The Politics of Selective Equality

By Nina Lewandowska

The rise of women in politics is often presented as proof that equality has finally been accomplished. It is a common misconception that more women in positions of power must mean the system is working. This is a tempting narrative because it is simple and optimistic. For decades, women have been excluded from political life almost entirely. Now, they can lead parties, hold cabinet positions, sit in congress and parliaments and shape national policy. On the surface, this might look like undeniable progress, but the picture becomes much more complicated when some of the women directly benefiting from that progress openly reject the movement that made it possible. If feminism helped create the conditions that allowed these women to succeed, what does it say when they use their power to undermine those same opportunities for others?

The Contradiction at the Centre of Conservative Feminism

It is one thing to disagree with feminism. Political disagreement is a fact of life, and feminism itself is not a unified ideology. But there is a difference between disagreement and outright denial of the role feminism played in opening political and professional spaces for women in the first place. Many right-wing female politicians have built their image around rejecting feminism, portraying it as unnecessary or even harmful. At the same time, they benefit from the rights and opportunities that previous generations of women fought for. This contradiction highlights the hypocrisy of modern conservative politics.

Figures such as Michele Bachmann, a former Republican congresswoman and 2012 presidential candidate, present themselves as examples of strong, independent women who succeeded through hard work rather than thanks to activism or social movements. In her 2011 memoir Core of Conviction: My Story, Bachmann wrote that she “rejected that kind of feminism”, wanting “no part of an ideology that praised wives being apart from husbands or children being apart from fathers”. At the same time, her political career exists in a world fundamentally shaped by feminist progress. Fifty or sixty years ago, a woman in her position would have faced barriers that cannot be boiled down to personal prejudice, but rather legal and institutional realities which were impossible to bypass. Women could be legally paid less than men for the same work, forbidden from attending professional schools, refused a credit card without a male co-signer and fired the moment they became pregnant. They were expected to stay out of politics and leadership entirely. Feminist movements did not magically erase those barriers overnight, but they did force political and cultural systems to change enough for women like Bachmann to be taken seriously as leaders.

A Moral Victory or a Political Weapon?

The hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore when that rhetoric turns into policy. The most notable example of this in recent years came after the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organisation decision, in which the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and removed federal protections for abortion rights in the United States. The decision drastically changed access to reproductive healthcare, particularly for women in conservative states. Suddenly, rights that existed for decades became dependent on geography, income and political circumstance.

Politicians such as Marjorie Taylor Greene openly celebrated the decision. “I think it’s a miracle. I’m so thrilled, like I’ve cried about this”, Greene said outside the Supreme Court on 24 June 2022. “Everybody here is celebrating that the Supreme Court had the courage, they had the bravery, overturning Roe v. Wade, giving it back to the states”. She later added that she hoped it “can be the beginning to the end of abortion”, and pushed for even stricter restrictions. Greene has consistently framed anti-abortion policies as moral victories, even though the consequences of those policies fall hardest on women with the fewest resources. Wealthy politicians with influence and financial security are rarely the people forced into impossible choices by these laws. They can travel and afford private healthcare. They have networks of protection that ordinary people do not. The restrictions they support are far more likely to affect working-class, young women than anyone in positions of power.

When the Ladder Gets Pulled Up

What makes this issue even more significant is that it is not limited to women alone. The same contradiction appears whenever people from historically marginalised groups rise to positions of visibility and then support movements or policies that undermine protections for others within those groups. Equality movements have always been interconnected, which means that feminism, at its core, is not just about women gaining power. It is about dismantling systems that restrict people based on gender, race, sexuality or identity.

That is why the recent situation involving Caitlyn Jenner has become such a striking example. Jenner spent years publicly supporting Trump and conservative politics, even as parts of that political movement became increasingly hostile towards transgender rights. But when the Trump administration changed federal passport policies requiring sex markers to match biological sex at birth, Jenner found herself directly affected. In April 2026, she admitted that the passport policy had left her unable to travel. “What do I do? This is a safety factor. I can’t travel internationally anymore. I can’t use my passport.” Despite this, she was quick to add, "I don't blame President Trump. I love him.” This contradiction highlights what happens when people support policies and political movements under the assumption that the consequences will primarily affect others, only to realise later that the restrictions will also apply to them.

Choice Depends on Circumstance

Conservative supporters often respond by arguing that feminism is about choice and that conservative women choosing traditional values or rejecting feminism is a sign of empowerment. This might sound reasonable on the surface – freedom should also include the right to disagree. This argument, though, ignores the underlying reality: choice is shaped by material conditions. Access to healthcare, education, childcare, economic support and legal protections all influence what choices people are realistically able to make. When politicians support policies that reduce those protections, they are not only expressing personal beliefs. They are shaping the conditions under which everyone else has to live.

There is also something very convenient about the way that these politicians frame success. Their achievements are presented as proof that feminism is outdated, rather than evidence of what feminism has accomplished. The ladder they climbed is treated as though it appeared naturally, rather than being built though decades of activism. Once they find themselves in a position of power, the conversation quickly shifts from collective equality to individual merit. Anyone who fails to succeed is then told they simply did not work hard enough. 

Those Who Get Left Behind

Breaking barriers was never supposed to mean that a small number of people could enter systems of power and then decide that the problem was solved. It was supposed to mean that those systems would become more equal and accessible in practice. When politicians use their own success to argue against further progress while remaining personally protected from the consequences of the restrictions they support, that is not empowerment. It is the political equivalent of climbing a ladder and then pulling it up behind you.

Sources: The Washington Post, NPR, Newsweek, UN Women, Guttmacher Institute, ABC News, NBC News, Brookings Institution, Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, Core of Conviction: My Story by Michelle Bachmann, Feminist Perspectives by King’s College London

Written by Nina Lewandowska

Edited by Sarah Valkenburg and Gabrielle Ludes