Krysta Fitch, a 34-year-old stay-at-home mother in Walls, Miss., said she cast the first vote in her life for Mr. Trump and enthusiastically joined his rally in the nearby town of Southaven this month. She said that women have no business running for president. “In the Bible it says that a man is responsible for leading his household,” she said. “And a woman’s only supposed to step up if he’s not willing. Aside from that, women are just too emotional. I feel like it would be dangerous to have a woman in a position to potentially start a war.”

Although she reflects conservative evangelical sentiment, Mrs. Fitch is an outlier among most Republican women. Studies of these voters suggest that they are receptive to both female and male candidates. Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer and Republican activist, is quick to say that she and other conservative women have been at the receiving end of sexism themselves. “Do we get together and talk about the sexism of the men?” she said. “Yes, we do. We get it. We don’t have blinders on.”

But she embraces the idea of innate differences between men and women, and like many Republicans, does not look to government to press for gender equality.

“My brand of feminism is based on the realities of human nature,” she said. “If you accept that these experiences are going to present themselves, what’s the best way to help young women and ourselves address them? Not by demanding some policy.”

So why don’t women who share the all-too-common experience of being demeaned by men find that a source of solidarity? And why would women oppose measures that promise to offer them more rights and freedoms?

It depends on which identities — woman, wife, mother, race, political or religious affiliation — are more central for which woman.

Professor Cassese found that Republican men and women, especially low-income and evangelical voters, tended to express higher levels of hostile sexism than Democrats or independents.

Some women, white married women in particular, have tied their fates more closely to men. That is why, in several interviews with supporters of Mr. Trump and Justice Kavanaugh, the president’s branding of #MeToo as unfair to men resonated with women protective of their sons or husbands.

“I have two sons and I have a daughter as well,” said Jill Gregory, 33, a Trump supporter who lives in Olive Branch, Miss. “If that was my daughter, I would want her to be heard. On the other side, my two boys, I would hate for them to be accused of something they didn’t do.”

As the 2016 election demonstrated, some women regard anything that hurts the traditional male breadwinner — or the status they gain from being white — as a blow to their standing as well.

Mr. Trump’s appeal to economic, racial and gender resentment, and his promise to return to old hierarchies, appealed to a segment of women even as it did to men, a study by Professor Cassese and Tiffany D. Barnes of the University of Kentucky showed. Many of these women not only scored high on the “hostile sexism” scale, they also clung to the advantage of being white as a compensation for the disadvantage of being a woman. There is no universal female experience. And, as conservative women’s support for Justice Kavanaugh shows, there is no universal female response to allegations of abuse.

A nationally representative survey by the Public Religion Research Institute conducted at the end of the summer found wide gaps between Republican and Democratic women. Twenty-five percent of Republican women considered sexual harassment in the workplace a critical issue, compared to 51 percent of Democratic women. And 48 percent of Republican women would consider voting for a candidate accused of sexual harassment; 14 percent of Democratic women would.

As Republican women point out, the response to allegations of harassment can be partisan too — where, they ask, is the outrage about Keith Ellison, the Democratic congressman from Minnesota who has been accused of domestic abuse? (He denies the allegations.) Where was it over President Bill Clinton?

Conservative women condemn sexual harassment, too. But several interviewed rejected the idea that women always tell the truth about it or that men are single-handedly to blame.

“We’re supposed to believe any girl who says something happened,” Mrs. Mitchell said. “I just don’t believe everything they say. They can’t remember. They were drunk. Honestly, of course men have a responsibility not to be predators. But we have a responsibility to do our part.”

Several conversations in Mississippi revealed a profound gulf between conservatives and liberals, even among those women who recounted searing experiences with sexual harassment themselves. These women prided themselves on a certain stoicism and grit, implying that unlike elite women, they could not afford to dwell on their experiences years later.

“I don’t understand why women are afraid to get the help they need,” said Crystal Walls, 60, a waitress in Southaven, who said she had fended off abuse herself and said her daughter had been raped and beaten. “I can’t comprehend that. I’m maybe stronger.”

Mrs. Fitch said her stepfather abused her for several years, beginning when she was about 9 years old and ending with his arrest and imprisonment when she was 13. She says the experience has stayed with her, but has gained comfort from her church’s support, her marriage, and being a mother. She spoke on a hot October day outside her home in Mississippi, with a kitten curled up in her lap, and recounted her trauma in a calm, resolute tone.

But the Republican embrace of Mr. Trump’s gender-baiting has already alienated independent women as well as Republican college-educated and suburban women, polls and focus groups suggest. Even some former religious conservatives have balked.

Marybeth Glenn, a Wisconsin resident who opposed abortion and was an avid Marco Rubio supporter in 2016, said many of her relatives were upset when she denounced Mr. Trump as sexist in a viral tweetstorm in 2016. “The culture in the conservative movement places women at such a low priority,” she said. “You start to feel less of yourself. That’s the only way you can say that tax cuts are more important than the treatment of women.”

Ms. Gregory does not see it the same way. “Since he’s been president, I watched the news all the time and I’ve never been offended by anything he said about a woman,” she said of President Trump. “I think he’s not meaning it to come out the way it sounds and the way the media makes it.”

