‘There will be millions of women who will undermine their husbands’: Charlie Kirk thinks it’s demented for women to keep their votes private

Women who vote for Kamala Harris behind their husband’s backs are apparently committing “marital subversion.” That’s what Christian nationalist and conservative commentator Charlie Kirk thinks.

In The Megyn Kelly Show, Kirk expressed his anger at a Kamala Harris ad. He claimed that the ad “encouraged” women to “lie” to their husbands about their votes. The ad in question showed that women can vote whoever they want to—even if it’s a candidate that their husband does not agree with. In Kirk’s eyes, the ad was a betrayal against husbands who work their tails off. Never mind that women are more than capable of making political decisions and work just as hard (if not harder) for their families.

Kirk sneered at the ad, saying, “Kamala Harris believes that there will be millions of women who will undermine their husbands.” Kirk essentially thinks that women shouldn’t have the right to make political decisions for themselves as wives. They must put their opinions on the backburner for their hardworking husbands.

Saying the quiet part out loud

It’s not new for Trump’s biggest supporters to condemn women’s decisions. Some have even joked about removing the 19th Amendment—women’s right to suffrage. If all else fails, blame the women for everything.

In this case, Kirk and Megyn Kelly are upset that Trump isn’t winning women over. He is currently lagging behind female voters. Additionally, Trump and his allies have rallied behind a largely sexist campaign. To say that women’s choices will cause the downfall of American society undermines their intellect and capabilities. He may as well be suggesting that women who refuse to follow their husbands 100% shouldn’t be counted as voters. It’s coercive rhetoric to accuse women of “lying” to their husbands when they’re within their rights to vote whomever they wish.

While women in abusive and controlling situations are reduced to ‘whataboutisms’ in these discussions, they do exist. Their ability to vote in private shouldn’t be held against them. There are secret voters on both sides. Wives have reasons to keep their votes private, just as much as husbands do. For democracy’s sake, families should be able to agree to disagree on issues. If not, what’s the point of voting individually at all?