niyad
niyad's JournalI was trying to run for the presidency in Uganda - yet men still found the audacity to call me 'baby, sweetheart, darlin
I was trying to run for the presidency in Uganda – yet men still found the audacity to call me ‘baby, sweetheart, darling’
Yvonne Mpambara
I was bruised by my experience of being kept out of an exclusively male political club – now my focus is on getting women into power in Africa
Supported by
theguardian.org
About this content
Wed 5 Nov 2025 01.00 EST
It’s six weeks since the electoral commission of Uganda announced the eight candidates for the country’s 2026 presidential election. The fact that they are all men is an outrage – and entirely unsurprising. Of the 221 people who expressed an interest in running for president, 15 were women; and of those, only three of us gained enough voter support to be considered for nomination. Men in politics argue that the all-male ballot is the result of a fair and neutral electoral system. But how can women, who do not have access to the same resources and who have always been disenfranchised, compete on a level playing field? Far from being fair, neutrality maintains an environment where women are continually shoved out of the top power structures under the guise of competition.
One of the reasons I decided to run for president was to break the barriers around the position. Women represent 30% in government. However, since Uganda’s independence in 1962, only four women have contested for the presidency. It remains a deeply gendered and symbolic office; still associated with traditional masculinity, military credentials and strongman politics. Whenever certain categories of Ugandans try to pursue top leadership they are told, “Not you! Not now! Not like that!” This is used against women, youth and Ugandans who have no access to funds to run exorbitant campaigns. The more I observed this intentionally discriminatory narrative used to exclude people such as me from leadership, the more I realised that I could not continue to watch from the sidelines.
We are a young nation where millions of Ugandans are below the age of 35. Yet power has remained in the hands of the same elite few for generations. The 2026 ballot includes 81-year-old incumbent Yoweri Museveni, who has been in power since 1986. The politics of fear, patronage and silence has held us back. This election is different because there is a deeper hunger for change, justice, for opportunity. As a 33-year-old woman from a civil society background anchored in human rights, I offered an alternative vision for Uganda’s future, no more recycled politics in new clothes and rehashed promises.
. . . .
I have also started community consultations to build an all-female political party and movement (Women Freedom Fighters) aimed at strengthening Ugandan women’s bids for presidency through structured leadership systems. The 2026 presidential race was challenging because only candidates from established political parties were nominated, yet no woman in Uganda heads a political party or sits high enough in the ranks of party structures to make the decisions. Women, despite political parties challenging the incumbent regime on promises of inclusion, are still used as quota fillers rather than final decision makers. Forming a party that will only endorse women for the presidential race in Uganda will mark the first of its kind in the east African region. My experience of the presidential race was bruising, but it is not the end. I am not giving up this dream.
Yvonne Mpambara is a social justice lawyer and activist who was an aspiring presidential candidate in Uganda for the 2026 elections
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/nov/05/in-uganda-men-called-me-baby-sweetheart-darling-i-was-trying-to-run-for-the-presidency
'Still work to be done': Iceland marks 50 years since Women's Day Off protests
Some wonderful photos of that day, which, for some reason, are not linking)
‘Still work to be done’: Iceland marks 50 years since Women’s Day Off protests
President says country is not free from feminist backlash being seen around world
Miranda Bryant Nordic correspondent
Fri 24 Oct 2025 02.42 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/24/icelandic-women-urged-to-strike-on-friday-to-mark-50th-anniversary-of-seminal-protest#img-1
Iceland is the only country to have closed the gender gap by more than 90%, according to the World Economic Forum, and, for the first time in its history, every national leadership position – including president, prime minister, bishop and police chief – is now held by a woman. But as people go on strike on Friday to mark the 50th anniversary of “kvennafrí” (“Women’s Day Off”) strike, the protest that kickstarted a global equality revolution, the Icelandic president warned that her country was not immune to gender-related “red flags” and a global “backlash” against feminism. Halla Tómasdóttir, who last year became Iceland’s second female president in an election in which 75% of the population voted for female candidates, put her country’s world-leading success at improving gender equality down to five decades of work that followed the 1975 strike.
