<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[clovenhooves - Women's Rights]]></title>
		<link>https://clovenhooves.org/</link>
		<description><![CDATA[clovenhooves - https://clovenhooves.org]]></description>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2026 18:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<generator>MyBB</generator>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA['A husband expects a yes’: how wife schools are shaping submissive Christian women]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1976</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 03:33:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1976</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/apr/28/wife-school-christian-women-submissive" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.ph/WkvRU" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
"The Stepford Wives" meets "The Handmaid's Tale." No wonder women are fleeing the institutions of both marriage and organized religion.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/apr/28/wife-school-christian-women-submissive" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.ph/WkvRU" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
"The Stepford Wives" meets "The Handmaid's Tale." No wonder women are fleeing the institutions of both marriage and organized religion.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The Problem With Today’s Anti-Feminists]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1975</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 26 Apr 2026 04:25:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1975</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://thedispatch.com/article/anti-feminism-girlbosses-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.ph/rhiuX" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>Indeed, a major gripe I have with anti-feminists is that they make it harder to achieve policy wins for moms and dads at home. In my own work advocating for homemakers, I can attest that it is extremely difficult to convince centrist and left-of-center lawmakers to support measures supporting stay-at-home parents when they fear these policies are actually a Trojan horse for trying to kick women back to the kitchen. There are many practical measures we could take to help these parents, including encouraging corporations to hire at-home parents who want to return to work, considering how to reform our Social Security system to better protect homemakers, or how to reform our 401(k) system to better protect “traditional families.” All these and more become fraught, though, when the question shifts away from helping families make the choices that work for them, and instead becomes: Are we trying to protect stay-at-home moms, or are we trying to force girlbosses into roles that they don’t want? Even reasonable measures can fail to gain traction when they are sucked up into a broader culture war.</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://thedispatch.com/article/anti-feminism-girlbosses-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.ph/rhiuX" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>Indeed, a major gripe I have with anti-feminists is that they make it harder to achieve policy wins for moms and dads at home. In my own work advocating for homemakers, I can attest that it is extremely difficult to convince centrist and left-of-center lawmakers to support measures supporting stay-at-home parents when they fear these policies are actually a Trojan horse for trying to kick women back to the kitchen. There are many practical measures we could take to help these parents, including encouraging corporations to hire at-home parents who want to return to work, considering how to reform our Social Security system to better protect homemakers, or how to reform our 401(k) system to better protect “traditional families.” All these and more become fraught, though, when the question shifts away from helping families make the choices that work for them, and instead becomes: Are we trying to protect stay-at-home moms, or are we trying to force girlbosses into roles that they don’t want? Even reasonable measures can fail to gain traction when they are sucked up into a broader culture war.</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[I was drawn to tradwife content. I'm glad I saw through it. | Opinion]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1966</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 15:25:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1966</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/04/12/conservatives-gen-z-tradwife-aesthetics-work-motherhood/89505907007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.ph/tup6E" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>What makes online tradwives’ advice especially sinister, though, is that these social media influencers don’t practice what they preach. Content creators with hundreds of thousands of followers, like Savanna Stone, <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/04/12/lifestyle/19-year-old-tradwife-influencer-goes-viral-for-being-a-stay-at-home-wife-defying-societal-norms/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">may claim</a> that they “just want to be a traditional woman … to stay at home, be a stay-at-home wife.”<br />
If that were truly the case, why would they be creating social media content, loudly espousing their social and political views on podcasts, racking up <a href="https://www.marketingbrew.com/stories/2025/01/21/tradwives-social-media-brand-partnerships" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">brand sponsorships</a> and providing paid <a href="https://www.skool.com/the-submissive-society/about" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">“femininity coaching” services</a>?</blockquote>
<br />
Good question.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/04/12/conservatives-gen-z-tradwife-aesthetics-work-motherhood/89505907007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.ph/tup6E" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>What makes online tradwives’ advice especially sinister, though, is that these social media influencers don’t practice what they preach. Content creators with hundreds of thousands of followers, like Savanna Stone, <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/04/12/lifestyle/19-year-old-tradwife-influencer-goes-viral-for-being-a-stay-at-home-wife-defying-societal-norms/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">may claim</a> that they “just want to be a traditional woman … to stay at home, be a stay-at-home wife.”<br />
If that were truly the case, why would they be creating social media content, loudly espousing their social and political views on podcasts, racking up <a href="https://www.marketingbrew.com/stories/2025/01/21/tradwives-social-media-brand-partnerships" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">brand sponsorships</a> and providing paid <a href="https://www.skool.com/the-submissive-society/about" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">“femininity coaching” services</a>?</blockquote>
<br />
Good question.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[I’ve Covered Women in the Workplace for 15 Years. Something Alarming Is Happening.]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1965</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 02:37:41 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1965</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/06/opinion/women-workplace-dei-feminism.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.ph/iv8lS" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>The Trump administration’s attack on diversity, equity and inclusion has rolled back decades of progress for women, who now face a widening gender <a href="https://archive.ph/o/iv8lS/https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/11/for-the-first-time-in-over-60-years-the-gender-pay-gap-widened-2-years-in-a-row.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #326891;" class="mycode_color">pay gap</span></a> and <a href="https://archive.ph/o/iv8lS/https://nationalpartnership.org/35-ways-trump-administration-harmed-women-families-first-100-days/%23:~:text=1.,from%20employers%20receiving%20taxpayer%20dollars." target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #326891;" class="mycode_color">narrowing employment protections</span></a>. In the process, discussions about women have become a third rail, a toxic topic that is too politically charged to touch. Companies, universities, law firms and cultural institutions are all expunging references to “women” and “gender,” even under the most benign circumstances.<br />
<br />
Terrified of being the administration’s next target, organizations are descending into the realm of the absurd. A researcher focused on maternal health <a href="https://archive.ph/o/iv8lS/https://www.wsj.com/health/scientists-are-removing-dei-language-to-keep-federal-grants-d092833b" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #326891;" class="mycode_color">removed references</span></a> to gender-based discrimination in order to receive federal funding. A medical trade publication <a href="https://archive.ph/o/iv8lS/https://www.mddionline.com/rd/references-to-dei-and-woke-terms-best-left-off-government-grant-applications" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #326891;" class="mycode_color">warned</span></a> scientists to avoid words such as “female” and “women” in grant applications. After Senator Ted Cruz of Texas released a list of supposedly “woke” National Science Foundation grants last year, ProPublica <a href="https://archive.ph/o/iv8lS/https://www.propublica.org/article/ted-cruz-woke-grants-national-science-foundation" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #326891;" class="mycode_color">found</span></a> that some were included merely because their project descriptions included words like “female,” as in a female research scientist, or “diversify,” as in the biodiversity of plants.</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/06/opinion/women-workplace-dei-feminism.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.ph/iv8lS" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>The Trump administration’s attack on diversity, equity and inclusion has rolled back decades of progress for women, who now face a widening gender <a href="https://archive.ph/o/iv8lS/https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/11/for-the-first-time-in-over-60-years-the-gender-pay-gap-widened-2-years-in-a-row.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #326891;" class="mycode_color">pay gap</span></a> and <a href="https://archive.ph/o/iv8lS/https://nationalpartnership.org/35-ways-trump-administration-harmed-women-families-first-100-days/%23:~:text=1.,from%20employers%20receiving%20taxpayer%20dollars." target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #326891;" class="mycode_color">narrowing employment protections</span></a>. In the process, discussions about women have become a third rail, a toxic topic that is too politically charged to touch. Companies, universities, law firms and cultural institutions are all expunging references to “women” and “gender,” even under the most benign circumstances.<br />