These two women disagree. Many observers of this political moment think they should join forces because they both happen to be women. We don’t know how women will vote in November. But we do know they won’t vote as one — and there’s no reason to be shocked by that.

Political scientist Jennifer Piscopo had another terrific piece about the impact of gender quotas on corporate boards in Apolitical:

The European Union emphasises the importance of parity democracy: the equal participation of men and women in political, social, and economic decision-making. But even as more women take up “pipeline professions”, they are rarely well-represented in positions of political and economic power. Women have been graduating from universities, law schools, and business schools in high numbers — but glass ceilings remain.

The glacial advance of women into top leadership positions has become a policy problem. In 2000, women held 13.9% of seats in the world’s legislatures. By 2005, this number had increased just two percentage points, to 16.1%.

Progress has been even more slow on the corporate side: in the European Union, the proportion of female directors increased from 8.5% in 2003 to 13.7% in 2012.

            • If you want to write an opinion piece, take a look at Apolitical’s guide for contributors. 

Frustrated by this slow pace of change, advocates have adopted “time’s up” rhetoric to justify government intervention, in the form of gender quota laws. The consensus is that voluntary action — relying on the goodwill of party leaders or company directors to nominate talented women — does not move the needle.

Belgium, for example, has gender quotas for both political candidates and corporate boards. Justifying these policies, Belgian MPs argued that the over-representation of men in top offices could no longer be considered normal or appropriate.

In France, ministers insisted that quotas for corporate boards were necessary to shock the system, which had stalled in promoting women on its own. Only legal measures would bring about change.

Consequently, gender quota laws have spread through Western Europe and the rest of the globe. France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Portugal all elect their parliaments with quotas or parity rules. Norway adopted the world’s first quota for corporate boards in 2004, applying the measure to companies in the public and private sector. Eight additional countries — most recently Germany and Denmark — have since adopted corporate quotas for all company types.

Frustrated by the slow pace of change, advocates have adopted “time’s up” rhetoric to justify government intervention in the form of gender quotas

But there is a crucial distinction between quotas for political candidates and quotas for corporate boards. Political parties are “public” in that they perform tasks vital to government: parties provide the platform through which citizens articulate policy preferences and choose their leaders.

Corporations aim to make money. Even when the state is a shareholder, corporations do not represent citizens’ interests in the way parties and parliaments do. This difference explains business leaders’ strong resistance to corporate quotas.

But the “time’s up” rhetoric alone has made a difference in some countries. Our research found that, over an eight-year period, some European and Anglo democracies without corporate quotas raised the proportions of women on boards as much as countries with quotas.

Why? Ministers in countries without quotas threatened companies with these laws if they didn’t promote more women voluntarily. And companies listened.

In the United Kingdom, tough talk from then-Prime Minister David Cameron and his cabinet worked. The proportion of female directors in the FTSE 100 rose from 12.5 to 26% in just five years. British corporations demonstrated a good faith commitment to gender diversity, and the government backed down.

Countries without quotas threatened to impose them if corporations didn’t promote more women voluntarily. And companies listened

The central premise of “time’s up” rhetoric is that 21^st century businesses do not discriminate against women: companies must do better, or else. Our research concluded that these threats are more effective than arguments about the “business case for diversity.”

That argument posits that better outcomes — like improved profits — flow from women’s presence. It speaks to corporations’ bottom line, but holds women to impossibly high standards. Adding two or three additional female directors does not transform corporate governance. But their presence can demonstrate a corporation’s commitment to ending discrimination.

As corporations increase their proportion of women leaders, Europe’s experience with gender quotas for political candidates should calm sceptics’ concerns. Ministers, corporations, and even the public may fear that quota laws privilege gender over merit.

But the political science research does not support this conclusion. First, affirmative action raises the bar for women and men: gender quotas weed out the mediocre men, because with fewer positions available, men must justify staying in the top positions. Second, women nominated under gender quotas are as qualified as, or even more qualified than, their male peers.

The “time’s up” language reminds selectors that qualified women are out there — and it’s your job to find them. The most popular policy tool for achieving parity democracy has been quota laws. These laws do work — and that can be true even when they’re only threatened, but never implemented.

I contributed to the film Represent and I hope you will too! Click here to make a gift of any amount to this important project!

The film is an intimate, surprisingly tender take on the political process. Our stories elevate the strength and conviction of our female candidates and go on to explore the network of support they receive and the impact of these campaigns on their surrounding community. In a year of unprecedented women-led activism, Represent captures the heart of of a grassroots movement and clearly documents the challenges that remain for female leadership in 2018 and beyond.

Despite pouring rain & muggy temps the RepresentWomen celebration last night was great! RepresentWomen board member Onida Coward Mayers, Takoma Park mayor Kate Stewart, & Fatima Goss Graves - president of the National Women's Law Center, spoke to an energized crowd about the work before us to realize the promise of American democracy. We are not working to 'restore' or 'reclaim' anything, rather, we are working to create that more perfect union - together.

Oh! I almost forgot! Raise a glass this weekend to Eleanor Roosevelt whose birthday was yesterday - she seems to be able to keep track of her knitting needles on a plane better than I can! And happy International Day of the Girl!

Cynthia

P.S. If you are in Washington, DC on Monday I hope that you will join us for this discussion!