This particular difference between Britain and America is emblematic of a more general difference between the two countries which has had an important effect on the history of Anglophone feminism. Put simply, the American right has an entirely different character from the British right: it is louder, more extreme, more religious, and also more powerful. It presents a genuinely formidable threat to the defenders of Roe, and indeed the defenders of some of the most basic feminist principles: a woman’s rights to earn money, own property, and in all other ways live a legal and economic life separate from that of her father or husband.

The give and take of abortion has been used as a political football for decades, the republicans have little true interest to legislate it nationally, because they have already had occassions when they could have undone it, and had not. The republicans also have scare issues they use to drum up support once people notice they have little to stand for.

The difference between left-wing and right-wing when it comes to women is only about where exactly on our necks their boots should be placed. To right-wing men, we are private property. To left-wing men, we are public property.

In a general way, that is so very accurate.

Terf ideology has become the de facto face of feminism in the UK, helped along by media leadership from Rupert Murdoch and The Times of London. Any vague opposition to gender-critical thought in the UK brings along accusations of “silencing women” and a splashy feature or op-ed in a British national newspaper.

Wouldn't it be nice if that was the situation for newspapers here? Alas...

it just needed an audience that was willing to be persuaded. In America, political polarisation is too severe, and the extreme right too frightening, to allow a non-partisan debate to be had.

This is mostly a larger product of the media and its own goals for people's discussion in the US.

and women are in a unique position in that they are very often victims but only rarely perpetrators. This means that, as a group, women have a rational incentive to support tough-on-crime policies, and these are policies that are more often supported by right-leaning parties, particularly now, when “defund the police” has become such a fashionable slogan on the left.

This also depends on what the long term effect of being 'tough on crime' is (which biden was for) or if the increased incarceration and locking up people for nonviolent offences just adds to the financial inequality between certain races and classes.

many of the young victims of the grooming gangs emerged from their abuse to find themselves friendless, abandoned by those who profess to be most concerned with the protection of the vulnerable and marginalised

This was one of the greatest crimes that recieves almost no media coverage, it should be a national story by this point.

So when there is no conflict between what feminists want and what these other groups want — when, for instance, the perpetrators of violence against women and girls are safely-privileged rich white men like Harvey Weinstein — then the feminist view can win out.

And to add to the point, besides oprah helping harvey find victims, the political democrats found it convenient to stump on how important women are and we need to believe all women's stories- until the harassment centered around someone they wanted to push and so all the criticisms and support of those victims was thrown away.

Package deal ethics produces not only blind tribalism but also incoherence

Absolutely it does. This was an excellent article, i wish that we could upvote this one twice.