<br />
Terrified of being the administration’s next target, organizations are descending into the realm of the absurd. A researcher focused on maternal health <a href="https://archive.ph/o/iv8lS/https://www.wsj.com/health/scientists-are-removing-dei-language-to-keep-federal-grants-d092833b" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #326891;" class="mycode_color">removed references</span></a> to gender-based discrimination in order to receive federal funding. A medical trade publication <a href="https://archive.ph/o/iv8lS/https://www.mddionline.com/rd/references-to-dei-and-woke-terms-best-left-off-government-grant-applications" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #326891;" class="mycode_color">warned</span></a> scientists to avoid words such as “female” and “women” in grant applications. After Senator Ted Cruz of Texas released a list of supposedly “woke” National Science Foundation grants last year, ProPublica <a href="https://archive.ph/o/iv8lS/https://www.propublica.org/article/ted-cruz-woke-grants-national-science-foundation" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #326891;" class="mycode_color">found</span></a> that some were included merely because their project descriptions included words like “female,” as in a female research scientist, or “diversify,” as in the biodiversity of plants.</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Women’s networking event illegally sidelined men, Trump administration claims]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1958</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 2026 16:04:14 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1958</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/03/31/eeoc-lawsuit-coca-cola-bottler-discrimination/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a>  |  <a href="https://archive.ph/5kb9b" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>It’s the first EEOC lawsuit filed over a corporate diversity, equity and inclusion program, part of a sweeping effort by the Trump administration to stamp out what it describes as illegal discrimination.<br />
<br />
But more such cases could be imminent. In December, a month after Trump designated <a href="https://archive.ph/o/5kb9b/https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/andrea-r-lucas-designated-chair-us-equal-employment-opportunity-commission" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">her EEOC chair</a>, Andrea Lucas issued an unusual public appeal, <a href="https://archive.ph/o/5kb9b/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/12/30/trump-eeoc-dei-andrea-lucas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">asking White men who feel they have experienced discrimination</a> at work to contact the agency “as soon as possible.” In February, she said <a href="https://archive.ph/o/5kb9b/https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrea-lucas-a5b27513_us-civil-rights-agency-sues-coca-cola-distributor-activity-7431479683818512384-E5A5?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAAtOdQBBtUnYAnbr0A6j8I22JzE7kyiidM" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">women-only networking events would create “new girls clubs”</a> that operate like the “old boys clubs” before them, likening them to racially segregated employee social events of the 1970s.</blockquote>
<br />
I guarantee no gatherings of white men will be investigated like this. <br />
<br />
I also suspect that the equality angle cloaks intent to disrupt women's ability to gather together and share issues without male interference.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/03/31/eeoc-lawsuit-coca-cola-bottler-discrimination/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a>  |  <a href="https://archive.ph/5kb9b" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>It’s the first EEOC lawsuit filed over a corporate diversity, equity and inclusion program, part of a sweeping effort by the Trump administration to stamp out what it describes as illegal discrimination.<br />
<br />
But more such cases could be imminent. In December, a month after Trump designated <a href="https://archive.ph/o/5kb9b/https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/andrea-r-lucas-designated-chair-us-equal-employment-opportunity-commission" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">her EEOC chair</a>, Andrea Lucas issued an unusual public appeal, <a href="https://archive.ph/o/5kb9b/https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/12/30/trump-eeoc-dei-andrea-lucas/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">asking White men who feel they have experienced discrimination</a> at work to contact the agency “as soon as possible.” In February, she said <a href="https://archive.ph/o/5kb9b/https://www.linkedin.com/posts/andrea-lucas-a5b27513_us-civil-rights-agency-sues-coca-cola-distributor-activity-7431479683818512384-E5A5?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAAAtOdQBBtUnYAnbr0A6j8I22JzE7kyiidM" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">women-only networking events would create “new girls clubs”</a> that operate like the “old boys clubs” before them, likening them to racially segregated employee social events of the 1970s.</blockquote>
<br />
I guarantee no gatherings of white men will be investigated like this. <br />
<br />
I also suspect that the equality angle cloaks intent to disrupt women's ability to gather together and share issues without male interference.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Your Favorite Reformists?]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1956</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 03:58:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=478">Impress Polly</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1956</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[This post was inspired by <a href="https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1955" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Elsacat's recent thread about more women deciding to run for office after participating in No Kings protests</a>.<br />
<br />
By now you know me: I'm not much of a reformist or a big believer in electoral politics and I just cannot make myself care about the fate of the Democratic Party as an institution. I'm actually morbidly grateful for Trump. He's been the greatest gift to radical feminists and everyone like them in generations! Trends like "decenter men" and "going boy-sober" and whatnot would be nowhere near the cultural mainstream today if it weren't for his cartoonish misogynistic buffoonery and the kind of clarity that comes from moids loving it so much. Still, reforms can be useful in as far as they might shift the culture in a way that generates more class consciousness among women. If they serve to help create a revolutionary culture, they are useful and worth pursuing.<br />
<br />
I'm an American and what they call a low-propensity Democratic voter. I'm an independent who voted in half of the six presidential elections I've been eligible to do so in, for example, always unenthusiastically for Democrats. 2008 was my last vote for a male candidate. For anything. I vote only for women nowadays. That's a matter of principle. My political goal is to live in a society, nay a world, without men, and I vote in the most logically matching way that I can. It's not that being a woman means I'll support you, it's just a bare minimum requirement that gives you the opportunity for my vote. I think like men that way, but mirrored. Thus I am grateful for more women deciding to run for public office.<br />
<br />
Who might I personally find it actually <span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">exciting</span> to vote for? Well I have had my favorite elected reformists over the years. In the 2010s I was kind of a fan of New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who made it her (Gilli)brand to champion women's causes. It was she, for example, who introduced the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (mandating paid family leave) and led the charge to remove sexual assault cases involving military personnel from the military's chain of command and proposed actual legislation to do things like get rid of corporate nondisclosure agreements and end forced arbitration in sexual harassment and assault cases in response to the #MeToo phenomenon, and who had the audacity to once suggest that yes, in fact Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency after sexually exploiting an intern. In 2017, she was unique in voting against confirming <span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">any</span> Trump nominees for any posts. In the 2020 presidential election when like a quarter of the Senate declared presidential ambitions, including Gillibrand, I considered her my first choice. Alas though, my priorities proved far from those of both Democratic donors and the voting public alike, as she quickly became I believe the first candidate to drop out. <img src="https://clovenhooves.org/images/smilies/meowderp.png" alt=":meowderp:" title=":meowderp:" class="smilie smilie_18" /> Apparently Democrats were bitter about her holding Democratic officials like Al Franken and Bill Clinton to the same standard as Republicans, so her campaign failed to gain traction. From there, my support defaulted to Elizabeth Warren, who ran a far more economist, Bernie Sanders-like campaign, until she too dropped out before it came time for my state to vote. Sanders, in turn, refused to commit to so much as choosing a female running mate; a commitment even the establishment candidate Joe Biden was willing to make. I wound up sitting out both the primary and the general election as a result.<br />