Women’s Day Off on 24 October 1975. Photograph: Icelandic Women’s History Archives
Iceland, she told the Guardian, was “powered by two sustainable energies: geothermal power and girl power”. But, she warned, the country still had “work to be done”. “Gender based violence is still a problem here. We still need to lift the floor for women who do the lesser paid jobs, the caring jobs in our economy,” she said. “So there is still work to be done. And we are of course not free from seeing some of the red flags and the [feminism] backlash that we are starting to witness around the world.” Half a century ago, on 24 October 1975, 90% of Iceland’s women stopped work in protest at gender inequality and 25,000 women descended on Reykjavík city centre.
. . . .
A big crowd of women holding placards
The Women’s Day Off on 24 October 1975 was a monumental moment in Icelandic history. Photograph: Icelandic Women’s History Archives
Thousands of demonstrators in Reykjavík, Iceland, on 24 October 2023.
Demonstrators take part in a rally for equal rights in Reykjavík, Iceland, on 24 October 2023. Photograph: Reuters Tv/Reuters
Amid a global rise in gender-based violence and violence in general both on and offline, she said the next step in the country’s fight for gender equality was dependent on the inclusion of boys and men. “I don’t see how we can finish closing the gender gap without greater involvement from boys and men,” she said. “There are particular problems with boys and men that I hope we in Iceland will have the courage to confront the way that we have had the courage to confront the issues that have held women back.” Calling for an “inclusion revolution”, she said she wanted to enable every citizen to unlock their full potential in order to avoid “unnecessary backlash”.
According to multiple indexes, Iceland has come further than anywhere else in the world in closing the gender gap.
“I do think we are in a better position because for five decades, closing the gender gap has been making our economy stronger, making our society stronger,” said Tómasdóttir. “There is a general recognition in Iceland that closing the gender gap is a strategic priority for this country and it has delivered a better world for all of us,.” Currently, she said, there were more women in leadership positions in Iceland than ever before in the country’s history – possibly in the world.
“One could say this is a beautiful outcome of five decades of women’s solidarity and empowerment taking place since the women’s day off 50 years ago,” she said. But, she added, she is in favour of gender balance: “I’m not sure that ‘overwhelmingly women’ is necessarily better than ‘overwhelmingly men’.” Next, she hopes that Iceland can inspire a shift in leadership norms as well as gender norms. “There is a huge appetite for more sincerity, more authenticity, more humanity from political leaders and business leaders alike,” she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/24/icelandic-women-urged-to-strike-on-friday-to-mark-50th-anniversary-of-seminal-protest
'Attacked no matter what they do': why female politicians face relentless cycle of abuse
‘Attacked no matter what they do’: why female politicians face relentless cycle of abuse
Assault on Mexican president highlights abuse faced by women in politics and ‘reinforces patriarchal boundaries’
Ashifa Kassam, European Community affairs correspondent
Wed 12 Nov 2025 04.00 EST
?width=620&dpr=1&s=none&crop=none
The brief and deeply unsettling encounter lasted just a few seconds, sparking outrage across Mexico and beyond. But for those who have spent years tracking women in politics, the incident in which a drunken man attempted to kiss Mexico’s president, Claudia Sheinbaum, on the neck and grope her was shocking but not entirely surprising. “It’s definitely part of a pattern,” said Zeina Hilal, of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the global organisation of national parliaments. “It’s really an illustration of what women in politics are facing.”
In 2016, the organisation surveyed 55 female politicians from 39 countries about their experiences of sexism, harassment and violence. What they found was alarming; 82% reported experiencing psychological violence, a category that included sexist remarks as well as persistent and intimidating behaviour, while 44% reported receiving death threats or threats of rape or beatings. One in five of the women said they had been slapped, pushed, struck or hit with a projectile that could have injured them. The organisation has since spoken to hundreds of female politicians in regions across the world. While the job titles and positions varied slightly, their experiences were depressingly similar.
