
In the case of Nikki Haley, who temporarily halted her campaign for the Republican presidential nomination while referencing Margaret Thatcher, she did not endorse Donald Trump. She insisted that Thatcher had given her sound advice: “You should never just blindly follow the crowd. Always form your own conclusions.”
Thatcher made it clear back in 1981, brought up by her father, Alfred Roberts, that conforming to the crowd was fundamentally the poorest choice one could make.
Tribalism as previously described, is currently at its peak. This was no more apparent than in the sub-par campaigns in the lead up to the referendums. Individuals would unabashedly declare if a certain despised group were in favour of a cause, it should be opposed; no exertion necessary for independent thought.
Nonetheless, there are instances where tribalistic tendencies waver. Haley, given her political standing, receives unexpected empathy. This may not be unrelated to Donald Trump’s casual misogyny or the general sentiment that it is about time the US saw a woman at the helm as president.
While I generally align with her stance on pro-life matters, I find the viewpoint of many American pro-life advocates to be different. It’s worth noting that almost all Irish pro-life supporters attempt to maintain consistency, opposing the death penalty, for instance. This profile is not something Haley fits into. Her tenure as governor of South Carolina in 2011 saw the last ever execution in the state. The executions ceased not due to a moral shift, but because they were short on lethal drugs, leading to the introduction of execution by firing squad a few years later.
Yet, seeing any woman humiliated by Trump invokes unease. Could it stem from a sense of sisterhood, perhaps?
Haley’s hawkish stance on war, akin to her idol Thatcher, stands out distinctly. One might anticipate that her personal experience as the daughter of Indian-Sikh immigrants would foster a compassionate stance on immigration issues. Contrarily, she has been vehement in her opposition to settling Syrian refugees in South Carolina, labeling them as potential security threats.
It’s once again distressing to see her endure Trump’s degrading comments. Could this stem from an underlying sisterhood, or perhaps it’s simply an expression of disdain towards Trump’s appalling comments about women?
What we see in Trump is akin to a quintessential playground bully. Never shying away from delivering low blows, women inclusive, he derogatorily nicknamed Haley “Birdbrain”. This may seem no worse than his other nicknames like “Lyin’ Ted” for Cruz, “Ron DeSanctimonious” for DeSantis, or “Sleepy Joe”/ “Crooked Joe” for Biden. His other ridicules of Haley include “Nirmada” and “Nimbra”, both twisting her real name, Nimarata Nikki Randhawa. His explanation for this: “it’s a little bit of a take-off on her name. You know, her name, wherever she may come from.”
Elizabeth Warren, nosediving out of the Democratic presidential race, had something important to say on this matter. She expressed that women are put in a no-win situation; if they highlight real issues, they’re dismissed as whiners, whereas if they paint a picture of contentment, their audiences question the reality of their world.
Trump is renowned for attacking people’s intellect and backgrounds. Sadly, many find his offensive remarks amusing, eliciting a shocked laughter of disbelief. Conversely, Haley finds herself navigating the difficult societal expectations of women: to strike a balance between commanding respect without appearing unfeminine.
Elizabeth Warren, who vied for the Democratic presidential candidate position, has expressed the difficulties faced by women. She asserts that if women raise genuine issues, they inevitably face accusations of complaining excessively. Conversely, if they project an overly positive perspective, they are perceived as being out of touch with reality.
In an altercation over TikTok, a dispute involving her daughter led Haley to label Vivek Ramaswamy as “trash.” Haley views TikTok suspiciously as a potential tool for Chinese espionage, despite her daughter’s fondness for it. Although her outburst may be seen as regrettable, it’s insignificant when compared to Trump’s unrelenting rudeness and severe egotism.
Despite this, it’s crucial to note that Haley exists within a privileged bubble, her struggles are the kind many women in underdeveloped countries could only wish to contend with. Regardless of the spectrum of privilege, from aspiring presidential candidates to those merely seeking the option of flexible working hours or the opportunity to be a full-time homemaker, the struggle of being a woman or mother in 2024 persists.