<br />
In more recent years, Gillibrand has gone a very different direction that I've found less inspiring. She's become a crypto industry champion and, apparently feeling rebuked by her 2020 campaign, endorsed Andrew Cuomo for New York City mayor last year even after he'd resigned the governorship in disgrace after getting caught in numerous sex crimes. Credibility has been lost. She's just another politician to me now.<br />
<br />
These days my fave member of Congress is Texas Representative Jasmine Crockett. She's a sharp-tongued  populist who supports Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal, and just generally the standard Progressive Caucus economic positions popularized by Bernie Sanders, but can be differentiated from the Squad by her more nuanced positions on a range of social issues like immigration and foreign policy. Also co-chaired Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. She ran for the U.S. Senate this year, but was defeated in her party's primary by this man...<br />
<br />
<!-- start: postbit_attachments_attachment -->
<div class="row mb-2">
	<div class="col-auto align-self-center">

<!-- start: attachment_icon -->
<img src="https://clovenhooves.org/images/attachtypes/image.png" title="JPG Image" style="height: 16px; width: 16px" border="0" alt=".jpg" />
<!-- end: attachment_icon -->
		
	</div>
	<div class="col align-self-center">
		<a href="attachment.php?aid=224" target="_blank" title="">PC Principal.jpg</a> <br />
		<span class="text-muted" style="font-size: 12px">Size: 108.15 KB / Downloads: 146</span>
	</div>
</div>
<!-- end: postbit_attachments_attachment --><br />
<br />
...or someone very much like him anyway because it is Texas. Anyway, I relate to her whole "progressive but not the Squad" image, like her willingness to speak her mind, and find her particular combination of positions especially favorable to women. (Notable to me: Her coalition of supporters was mainly working class women and feminists. No wonder I relate. It may also be notable that a certain likely 2028 candidate, Gavin Newsom, endorsed Talarico in that race while a likely top rival of his, Kamala Harris, endorsed Crockett. Symbolism portending things to come in wider Democratic politics perhaps.)<br />
<br />
Tomorrow is of course the next No Kings protest. Before we go flip some tables like that barefoot rabbi though, what's your relationship to electoral politics? Do you have favorite elected officials?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[This post was inspired by <a href="https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1955" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Elsacat's recent thread about more women deciding to run for office after participating in No Kings protests</a>.<br />
<br />
By now you know me: I'm not much of a reformist or a big believer in electoral politics and I just cannot make myself care about the fate of the Democratic Party as an institution. I'm actually morbidly grateful for Trump. He's been the greatest gift to radical feminists and everyone like them in generations! Trends like "decenter men" and "going boy-sober" and whatnot would be nowhere near the cultural mainstream today if it weren't for his cartoonish misogynistic buffoonery and the kind of clarity that comes from moids loving it so much. Still, reforms can be useful in as far as they might shift the culture in a way that generates more class consciousness among women. If they serve to help create a revolutionary culture, they are useful and worth pursuing.<br />
<br />
I'm an American and what they call a low-propensity Democratic voter. I'm an independent who voted in half of the six presidential elections I've been eligible to do so in, for example, always unenthusiastically for Democrats. 2008 was my last vote for a male candidate. For anything. I vote only for women nowadays. That's a matter of principle. My political goal is to live in a society, nay a world, without men, and I vote in the most logically matching way that I can. It's not that being a woman means I'll support you, it's just a bare minimum requirement that gives you the opportunity for my vote. I think like men that way, but mirrored. Thus I am grateful for more women deciding to run for public office.<br />
<br />
Who might I personally find it actually <span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">exciting</span> to vote for? Well I have had my favorite elected reformists over the years. In the 2010s I was kind of a fan of New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who made it her (Gilli)brand to champion women's causes. It was she, for example, who introduced the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (mandating paid family leave) and led the charge to remove sexual assault cases involving military personnel from the military's chain of command and proposed actual legislation to do things like get rid of corporate nondisclosure agreements and end forced arbitration in sexual harassment and assault cases in response to the #MeToo phenomenon, and who had the audacity to once suggest that yes, in fact Bill Clinton should have resigned the presidency after sexually exploiting an intern. In 2017, she was unique in voting against confirming <span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">any</span> Trump nominees for any posts. In the 2020 presidential election when like a quarter of the Senate declared presidential ambitions, including Gillibrand, I considered her my first choice. Alas though, my priorities proved far from those of both Democratic donors and the voting public alike, as she quickly became I believe the first candidate to drop out. <img src="https://clovenhooves.org/images/smilies/meowderp.png" alt=":meowderp:" title=":meowderp:" class="smilie smilie_18" /> Apparently Democrats were bitter about her holding Democratic officials like Al Franken and Bill Clinton to the same standard as Republicans, so her campaign failed to gain traction. From there, my support defaulted to Elizabeth Warren, who ran a far more economist, Bernie Sanders-like campaign, until she too dropped out before it came time for my state to vote. Sanders, in turn, refused to commit to so much as choosing a female running mate; a commitment even the establishment candidate Joe Biden was willing to make. I wound up sitting out both the primary and the general election as a result.<br />
<br />
In more recent years, Gillibrand has gone a very different direction that I've found less inspiring. She's become a crypto industry champion and, apparently feeling rebuked by her 2020 campaign, endorsed Andrew Cuomo for New York City mayor last year even after he'd resigned the governorship in disgrace after getting caught in numerous sex crimes. Credibility has been lost. She's just another politician to me now.<br />
<br />
These days my fave member of Congress is Texas Representative Jasmine Crockett. She's a sharp-tongued  populist who supports Medicare-for-all, the Green New Deal, and just generally the standard Progressive Caucus economic positions popularized by Bernie Sanders, but can be differentiated from the Squad by her more nuanced positions on a range of social issues like immigration and foreign policy. Also co-chaired Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. She ran for the U.S. Senate this year, but was defeated in her party's primary by this man...<br />
<br />
<!-- start: postbit_attachments_attachment -->
<div class="row mb-2">
	<div class="col-auto align-self-center">

<!-- start: attachment_icon -->
<img src="https://clovenhooves.org/images/attachtypes/image.png" title="JPG Image" style="height: 16px; width: 16px" border="0" alt=".jpg" />
<!-- end: attachment_icon -->
		
	</div>
	<div class="col align-self-center">
		<a href="attachment.php?aid=224" target="_blank" title="">PC Principal.jpg</a> <br />
		<span class="text-muted" style="font-size: 12px">Size: 108.15 KB / Downloads: 146</span>
	</div>
</div>
<!-- end: postbit_attachments_attachment --><br />
<br />
...or someone very much like him anyway because it is Texas. Anyway, I relate to her whole "progressive but not the Squad" image, like her willingness to speak her mind, and find her particular combination of positions especially favorable to women. (Notable to me: Her coalition of supporters was mainly working class women and feminists. No wonder I relate. It may also be notable that a certain likely 2028 candidate, Gavin Newsom, endorsed Talarico in that race while a likely top rival of his, Kamala Harris, endorsed Crockett. Symbolism portending things to come in wider Democratic politics perhaps.)<br />
<br />
Tomorrow is of course the next No Kings protest. Before we go flip some tables like that barefoot rabbi though, what's your relationship to electoral politics? Do you have favorite elected officials?]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[They protested at No Kings. Now they’re running for office.]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1955</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 16:09:34 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1955</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://19thnews.org/2026/03/no-kings-protest-women-running-for-office/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260327160252/https://19thnews.org/2026/03/no-kings-protest-women-running-for-office/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
Interesting feature about women who decided to stop looking for someone to represent them politically and are becoming that person.<br />
<br />