“This violence is targeting women because they are women,” said Hilal, who manages the gender and youth programmes for the Geneva-based organisation. “It targets their bodies, it targets what society associates them with – so children, their physical characteristics.” She described the attacks as an attempt to question the role of women in leadership, an effort that at times was linked to a more formal push back against gender equality. “You have people who would do these things without this being their direct objective. They’re annoyed by these women who have power and the way in which women are present,” she said. “But there are definitely movements that exist, they are funded and know what they are doing. They even coordinate attacks online with bots and with people paid to carry out these attacks.” Among the women surveyed, the frequency of this violence varied; younger women, those from minority backgrounds or who have a strong stance on gender equality or human rights reported disproportionately higher rates of abuse. The findings dovetail with the steady stream of female politicians – spanning the UK to Canada and beyond – who have opted to leave politics, citing the toll that the increasing threats and harassment were taking on them and their families.
. . . .
“It’s the kinds of comments that really make them question why they are in politics and undermine their ability to do their job,” said De Angelis. “So if we don’t take action both online and offline, it really will risk the ability to have more equal and inclusive parliaments.” Despite nearly a decade of reports and the steady succession of warnings from departing politicians, some continue to brush off the violence, said Hilal. “There are people who say, ‘you want to be a politician, you need to take it.’” This is a view that threatens to erode the very fabric of democracy, walling off politics for some and pushing away others. “Ultimately, political institutions are workplaces as well, where women and men work,” she said. “So if you wouldn’t accept it in other workplaces, why would it be acceptable in political institutions?”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/12/female-politicians-such-as-mexicos-claudia-sheinbaum-face-backlash-driven-by-discrimination
In Sudan, war is being waged on women and children (trigger warning)
In Sudan, war is being waged on women and children (trigger warning)
Mothers flee gunfire with infants in their arms. Girls are raped, boys are forced to fight and families go hungry, but the world looks away.
By Reena Ghelani
CEO of Plan International.
Published On 6 Nov 20256 Nov 2025
?resize=770%2C513&quality=80
This photo released by The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) shows displaced women and children from el-Fasher at a camp where they sought refuge from fighting between government forces and the RSF, in Tawila, Darfur region, Sudan, November 3, 2025 [NRC via AP]
Imagine walking for days and nights to escape gunfire. You carry your child in your arms, guiding them through the darkness to avoid drone attacks. You have no food, no water, and nowhere safe to go.This is the reality for families in Darfur and across Sudan, where civilians are being trapped, targeted, and terrorised as the country’s brutal war enters its third year. In el-Fasher and other parts of Darfur, entire communities have been besieged. Those who try to flee are attacked; those who remain face starvation, violence, and disease. Behind these headlines are women and children who are suffering the most. Sexual violence is being used systematically to punish, to terrorise, and to destroy. Women and girls are abducted, forced to work for armed groups during the day, and then assaulted at night, often in front of others. Many survivors are children themselves. Some of the girls who have become pregnant through rape are so young and malnourished that they are unable to feed their babies.
Perpetrators no longer attempt to hide their crimes. Violence has become so widespread that recording or documenting cases can cost you your life. In Tawila, North Darfur, only one clinic run by Doctors Without Borders can provide care for rape survivors.
Boys are also being drawn into the conflict. Over the past 10 days, three trucks filled with children were reported heading towards Nyala, while in South Darfur, children are being armed and sent to fight. Families are disappearing without a trace. Aid workers are also targeted. They are being kidnapped for ransom, assaulted, sometimes killed, and targeted because armed groups believe humanitarian organisations can pay. Many of those delivering aid are Sudanese women who risk their lives every day to bring food, water, and protection services to others. Violence has also taken on an ethnic dimension. One displaced person told us, “I cannot go back, they will know by my skin colour which tribe I am from, and they will kill me.”
Sudan is now the world’s largest displacement crisis and one of its most severe humanitarian emergencies. More than 30 million people need urgent assistance. Fifteen million have been forced from their homes. Hunger and cholera are spreading fast. Clinics have been destroyed, schools are closed, and 13 million children are out of school, their education and futures slipping away. Yet even amid this devastation, Sudanese women’s organisations are leading the response. They are running safe spaces, supporting survivors of violence, and keeping children learning where they can. They know their communities and continue their work despite constant danger. Their courage deserves not only recognition but also support.
