<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"  xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Ara in English - women's suffrage]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[https://en.ara.cat/etiquetes/women-s-suffrage/]]></link>
    <description><![CDATA[Ara in English - women's suffrage]]></description>
    <language><![CDATA[es]]></language>
    <ttl>10</ttl>
    <atom:link href="http://en.ara.cat:443/rss-internal" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[One family, one vote?]]></title>
      <link><![CDATA[https://en.ara.cat/opinion/one-family-one-vote_129_5830557.html]]></link>
      <description><![CDATA[<p><img src="https://static1.ara.cat/clip/0e6ccb3d-8325-4dd7-85f3-031c788bf37d_16-9-aspect-ratio_default_1060122.jpg" /></p><p>For some time now, a background murmur has been heard that speaks of an involution regarding women's rights. Among the notes of this cacophony, there are two that particularly concern me and are closely linked: discourses that question the necessity of women's suffrage and the phenomenon of <em>tradwives </em>(traditional wives) and <em>stay-at-home girlfriends,</em> girls who stay at home. Since the newspaper ARA already spoke about <em>tradwives</em> in 2024 in a pioneering way, I will focus on the former, which also seems the most dangerous to me. These involutionary discourses originate in the United States, but they are spreading like wildfire through Latin America and are beginning to reach Europe, as was seen in July at the foundational meeting of Mulheres Conservadoras de Portugal, a movement linked to the far-right party Chega and evangelical movements. Women's suffrage seemed a definitively established right since it began to be implemented, not without many struggles, at the end of the 19th century. Setting aside curious cases, such as that of 1776 in New Jersey, where the use of the word "person" instead of "man" in the suffrage law led some clever women to join in until the "mistake" was corrected, women's suffrage was generally achieved in the first half of the 20th century, with some bloody exceptions like Switzerland, where women did not gain federal voting rights until 1971. As for Spain, the controversy that pitted Clara Campoamor against Victoria Kent and which ended up establishing women's vote in 1931 is well known.Now, however, this right, which is basic for the construction of women's public voice and for their civic autonomy, has been called into question for the first time in more than a century. Ultraconservative groups in the United States, such as that of the evangelical preacher Doug Wilson, are attacking the nineteenth amendment to the Constitution, the one that legalized women's suffrage in 1920, considering it a "cancer of individualism." Curiously, when individualism guarantees universal male suffrage nothing happens, but when a law allows women to be considered individuals and grants them a voice, the forces of hell are unleashed. </p>]]></description>
      <dc:creator><![CDATA[Elena Losada Soler]]></dc:creator>
      <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[https://en.ara.cat/opinion/one-family-one-vote_129_5830557.html]]></guid>
      <pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 23 Aug 2026 19:02:14 +0000]]></pubDate>
      <media:content url="https://static1.ara.cat/clip/0e6ccb3d-8325-4dd7-85f3-031c788bf37d_16-9-aspect-ratio_default_1060122.jpg" type="image/jpeg"/>
      <media:title><![CDATA[Donald Trump hugs Erika Kirk]]></media:title>
      <media:thumbnail url="https://static1.ara.cat/clip/0e6ccb3d-8325-4dd7-85f3-031c788bf37d_16-9-aspect-ratio_default_1060122.jpg"/>
      <subtitle><![CDATA[]]></subtitle>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