This quote got my attention:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>“The thing that we heard that was different is: ‘I’m sick and tired of the Democratic Party. I’m sick and tired of being told to wait my turn,’” Litman said. “We’re also hearing a lot of: ‘The Democrats haven’t been where I am, they don’t know what it’s like to be in my shoes.’” <br />
<br />
“Trump is the water they’re swimming in but he is not the bait,” she added. </blockquote>
<br />
Maybe a younger generation with more women involved can help Democrats focus on what's really important to most voters.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://19thnews.org/2026/03/no-kings-protest-women-running-for-office/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260327160252/https://19thnews.org/2026/03/no-kings-protest-women-running-for-office/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
Interesting feature about women who decided to stop looking for someone to represent them politically and are becoming that person.<br />
<br />
This quote got my attention:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>“The thing that we heard that was different is: ‘I’m sick and tired of the Democratic Party. I’m sick and tired of being told to wait my turn,’” Litman said. “We’re also hearing a lot of: ‘The Democrats haven’t been where I am, they don’t know what it’s like to be in my shoes.’” <br />
<br />
“Trump is the water they’re swimming in but he is not the bait,” she added. </blockquote>
<br />
Maybe a younger generation with more women involved can help Democrats focus on what's really important to most voters.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[The Heritage Foundation’s New Policy Guidebook Wants to Push Women Out of Public Life]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1944</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 14 Mar 2026 02:47:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1944</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://msmagazine.com/2026/03/13/heritage-foundation-declining-birth-rate-women-mothers-married-young-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260314024449/https://msmagazine.com/2026/03/13/heritage-foundation-declining-birth-rate-women-mothers-married-young-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
The Heritage Foundation is terrifying. They want a Handmaid's Tale future for women.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://msmagazine.com/2026/03/13/heritage-foundation-declining-birth-rate-women-mothers-married-young-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20260314024449/https://msmagazine.com/2026/03/13/heritage-foundation-declining-birth-rate-women-mothers-married-young-work/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
The Heritage Foundation is terrifying. They want a Handmaid's Tale future for women.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[How Much They Hate You]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1935</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2026 03:09:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=478">Impress Polly</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1935</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Last week, some random, anonymous 15-year-old girl from the UK wrote the<a href="https://archive.ph/nTGZ6" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"> most compelling formal article I've read in years</a> for the Guardian. Apparently I wasn't alone in my sentiment, as at the original time of my reading, it was ranked as the platform's second-most-viewed article. Anyway, the girl's purpose for writing was to argue in favor of proposed legislation in her country that would ban kids under 16 from social media. The problem she articulates though is one she makes clear goes much deeper than what such a ban can possibly solve. She believes simply that such a ban could help and champions it on that basis. She provides many examples of the sorts of quotes from boys and young men that she spots online all the time, many of which prove very popular, and it's these specifics together with the depth of the pain she gives voice to experiencing that makes it so powerful. Since I know many are too lazy to click on a link, it's tough to resist the temptation to just quote the entire article for you below because the entire thing is must-read material, but I will do my best to cherry pick highlights for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>If you’re anything like my parents, you probably wouldn’t even understand most of the content that floods my social media, no matter how hard <a href="https://archive.ph/o/nTGZ6/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/28/britain-teenagers-social-media-law-children-wellbeing" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #c74600;" class="mycode_color">I try to avoid it</span></a>.<br />
<br />
Here’s a recent example from Instagram: “Do y’all females ever tell ur homegirls ‘Sis chill you letting too many dudes hit?’” Essentially, that means: “Women – do you ever tell your girlfriends that they’re whores and need to stop letting so many guys fuck them?” The reel, posted by a 19-year-old man, appeared on my Instagram feed without me wanting to see it, or ever interacting with any other similar content. The comments that followed were pure misogyny. “Women see body count as a leaderboard and they try to outdo each other,” was one of them. Translation: all women are competitively promiscuous.</blockquote>
<br />
Isn't it interesting how guys so often project <a href="https://traditionsofconflict.com/blog/2018/3/17/where-are-the-matriarchies" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">what in reality are their own traits</a> onto their female counterparts? As if it were not males who are designed for, and broadly practice, more competitive promiscuity.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>Consider the use of the word “female” in these posts. It is not a neutral term here, it is a term of abuse. It’s used by teenage boys to degrade us and equate us to animals. Boys are never described as “males”, but girls are always “females” – the equivalent of sows or calves, creatures that are less than human. We’re also “thots” (whores), “community pussy” and “bops”. “Bop” stands for “been over passed” and is a derogatory term used by boys to refer to a girl they’ve decided has been “passed around” or had too much sex. Sexual equality has ceased to exist online. It’s absolutely fine for boys to have sex, but when girls do, they are called worthless and referred to as objects. “When community pussy tries to insult me, I just want to beat that b*tch up.” That’s a message I saw on TikTok.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
A few days ago I saw an Instagram reel of a young woman talking about how she had been raped six years ago, struggled with thoughts of suicide afterwards, but managed to rebuild her life again. Among the comments – the majority of which were from men – were things like “Well at least you had some”, “No way, she’s unrapeable”, “Hope you didn’t talk this much when it happened”, “Bro could have picked a better option.” Reading those comments, which had thousands of likes and many boys agreeing with them, made me feel sick. <br />
<br />
If a girl my age posts any video of herself online, the comments section will be filled with objectifying and hateful remarks about her, regardless of what the topic of her post was. If she wears anything revealing, or just happens to have larger breasts, she’ll be abused and sexualised. Completely unprompted, there might be hundreds of comments insulting specific features she may have, or rating her attractiveness out of 10. “Sub5”, for example, describes someone who is below 5/10 in attractiveness. I’ve seen videos of boys telling anyone who is unattractive that they should end their own life. <br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
Often it feels like we’re hated not only if we’re sexual but simply for existing. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t affected by seeing boys my own age post things about women like: “Men are objectively superior in pretty much every conceivable metric,” and “They are just devils that imitate feelings so we feel empathy.” Words such as “b*tch” are the least of it. One of the worst labels is “foid” – originally from incel subculture but now becoming mainstream – which refers to women as being less-than-human, female humanoids.<br />
<br />
And what is the effect? If I spend even 10 minutes on an app such as Instagram, I will close it, feeling disheartened and unhappy about being a girl. When nearly every comments section on a video of a girl my age is filled with disgusting and objectifying comments about her body from boys, it causes me to feel deeply uncomfortable in my own body, and compare myself to her; especially if she is beautiful and still being deemed unattractive. Endless emphasis on beauty as worth and all kinds of videos criticising specific features, some of which I possess, have made me start to loathe my own face, as difficult as that is to admit. But the worst thing is knowing how much hate there is from men and boys for all women and girls, including me.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">Using social media has ruined my self-esteem and my relation to being a girl in this world, and nearly every day I feel hatred towards my gender, my appearance, or even teenage boys as a category. The misogyny I see from boys my age online, which is echoed in real life too, has made me grow resentful and bitter towards them, as much as I try to avoid it. As wrong as it is, I persistently find myself considering if there are truly any boys out there who are not misogynistic to some extent, and have even questioned whether I can find love in the future because of this.</span> I understand that boys are victims of harmful content, as well as <a href="https://archive.ph/o/nTGZ6/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/19/beyond-andrew-tate-the-imitators-who-help-promote-misogyny-online" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #c74600;" class="mycode_color">perpetrators of online misogyny</span></a> – they’re growing up learning how to do this from the adults who post misogynistic videos first. But even so, I feel such a strong divide now between girls and boys in my generation, especially when the way they talk about us in real life mirrors the way they do on the internet.</blockquote>