. . . .
And this is not only a crisis of violence but also a crisis of indifference. Each day the world looks away, more lives are lost and more futures erased. The international community must support investigations into war crimes, including sexual violence, ethnic killings, and attacks on aid workers. Silence is not neutrality. Silence gives a blank cheque for horror to continue.We must act now, urgently. Governments and donors must fully fund the humanitarian response and ensure access for those delivering aid. They must press all parties to immediately stop attacks on civilians, guarantee safe passage for those fleeing, and allow relief operations to reach those cut off by the fighting.Humanitarian workers and grassroots organisations are risking their lives so that others might live. The world must match their courage with urgent action. Above all, Sudan’s women and girls must be part of shaping peace. They are already leading by organising, sheltering, and rebuilding amid the chaos. Their courage offers a glimpse of the country Sudan could still become.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/11/6/in-sudan-war-is-being-waged-on-women-and-children
Alliance Defending Freedom Succeeded in Overturning Roe. Now It's Turning to the United Kingdom.
(and the PATRIARCHAL, MISOGYNIST, CHRISTOFASCIST, THEOCRATIC WAR ON WOMEN continues apace!!!)
Alliance Defending Freedom Succeeded in Overturning Roe. Now It’s Turning to the United Kingdom.
PUBLISHED 11/14/2025 by Cat Ross
The conservative Christian legal group that helped dismantle abortion rights in the United States is now exporting its playbook overseas, starting with the United Kingdom.
Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer John Bursch (R) arrives outside the U.S. Supreme Court on on April 2, 2025, the day of oral arguments in the case of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, an attempt by South Carolina to exclude Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program because it provides abortions. (Kayla Bartkowski / Getty Images)
If you follow the fight over abortion access in the U.S., you’ve likely heard of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The powerful nonprofit was instrumental in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court case that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. ADF drafted model legislation used to defend Mississippi’s 15-week ban and has long championed policies targeting LGBTQ+ rights, contraception access and same-sex marriage. Now, ADF is setting its sights across the Atlantic. The organization—which boasts operations in 112 countries—has been quietly expanding its influence in Britain through its new alliance with the right-wing Reform Party, led by populist figure Nigel Farage.
ADF’s Growing Footprint in the U.K.
Through ADF’s global counterpart, ADF International, the group has offered legal aid to antiabortion protesters charged with violating buffer zone laws—laws that protect patients and providers from harassment outside reproductive health clinics.The organization has also arranged meetings between Reform and the Trump administration to discuss abortion and online safety laws. (ADF denies that its representatives have met with Farage directly to discuss abortion.) The Reform-ADF partnership is following a familiar playbook: reframing reproductive rights as a free-speech issue. ADF has backed efforts to challenge the Public Order Act of 2023, which established “safe access zones” around abortion clinics—150-meter perimeters designed to prevent harassment and obstruction. Despite broad public support for these zones (77 percent of Britons favor them), Farage and his allies have called the policy a “sinister crackdown on expression.” On Sept. 3, Farage appeared before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Trump ally Rep. Jim Jordan, to testify against the Online Safety Act, which protects children in the U.K. from viewing age-inappropriate content such as acts of violence or pornography. (The law took effect in the U.K. in October 2023, and has been implemented in phases.) Farage also argued the law harms free expression.
. . . . .
Right-Wing Populism and the Antiabortion Playbook
The alliance between ADF and Reform isn’t just about British politics—it’s part of a global populist strategy that uses abortion to rally conservative voters and reshape public values. Britain’s Reform Party is not the first populist movement to use reproductive rights as a political wedge. In Poland, the right-wing Law and Justice Party pushed the nation’s constitutional court to outlaw nearly all abortions in 2020, sparking mass protests. In the United States, a decades-long coalition of conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians—fueled by ADF’s legal and financial muscle—succeeded in overturning Roe v. Wade and continues to target abortion pills, contraception and LGBTQ+ protections. The same forces are now finding traction in Britain. While the U.K. is far less religious than the U.S., populist narratives can travel easily—especially when they tap into voter frustration or fear. Reform’s messaging on immigration and “family values” has already proven potent, and aligning with ADF gives that rhetoric an organized legal and moral framework.
