Of course it is, as we know there is another motivator in this, power, and sometimes that desire needs to be fed more than reason would normally permit, Gail Collins points to this in her excellent piece in the NYT
“As a woman, I might know a little bit more about women than Gary Peters,” Land says at the end. She opposes Obamacare, backed the government shutdown in 2013 and opposes abortion rights. She also opposes the current congressional bill to raise the minimum wage, which disproportionately affects women. She came out against the equal pay bill that would have made it easier for women to figure out whether they were getting the same wages as their male peers. It is certainly possible for a woman in Congress to have one of these positions and still support her gender. But keep piling this stuff up and you eventually have to ask: What’s the point?
That point is when you seek personal fulfillment no matter what the cost, and when combined together it can mean you are an active promoter inequality no matter which gender you happen to be.
You can willing blinker yourself that just because you are a woman means that you are above such accusations, utter tosh, its the sum of the parts that matter, In your lust for power you can also tread upon other peoples rights for your own benefit, just because you are a woman attacking other women gives you no special privileges. It also does not give you any protection when this is pointed out.
So it is possible to be a leader of the war on women and be a woman, many have done this before and all for personal gain and or notoriety. The simple minded may well fall for the "I'm a woman, therefore I cannot be for the war on women", but anyone with half a brain can see through that ploy. There will always be a group of women that benefit from this charade, and they care little of the consequences when their selfish little hearts come into play.
They need to come up with a better argument than "I'm a woman" when their real agenda is so abundantly clear.
At the minimum, we’ll have an opportunity to spend the next few months enjoying a bounty of pander. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s campaign has been boasting about his support for the Violence Against Women Act, which was indeed the case about 20 years ago. Mitch McConnell was for the Violence Against Women Act when the original version of “Dallas” was still on the air. Since then, he has voted against it three times.