<br />
(The bolding is mine for emphasis on a key part that's rarely allowed to be voiced in mainstream media.)<br />
<br />
Like I said, I've tried to be selective in my re-posting and have shown you only about half the article's content here, but it's just too damn spot-on not to quote extensively. It gets to the heart and soul of a lot without having to be terribly academic just by being honest about her experiences and feelings because they're ones an entire generation of girls has grown up experiencing for themselves. Is it seriously any wonder that so many experience body dysphoria and/or frankly reach a place of justified hatred of the male sex??  Seriously, you couldn't out-hate or oppress males if you tried. Like that Traditions of Conflict blog entry I linked above highlights, it's why there have been no true matriarchies in known human history before. That simple fact angers me. Every so often we have to be reminded of the limits on our horizons that way. Like even with simple things like the Olympics. My country won the most gold medals and the most medals overall, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JUt9ylg8Eg" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">but only because of our female athletes</a>, being as they're generally more skilled than their male counterparts. The response of society? The men's hockey team alone is celebrated at the president's State of the Union address for their victory because it was more novel. The also-victorious women's team <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU7xOTUq3Qs" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">had to go on Saturday Night Live to be publicly recognized for their achievement</a> and something about it struck me: the statement that "It was gonna be just us, but we thought we'd invite the guys too." When men win, we celebrate them. When women win, we celebrate both sexes because it's a victory <span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">for everyoooooooooooooone!</span>  <img src="https://clovenhooves.org/images/smilies/annoyed.png" alt=":annoyed:" title=":annoyed:" class="smilie smilie_6" /> Why do I feel like somehow I lost a little something in that moment? It's just a microcosm of how men can imagine themselves as special and equality, generously defined, is the limit of our horizons by contrast. That subtle yet profound lack of parity makes me angry not because I care much about hockey per se, but because it (the lack of parity; the lower horizons and self-esteem of girls and women) pervades every aspect of our lives.<br />
<br />
We shouldn't have to ban girls from social media because they aren't the problem. It's necessary because of boys and men and how much they both hate you, me, and them for existing. In the end, this girl tries to be politically correct and minimize the responsibility of teenage boys for their own attitudes and actions in favor of socialization theory because otherwise she couldn't get published in the Guardian, but is it really just Andrew Tate and Clavicular who serve as the root of the problem, or do we at least partially reverse cause and effect by simply blaming fall guys and choosing to ignore the likelier biological roots of what content catches on and what content doesn't? We'd need our own internet to get away from it! In fact, a female-only internet doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Last week, some random, anonymous 15-year-old girl from the UK wrote the<a href="https://archive.ph/nTGZ6" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"> most compelling formal article I've read in years</a> for the Guardian. Apparently I wasn't alone in my sentiment, as at the original time of my reading, it was ranked as the platform's second-most-viewed article. Anyway, the girl's purpose for writing was to argue in favor of proposed legislation in her country that would ban kids under 16 from social media. The problem she articulates though is one she makes clear goes much deeper than what such a ban can possibly solve. She believes simply that such a ban could help and champions it on that basis. She provides many examples of the sorts of quotes from boys and young men that she spots online all the time, many of which prove very popular, and it's these specifics together with the depth of the pain she gives voice to experiencing that makes it so powerful. Since I know many are too lazy to click on a link, it's tough to resist the temptation to just quote the entire article for you below because the entire thing is must-read material, but I will do my best to cherry pick highlights for you.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>If you’re anything like my parents, you probably wouldn’t even understand most of the content that floods my social media, no matter how hard <a href="https://archive.ph/o/nTGZ6/https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/28/britain-teenagers-social-media-law-children-wellbeing" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #c74600;" class="mycode_color">I try to avoid it</span></a>.<br />
<br />
Here’s a recent example from Instagram: “Do y’all females ever tell ur homegirls ‘Sis chill you letting too many dudes hit?’” Essentially, that means: “Women – do you ever tell your girlfriends that they’re whores and need to stop letting so many guys fuck them?” The reel, posted by a 19-year-old man, appeared on my Instagram feed without me wanting to see it, or ever interacting with any other similar content. The comments that followed were pure misogyny. “Women see body count as a leaderboard and they try to outdo each other,” was one of them. Translation: all women are competitively promiscuous.</blockquote>
<br />
Isn't it interesting how guys so often project <a href="https://traditionsofconflict.com/blog/2018/3/17/where-are-the-matriarchies" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">what in reality are their own traits</a> onto their female counterparts? As if it were not males who are designed for, and broadly practice, more competitive promiscuity.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>Consider the use of the word “female” in these posts. It is not a neutral term here, it is a term of abuse. It’s used by teenage boys to degrade us and equate us to animals. Boys are never described as “males”, but girls are always “females” – the equivalent of sows or calves, creatures that are less than human. We’re also “thots” (whores), “community pussy” and “bops”. “Bop” stands for “been over passed” and is a derogatory term used by boys to refer to a girl they’ve decided has been “passed around” or had too much sex. Sexual equality has ceased to exist online. It’s absolutely fine for boys to have sex, but when girls do, they are called worthless and referred to as objects. “When community pussy tries to insult me, I just want to beat that b*tch up.” That’s a message I saw on TikTok.<br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
A few days ago I saw an Instagram reel of a young woman talking about how she had been raped six years ago, struggled with thoughts of suicide afterwards, but managed to rebuild her life again. Among the comments – the majority of which were from men – were things like “Well at least you had some”, “No way, she’s unrapeable”, “Hope you didn’t talk this much when it happened”, “Bro could have picked a better option.” Reading those comments, which had thousands of likes and many boys agreeing with them, made me feel sick. <br />
<br />
If a girl my age posts any video of herself online, the comments section will be filled with objectifying and hateful remarks about her, regardless of what the topic of her post was. If she wears anything revealing, or just happens to have larger breasts, she’ll be abused and sexualised. Completely unprompted, there might be hundreds of comments insulting specific features she may have, or rating her attractiveness out of 10. “Sub5”, for example, describes someone who is below 5/10 in attractiveness. I’ve seen videos of boys telling anyone who is unattractive that they should end their own life. <br />
<br />
...<br />
<br />
Often it feels like we’re hated not only if we’re sexual but simply for existing. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t affected by seeing boys my own age post things about women like: “Men are objectively superior in pretty much every conceivable metric,” and “They are just devils that imitate feelings so we feel empathy.” Words such as “b*tch” are the least of it. One of the worst labels is “foid” – originally from incel subculture but now becoming mainstream – which refers to women as being less-than-human, female humanoids.<br />
<br />
And what is the effect? If I spend even 10 minutes on an app such as Instagram, I will close it, feeling disheartened and unhappy about being a girl. When nearly every comments section on a video of a girl my age is filled with disgusting and objectifying comments about her body from boys, it causes me to feel deeply uncomfortable in my own body, and compare myself to her; especially if she is beautiful and still being deemed unattractive. Endless emphasis on beauty as worth and all kinds of videos criticising specific features, some of which I possess, have made me start to loathe my own face, as difficult as that is to admit. But the worst thing is knowing how much hate there is from men and boys for all women and girls, including me.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">Using social media has ruined my self-esteem and my relation to being a girl in this world, and nearly every day I feel hatred towards my gender, my appearance, or even teenage boys as a category. The misogyny I see from boys my age online, which is echoed in real life too, has made me grow resentful and bitter towards them, as much as I try to avoid it. As wrong as it is, I persistently find myself considering if there are truly any boys out there who are not misogynistic to some extent, and have even questioned whether I can find love in the future because of this.</span> I understand that boys are victims of harmful content, as well as <a href="https://archive.ph/o/nTGZ6/https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/mar/19/beyond-andrew-tate-the-imitators-who-help-promote-misogyny-online" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url"><span style="color: #c74600;" class="mycode_color">perpetrators of online misogyny</span></a> – they’re growing up learning how to do this from the adults who post misogynistic videos first. But even so, I feel such a strong divide now between girls and boys in my generation, especially when the way they talk about us in real life mirrors the way they do on the internet.</blockquote>