. . . .
Why It Matters
The U.K. has long viewed abortion as a pragmatic healthcare issue, not a political flashpoint. But that relative calm makes it vulnerable: When reproductive rights aren’t explicitly protected in law, they’re easier to chip away through courts and culture.The ADF’s expansion into Britain should serve as a warning. Its success in the United States shows how quickly a well-funded network can reshape laws and normalize extremism under the banner of “free speech” and “religious liberty.” Abortion rights in Britain may appear secure, but history proves otherwise: Once rights are treated as privileges, they can vanish. To protect reproductive freedom, advocates must recognize this cross-Atlantic strategy for what it is: a deliberate, coordinated campaign to roll back progress wherever it exists.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/11/14/alliance-defending-freedom-abortion-reform-uk-usa-trump-farage-united-kingdom/
This FDA Decision Could Transform Menopause Care
This FDA Decision Could Transform Menopause Care
PUBLISHED 11/12/2025 by Sharon Malone and Jennifer Weiss-Wolf
The end of the FDA’s “black box” era for estrogen could reshape conversations between women and their doctors.
Examples of estradiol-based hormone therapies: Oesclim transdermal patch; Oestrodose dermal gel; Aerodiol nasal spray; Climaston tablets (estradiol and dydrogesterone); and progesterone capsules. (BSIP / UIG Via Getty Images)
This story was originally published by Katie Couric Media.
Inaccurate labeling and classification of menopausal hormone treatments have thwarted women’s access to quality healthcare for more than two decades. The good news? We are in the midst of major reform momentum. On Monday, Nov. 10, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Food and Drug Administration would eliminate the “boxed labeling” requirement for estrogen products. The “black box warning,” as it’s commonly called, is part of the fallout from a press conference that occurred more than 20 years ago, announcing the findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). It’s also been the subject of a half-century-long push and pull with the federal government.
The Backstory
When estrogen became all the rage in the 1970s, the FDA issued a mandate to provide stringent written warnings about its benefits and risks. At the time, this move was widely celebrated as a feminist win and a way to ensure women were armed with information to make decisions for themselves without medical gatekeeping. By the 1990s, the FDA initiated a more iterative labeling process for menopause treatments in order to keep up with new observational research. All that changed following the WHI’s misread of its data and the public frenzy it stoked. As a result, the FDA revisited the warning on estrogen, and in 2003 the agency upgraded the requirement to the most stringent “boxed labeling” format, which is applied to products that cause serious life-or-death reactions. In this case, the label warned of numerous conditions, including breast cancer, heart disease, blood clots and probable dementia. Apart from an increased risk in blood clots, none of the other warnings were statistically significant. (In medical research parlance, a non-statistically significant finding is not a finding.) Not surprisingly, the warning language and prominent placement caused undue alarm among patients and doctors alike. Usage plummeted—and a generation of women suffered.
Fast Forward to Today
With menopause advocacy gaining global attention, a modern campaign for better policies has emerged. Over the past year, the online citizen’s petition organized by Let’s Talk Menopause in support of removing the boxed warning from vaginal estrogen garnered more than 26,000 signatures. Nineteen states have introduced more than three dozen bills to improve menopause education and care. And the FDA, too, has now stepped up. In July, it convened a first-ever publicly broadcast roundtable discussion on menopausal hormone treatments; a dozen physicians presented, urging regulators to finally align policy with the data. The panel was followed by an open public comments and feedback period over several weeks. At Monday’s press conference and in a corresponding piece in JAMA, FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary shared that this process led the agency’s internal experts to determine that removing the boxed labeling requirement was the right thing to do. Make no mistake, this has been a longstanding demand—it’s neither new nor MAHA-driven. Doctors and scientists have made the case for its removal since the start to no avail, arguing the data from the WHI—the largest, most expensive, and only randomized placebo-controlled study of post-menopausal women—never supported putting it there in the first place.