<br />
(The bolding is mine for emphasis on a key part that's rarely allowed to be voiced in mainstream media.)<br />
<br />
Like I said, I've tried to be selective in my re-posting and have shown you only about half the article's content here, but it's just too damn spot-on not to quote extensively. It gets to the heart and soul of a lot without having to be terribly academic just by being honest about her experiences and feelings because they're ones an entire generation of girls has grown up experiencing for themselves. Is it seriously any wonder that so many experience body dysphoria and/or frankly reach a place of justified hatred of the male sex??  Seriously, you couldn't out-hate or oppress males if you tried. Like that Traditions of Conflict blog entry I linked above highlights, it's why there have been no true matriarchies in known human history before. That simple fact angers me. Every so often we have to be reminded of the limits on our horizons that way. Like even with simple things like the Olympics. My country won the most gold medals and the most medals overall, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JUt9ylg8Eg" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">but only because of our female athletes</a>, being as they're generally more skilled than their male counterparts. The response of society? The men's hockey team alone is celebrated at the president's State of the Union address for their victory because it was more novel. The also-victorious women's team <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU7xOTUq3Qs" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">had to go on Saturday Night Live to be publicly recognized for their achievement</a> and something about it struck me: the statement that "It was gonna be just us, but we thought we'd invite the guys too." When men win, we celebrate them. When women win, we celebrate both sexes because it's a victory <span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">for everyoooooooooooooone!</span>  <img src="https://clovenhooves.org/images/smilies/annoyed.png" alt=":annoyed:" title=":annoyed:" class="smilie smilie_6" /> Why do I feel like somehow I lost a little something in that moment? It's just a microcosm of how men can imagine themselves as special and equality, generously defined, is the limit of our horizons by contrast. That subtle yet profound lack of parity makes me angry not because I care much about hockey per se, but because it (the lack of parity; the lower horizons and self-esteem of girls and women) pervades every aspect of our lives.<br />
<br />
We shouldn't have to ban girls from social media because they aren't the problem. It's necessary because of boys and men and how much they both hate you, me, and them for existing. In the end, this girl tries to be politically correct and minimize the responsibility of teenage boys for their own attitudes and actions in favor of socialization theory because otherwise she couldn't get published in the Guardian, but is it really just Andrew Tate and Clavicular who serve as the root of the problem, or do we at least partially reverse cause and effect by simply blaming fall guys and choosing to ignore the likelier biological roots of what content catches on and what content doesn't? We'd need our own internet to get away from it! In fact, a female-only internet doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Anti-feminist ideology ‘increasingly relevant’ to national security: CSIS]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1928</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:39:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1928</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/11661689/anti-feminist-ideology-csis-national-security/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.today/uJnF6" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>The Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women says it has identified a rise of regressive and anti-feminist groups in Canada in recent years, which use social media and online platforms to spread their messages and recruit members.<br />
Those groups seek to dismantle feminist and gender equality movements in favour of male superiority and recreating a “romanticized” vision of the past, a 2025 report said.</blockquote>
<br />
Well, duh. Who would guess that an extremist ideology targeted against half the world's population might be a security threat.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://globalnews.ca/news/11661689/anti-feminist-ideology-csis-national-security/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.today/uJnF6" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>The Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women says it has identified a rise of regressive and anti-feminist groups in Canada in recent years, which use social media and online platforms to spread their messages and recruit members.<br />
Those groups seek to dismantle feminist and gender equality movements in favour of male superiority and recreating a “romanticized” vision of the past, a 2025 report said.</blockquote>
<br />
Well, duh. Who would guess that an extremist ideology targeted against half the world's population might be a security threat.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Nick Fuentes Wants Women in “Gulags.” Here’s Why That Matters.]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1926</link>
			<pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 18:35:56 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1926</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://organizingmythoughts.org/nick-fuentes-wants-women-in-gulags-heres-why-that-matters/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.ph/iKSdc" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>Gender has always been an important throughline of fascist politics, particularly in creating a heroic narrative that men themselves can internalize and from which they can figure out how to perform masculinity. It is based distinctly on violence, but also on entitlement, what women are and what they should offer to men. By doing this it can capture resentment men feel, particularly the loneliness that comes from the lack of socialization for building relationships as well as just the reality of modern work life, and channel it back into their performance of masculine violence. If they feel alienated in their life, they are taught to blame women, thus putting pressure on the women in their life to engage in a kind of social reproduction that lets the system of alienation just continue further.</blockquote>
<br />
I think it's time to quit pretending Fuentes &amp; sycophants are just these fringe lunatics exercising their free speech. I think they're more representative of the current "mainstream" right than people want to admit, but they're saying the quiet part out loud. Let the "crazies" normalize the ideas and speaking about them, and then the "mainstream" can swoop in and take advantage of that.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://organizingmythoughts.org/nick-fuentes-wants-women-in-gulags-heres-why-that-matters/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Article</a> | <a href="https://archive.ph/iKSdc" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">Archive</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>Gender has always been an important throughline of fascist politics, particularly in creating a heroic narrative that men themselves can internalize and from which they can figure out how to perform masculinity. It is based distinctly on violence, but also on entitlement, what women are and what they should offer to men. By doing this it can capture resentment men feel, particularly the loneliness that comes from the lack of socialization for building relationships as well as just the reality of modern work life, and channel it back into their performance of masculine violence. If they feel alienated in their life, they are taught to blame women, thus putting pressure on the women in their life to engage in a kind of social reproduction that lets the system of alienation just continue further.</blockquote>
<br />
I think it's time to quit pretending Fuentes &amp; sycophants are just these fringe lunatics exercising their free speech. I think they're more representative of the current "mainstream" right than people want to admit, but they're saying the quiet part out loud. Let the "crazies" normalize the ideas and speaking about them, and then the "mainstream" can swoop in and take advantage of that.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA['Woman, Life, Freedom' hasn't faded in Iran - it's being actively eliminated]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1918</link>
			<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2026 20:31:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=472">Magpie</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1918</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://theconversation.com/woman-life-freedom-hasnt-faded-in-iran-its-being-actively-eliminated-274392" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">https://theconversation.com/woman-life-freedom-hasnt-faded-in-iran-its-being-actively-eliminated-274392</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>The current escalation is retaliation. Physical violence against women is happening alongside attempts to erase the feminist meaning of the uprising itself.<br />
<br />
Outside Iran, this reality is persistently misread. The revolt is frequently reduced to a confrontation with Islam and framed as a civilizational conflict between religion and modernity.<br />
<br />
Such interpretations turn a political struggle into a cultural one. They’ve fuelled hesitation and selective solidarity in parts of the western left and Muslim communities, erasing decades of resistance directed not against faith, but against a regime that has used religion as an instrument of punishment, surveillance and death.<br />
<br />
What is at stake in Iran is not faith — it’s power.<br />
<br />
The Islamic Republic doesn’t govern through Islam as a lived religion but through Islam as institution: codified in law, enforced through policing and ultimately used as a tool to imprison, torture and kill. To view Woman, Life, Freedom as an anti-religious uprising erases a feminist political uprising that’s been unfolding since 1979, led by women who have continuously challenged compulsory veiling, gender apartheid and state violence.</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://theconversation.com/woman-life-freedom-hasnt-faded-in-iran-its-being-actively-eliminated-274392" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">https://theconversation.com/woman-life-freedom-hasnt-faded-in-iran-its-being-actively-eliminated-274392</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>The current escalation is retaliation. Physical violence against women is happening alongside attempts to erase the feminist meaning of the uprising itself.<br />
<br />
Outside Iran, this reality is persistently misread. The revolt is frequently reduced to a confrontation with Islam and framed as a civilizational conflict between religion and modernity.<br />
<br />
Such interpretations turn a political struggle into a cultural one. They’ve fuelled hesitation and selective solidarity in parts of the western left and Muslim communities, erasing decades of resistance directed not against faith, but against a regime that has used religion as an instrument of punishment, surveillance and death.<br />
<br />
What is at stake in Iran is not faith — it’s power.<br />
<br />
The Islamic Republic doesn’t govern through Islam as a lived religion but through Islam as institution: codified in law, enforced through policing and ultimately used as a tool to imprison, torture and kill. To view Woman, Life, Freedom as an anti-religious uprising erases a feminist political uprising that’s been unfolding since 1979, led by women who have continuously challenged compulsory veiling, gender apartheid and state violence.</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Iranian Feminists Urge World to ‘Join Hands With Us’]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1872</link>
			<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2026 16:05:37 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1872</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://msmagazine.com/2026/01/17/iran-women-feminists-protest/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">https://msmagazine.com/2026/01/17/iran-women-feminists-protest/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://archive.ph/gfP6A" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">https://archive.ph/gfP6A</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>...we are sharing—in full and in their own words—a powerful call from a collective of Iranian feminists in the diaspora. (<span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">Ms</span>. and our publisher, the Feminist Majority Foundation, have signed on.) They outline the scale of the repression now underway <span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">and</span> reaffirm the principles of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement. They also urge feminists worldwide to take concrete action: Demand an end to the killings, press for restored internet access, and amplify the diverse voices of protesters, especially women and marginalized communities.</blockquote>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://msmagazine.com/2026/01/17/iran-women-feminists-protest/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">https://msmagazine.com/2026/01/17/iran-women-feminists-protest/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://archive.ph/gfP6A" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">https://archive.ph/gfP6A</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>...we are sharing—in full and in their own words—a powerful call from a collective of Iranian feminists in the diaspora. (<span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">Ms</span>. and our publisher, the Feminist Majority Foundation, have signed on.) They outline the scale of the repression now underway <span style="font-style: italic;" class="mycode_i">and</span> reaffirm the principles of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement. They also urge feminists worldwide to take concrete action: Demand an end to the killings, press for restored internet access, and amplify the diverse voices of protesters, especially women and marginalized communities.</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[Bring Feminist Politics to ICE Protests]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1864</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jan 2026 11:58:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=478">Impress Polly</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1864</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[Saw <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTWl0rJEXmF/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">this</a> on Instagram yesterday and grew more hopeful. It's common to see handmaid-style dress at protests, but especially poignant in response to the murder of Renee Nicole Good. This isn't about immigration, frankly, so much as it it's the White House using immigration as a means to try and force women out of the workforce. As much is getting sharp commentary over on the 4B subreddit atm. For example, consider <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/4bmovement/comments/1q8azu4/the_war_on_daycares_no_mother_is_safe_under/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">this post by cozycatcafe</a> (I place I would like to stay):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">The War on Daycares: No Mother is Safe Under Patriarchy <br />
</span><br />
As most of you know, the Trump administration has used the "scandal" of a Somali-run daycare inflating their numbers to freeze federal funding for all US daycares indefinitely. Because most daycares are running on fumes to begin with, this is likely to lead to shutdowns nationwide. And because most women make less then men in two parent households, those women will likely be the ones taking the hit to their careers and staying home, potentially permanently.<br />
<br />
When I read this, I wasn't thinking of the long gone conservative women who supported trad wife nonsense. I wasn't thinking of the women resigned to stay in shitty relationships because it was "better than being single." <br />
<br />
I was thinking of the women who lucked out and got good feminist/egalitarian partners. Or the women who were single mothers by choice. Women who worked hard and studied harder, and organized their entire lives around the ability to maintain their career AND have children. I was thinking about the women who did everything "right," had the stars in their favor, and were still getting screwed.<br />
<br />
This attack on daycares is proof that there is no safety in motherhood under a patriarchy.<br />
<br />
You cannot "choose better" your way out of suffering as a mother in patriarchy. It puts you in an inherently vulnerable position where your child, assuming you care about them, becomes leverage to force you back in line.<br />
<br />
What kept June in Gilead for so long during the Handmaid's Tale? They had her daughter. And as long as they had her, she would stay there, or keep going back, even though she was fighting the whole time. She did not have the freedom to leave even when she had the ability to. The system has to be brought down. </blockquote>
<br />
Or consider <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/4bmovement/comments/1q7o23c/after_what_happened_yesterday_in_the_usa_i_dont/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">this one by Financial Sweet_689</a> the day after the shooting:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">After what happened yesterday in the USA I don’t think men realize how screwed they’re gonna be when our rights are gone</span><br />
<br />
I read today that ICE has been targeting daycare centers around the country, and that’s why they were in Minneapolis yesterday. We all know women run daycare and childcare centers. They’re targeting buildings filled with women and children. Women are the ones getting dragged out of town hall meetings, getting shot for trying to warn their neighbors about ICE. Men won’t protect each other. And I haven’t seen one man address the fact that they pulled the trigger so easily on a woman. This is male violence to women. I’m so tired of people not addressing the obvious, that women are the ones taking stands for all men and they’re going to be severely screwed over when we can no longer scream and shout. It’s just so eerie to be reminded once again that men, liberal men especially, just don’t get it. And karma is going to have them on its worst side for never taking a stand for women.<br />
<br />
Just want to thank you all for these comments. I can really count on this sub for good insight and genuine conversation when things feel upside down.</blockquote>
<br />
This is the point. The reason there was such an ICE presence in Minneapolis was owed directly to the administration's recently-declared war on day care. Women not only staff these facilities, they also are the primary beneficiaries of day care programs. We know who raises the kids. There are two sexes to our species, but only one that prioritizes their kids over themselves. Because of this, a war on children and empathy is functionally a war on women. It's so symbolically apt that the consequent death was that of a woman. A woman who, incidentally, did "everything rigtht". Everything a woman is supposed to do to quell male rage she did. She stayed calm. She de-escalated. She was polite. She managed the men's emotions. Or tried to. Didn't matter. She was killed by male rage for attempting not the fight response to armed, masked men with unmarked vehicles trying to force her out of hers (as the DHS drag queen Kristi Noem has claimed), but for attempting the flight response instead. She was killed by testorone; by uncontrollable male rage that she would, under any circumstances, disobey a male command. This needs to be highlighted at these protests. This context matters. Knowing what the problem is is key to getting at the right solution. This should not simply be framed as "immigration, yes or no?" like these events so often are. Bring the gender politics of this moment to the table when you're out there the way these Handmaids are! <br />