.. . . .
For the here and now? Our advice is to trust the physicians, researchers and scientists who have advocated for this for decades regardless of who happened to be in charge of the FDA. This includes the Menopause Society and ACOG, among others. And importantly, don’t let polarization muddle the message. This is about policy, not politics. Our job is to continue to discuss hormone therapy the same way we would any medication. At long last, we are free to have this conversation without the unnecessary fear factor that the black box warning engendered.The FDA’s reversal of the labeling requirement is a major win for evidence-based medicine. Now it’s up to us to responsibly inform women of their choices.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/11/12/menopause-estrogen-fda-hormone-replacement-therapy-black-box-breast-cancer-women-health/
This FDA Decision Could Transform Menopause Care
This FDA Decision Could Transform Menopause Care
PUBLISHED 11/12/2025 by Sharon Malone and Jennifer Weiss-Wolf
The end of the FDA’s “black box” era for estrogen could reshape conversations between women and their doctors.
Examples of estradiol-based hormone therapies: Oesclim transdermal patch; Oestrodose dermal gel; Aerodiol nasal spray; Climaston tablets (estradiol and dydrogesterone); and progesterone capsules. (BSIP / UIG Via Getty Images)
This story was originally published by Katie Couric Media.
Inaccurate labeling and classification of menopausal hormone treatments have thwarted women’s access to quality healthcare for more than two decades. The good news? We are in the midst of major reform momentum. On Monday, Nov. 10, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that the Food and Drug Administration would eliminate the “boxed labeling” requirement for estrogen products. The “black box warning,” as it’s commonly called, is part of the fallout from a press conference that occurred more than 20 years ago, announcing the findings of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). It’s also been the subject of a half-century-long push and pull with the federal government.
The Backstory
When estrogen became all the rage in the 1970s, the FDA issued a mandate to provide stringent written warnings about its benefits and risks. At the time, this move was widely celebrated as a feminist win and a way to ensure women were armed with information to make decisions for themselves without medical gatekeeping. By the 1990s, the FDA initiated a more iterative labeling process for menopause treatments in order to keep up with new observational research. All that changed following the WHI’s misread of its data and the public frenzy it stoked. As a result, the FDA revisited the warning on estrogen, and in 2003 the agency upgraded the requirement to the most stringent “boxed labeling” format, which is applied to products that cause serious life-or-death reactions. In this case, the label warned of numerous conditions, including breast cancer, heart disease, blood clots and probable dementia. Apart from an increased risk in blood clots, none of the other warnings were statistically significant. (In medical research parlance, a non-statistically significant finding is not a finding.) Not surprisingly, the warning language and prominent placement caused undue alarm among patients and doctors alike. Usage plummeted—and a generation of women suffered.
Fast Forward to Today
With menopause advocacy gaining global attention, a modern campaign for better policies has emerged. Over the past year, the online citizen’s petition organized by Let’s Talk Menopause in support of removing the boxed warning from vaginal estrogen garnered more than 26,000 signatures. Nineteen states have introduced more than three dozen bills to improve menopause education and care. And the FDA, too, has now stepped up. In July, it convened a first-ever publicly broadcast roundtable discussion on menopausal hormone treatments; a dozen physicians presented, urging regulators to finally align policy with the data. The panel was followed by an open public comments and feedback period over several weeks. At Monday’s press conference and in a corresponding piece in JAMA, FDA commissioner Dr. Marty Makary shared that this process led the agency’s internal experts to determine that removing the boxed labeling requirement was the right thing to do. Make no mistake, this has been a longstanding demand—it’s neither new nor MAHA-driven. Doctors and scientists have made the case for its removal since the start to no avail, arguing the data from the WHI—the largest, most expensive, and only randomized placebo-controlled study of post-menopausal women—never supported putting it there in the first place.
.. . . .
For the here and now? Our advice is to trust the physicians, researchers and scientists who have advocated for this for decades regardless of who happened to be in charge of the FDA. This includes the Menopause Society and ACOG, among others. And importantly, don’t let polarization muddle the message. This is about policy, not politics. Our job is to continue to discuss hormone therapy the same way we would any medication. At long last, we are free to have this conversation without the unnecessary fear factor that the black box warning engendered.The FDA’s reversal of the labeling requirement is a major win for evidence-based medicine. Now it’s up to us to responsibly inform women of their choices.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/11/12/menopause-estrogen-fda-hormone-replacement-therapy-black-box-breast-cancer-women-health/
When the Headline Gets It Wrong: Feminism Isn't the Problem--Patriarchy Is (trigger warning)
(and the PATRIARCHAL, MISOGYNIST, CHRISTOFASCIST, THEOCRATIC WAR ON WOMEN continues apace!!!)
When the Headline Gets It Wrong: Feminism Isn’t the Problem—Patriarchy Is (trigger warning)
PUBLISHED 11/8/2025 by Jodi Bondi Norgaard | UPDATED 11/13/2025 at 9:49 A.M. PT
A march on International Women’s Day, March 8, 2025, in New York City. (Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images)
When I saw the headline “Did Women Ruin the Workplace? And if so, can conservative feminism fix it?” in The New York Times Opinion section, my heart sank. It felt like a headline torn from another era—a provocation that had no place in 2025. After predictable backlash online, the headline was softened to “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?” and then “Have ‘Feminine Vices’ Taken Over the Workplace?” The wording changed, but the message didn’t.
Curious—and frustrated—I listened to the accompanying podcast, Interesting Times. What I heard wasn’t analysis; it was a polished repackaging of old patriarchal ideas dressed up as intellectual debate. The podcast opens with the statement, “Men and women are different,” calling this “the core premise of conservatism in the age of Trump.” The host goes on to say that liberalism and feminism “have come to grief by pretending that the sexes are the same.” No one—least of all feminists—is pretending men and women are “the same.” According to Merriam-Webster, feminism is “the belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.” Equality does not mean sameness, it means fairness: the right to opportunity, autonomy and dignity regardless of gender.
By suggesting feminism “pretends” the sexes are identical, the host misrepresents a movement that has always sought to expand human possibility, not erase difference. He then poses the question: Should the right “roll back the feminist era” or is there a “conservative feminism” that corrects liberalism’s mistakes? There is no such thing as conservative feminism. The phrase exists because patriarchy has learned to speak the language of empowerment. It borrows feminist words—“choice,” “agency,” “strength”—but drains them of their radical meaning, using them to defend inequality. It’s liberation without justice. It’s empowerment without equality.
. . . . . . . .
The writer’s podcast claims to explore “the big questions of our era.” But when those questions ask whether feminism has “ruined” the workplace, the format becomes less conversation than provocation—a way to make misogyny sound like intellectual inquiry. The Times’ decision to amplify these voices is disappointing. Women are not the problem. Feminism is not the problem. The problem is a culture still too comfortable questioning women’s legitimacy, ambition and anger.The message from the writers is clear: Women should know their place. But women already do—it’s everywhere decisions are made, everywhere power is exercised, everywhere the future is being built. We’re not staying in our lane. We made the road. And we’re not going anywhere.
https://msmagazine.com/2025/11/08/conservative-feminism-new-york-times-headline-liberal-feminism-ruin-workplace/
krasnov threatens to sue bbc for over a billion over the edited J6 bund rally
I posted yesterday about BBC bending the knee to krasnov. Apparently, they did not bend enough. Per a Guardian article from earlier today.
I have very sad news to report. The Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest* is no more.
After a mere 42 years, Prof. Scott Rice has the NERVE, the AUDACITY, to. . .to. . . gasp. . .retire! As if being merely a year older than Joe Biden is a legitimate excuse, the layabout!
The only consolation is that the contest winners have been archived.
*For those unfamiliar with the BLFC, it was a contest to write the worst possible opening sentence of an imaginary novel, inspired by Bulwer-Lytton's "It was a dark and storrmy night. . .", co-opted by Snoopy.
I am inconsolable! Devastated! Grieved beyond measure!
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Jul 29, 2003, 02:30 PMNumber of posts: 128,549