<br />
Men use motherhood as a weapon by which to subordinate you to them and there is nothing you can do to reason with them over it. That is the key point to be raised by radical women.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Saw <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTWl0rJEXmF/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">this</a> on Instagram yesterday and grew more hopeful. It's common to see handmaid-style dress at protests, but especially poignant in response to the murder of Renee Nicole Good. This isn't about immigration, frankly, so much as it it's the White House using immigration as a means to try and force women out of the workforce. As much is getting sharp commentary over on the 4B subreddit atm. For example, consider <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/4bmovement/comments/1q8azu4/the_war_on_daycares_no_mother_is_safe_under/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">this post by cozycatcafe</a> (I place I would like to stay):<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">The War on Daycares: No Mother is Safe Under Patriarchy <br />
</span><br />
As most of you know, the Trump administration has used the "scandal" of a Somali-run daycare inflating their numbers to freeze federal funding for all US daycares indefinitely. Because most daycares are running on fumes to begin with, this is likely to lead to shutdowns nationwide. And because most women make less then men in two parent households, those women will likely be the ones taking the hit to their careers and staying home, potentially permanently.<br />
<br />
When I read this, I wasn't thinking of the long gone conservative women who supported trad wife nonsense. I wasn't thinking of the women resigned to stay in shitty relationships because it was "better than being single." <br />
<br />
I was thinking of the women who lucked out and got good feminist/egalitarian partners. Or the women who were single mothers by choice. Women who worked hard and studied harder, and organized their entire lives around the ability to maintain their career AND have children. I was thinking about the women who did everything "right," had the stars in their favor, and were still getting screwed.<br />
<br />
This attack on daycares is proof that there is no safety in motherhood under a patriarchy.<br />
<br />
You cannot "choose better" your way out of suffering as a mother in patriarchy. It puts you in an inherently vulnerable position where your child, assuming you care about them, becomes leverage to force you back in line.<br />
<br />
What kept June in Gilead for so long during the Handmaid's Tale? They had her daughter. And as long as they had her, she would stay there, or keep going back, even though she was fighting the whole time. She did not have the freedom to leave even when she had the ability to. The system has to be brought down. </blockquote>
<br />
Or consider <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/4bmovement/comments/1q7o23c/after_what_happened_yesterday_in_the_usa_i_dont/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">this one by Financial Sweet_689</a> the day after the shooting:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite><span style="font-weight: bold;" class="mycode_b">After what happened yesterday in the USA I don’t think men realize how screwed they’re gonna be when our rights are gone</span><br />
<br />
I read today that ICE has been targeting daycare centers around the country, and that’s why they were in Minneapolis yesterday. We all know women run daycare and childcare centers. They’re targeting buildings filled with women and children. Women are the ones getting dragged out of town hall meetings, getting shot for trying to warn their neighbors about ICE. Men won’t protect each other. And I haven’t seen one man address the fact that they pulled the trigger so easily on a woman. This is male violence to women. I’m so tired of people not addressing the obvious, that women are the ones taking stands for all men and they’re going to be severely screwed over when we can no longer scream and shout. It’s just so eerie to be reminded once again that men, liberal men especially, just don’t get it. And karma is going to have them on its worst side for never taking a stand for women.<br />
<br />
Just want to thank you all for these comments. I can really count on this sub for good insight and genuine conversation when things feel upside down.</blockquote>
<br />
This is the point. The reason there was such an ICE presence in Minneapolis was owed directly to the administration's recently-declared war on day care. Women not only staff these facilities, they also are the primary beneficiaries of day care programs. We know who raises the kids. There are two sexes to our species, but only one that prioritizes their kids over themselves. Because of this, a war on children and empathy is functionally a war on women. It's so symbolically apt that the consequent death was that of a woman. A woman who, incidentally, did "everything rigtht". Everything a woman is supposed to do to quell male rage she did. She stayed calm. She de-escalated. She was polite. She managed the men's emotions. Or tried to. Didn't matter. She was killed by male rage for attempting not the fight response to armed, masked men with unmarked vehicles trying to force her out of hers (as the DHS drag queen Kristi Noem has claimed), but for attempting the flight response instead. She was killed by testorone; by uncontrollable male rage that she would, under any circumstances, disobey a male command. This needs to be highlighted at these protests. This context matters. Knowing what the problem is is key to getting at the right solution. This should not simply be framed as "immigration, yes or no?" like these events so often are. Bring the gender politics of this moment to the table when you're out there the way these Handmaids are! <br />
<br />
Men use motherhood as a weapon by which to subordinate you to them and there is nothing you can do to reason with them over it. That is the key point to be raised by radical women.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[How to Save the Fight for Women’s Rights]]></title>
			<link>https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1862</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2026 15:39:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<dc:creator><![CDATA[<a href="https://clovenhooves.org/member.php?action=profile&uid=147">Elsacat</a>]]></dc:creator>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">https://clovenhooves.org/showthread.php?tid=1862</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/how-save-fight-womens-rights" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/how-save-fight-womens-rights</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://archive.ph/8FBCX" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">https://archive.ph/8FBCX</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>An important priority should be to frame women’s rights and empowerment as central to strengthening families, communities, and societies. Over the past decade, some conservative actors have cast policies on sex education, reproductive rights, and protections against gender-based violence as threats to family values imposed by “radical feminists” or out-of-touch elites. The typical response from women’s rights advocates—countering with public statements citing scientific evidence or appealing to individual rights—often fails to resonate with broader publics for whom family, religion, and tradition are core reference points. Particularly in more socially conservative societies, campaigns that leverage women’s roles as caregivers and community leaders, highlighting the importance of gender equality to shared goals such as families’ economic security and children’s well-being, could help broaden support for practical reforms and depolarize public debates.</blockquote>
<br />
That might be a little controversial, but I can see why they're advocating to meet people where they are, in more conservative areas.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/how-save-fight-womens-rights" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/how-save-fight-womens-rights</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://archive.ph/8FBCX" target="_blank" rel="noopener" class="mycode_url">https://archive.ph/8FBCX</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="mycode_quote"><cite>Quote:</cite>An important priority should be to frame women’s rights and empowerment as central to strengthening families, communities, and societies. Over the past decade, some conservative actors have cast policies on sex education, reproductive rights, and protections against gender-based violence as threats to family values imposed by “radical feminists” or out-of-touch elites. The typical response from women’s rights advocates—countering with public statements citing scientific evidence or appealing to individual rights—often fails to resonate with broader publics for whom family, religion, and tradition are core reference points. Particularly in more socially conservative societies, campaigns that leverage women’s roles as caregivers and community leaders, highlighting the importance of gender equality to shared goals such as families’ economic security and children’s well-being, could help broaden support for practical reforms and depolarize public debates.</blockquote>
<br />
That might be a little controversial, but I can see why they're advocating to meet people where they are, in more conservative areas.]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>