It’s 2026, and women are hated more than ever.
From abortion bans to acid attacks, there is a sickening uptick in misogynistic attitudes and anti-feminist rhetoric globally. In March of this year, the United Nations chronicled a stark worldwide decrease in basic rights for women, as well as an increased presence of the manosphere which, if you’re unfamiliar, spans a litany of blogs and internet forums promoting misogyny and hypermasculinity.
While it is a common historic trend for men to be the perpetrators of misogyny, it is inaccurate to blame them entirely for this recent spike in anti-feminism, because the reality is far more disconcerting.
Women's suffering and incessant oppression in this country is escalating to unprecedented levels as a direct consequence of fellow women’s actions.
Far-right female figures and politicians, such as Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert, and Trad-Wife extraordinaire Abby Roth, have blood on their hands just as much as any man. Through supporting anti-women legislation and robbing women of the choice to live a life of traditional domesticity, they cause direct harm to womankind as a whole. Even worse, they capture the attention and warrant the respect of conservative men, solely because they are anti-women.
Ultimately, women with both their worldviews and platforms normalize implicit misogyny by catering their commentary to the hyper-masculine MAGA zeitgeist.
The utter pinnacle of this ruthless phenomenon is none other than Erika Kirk, widow of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and newly-minted CEO of his right-wing monolith, Turning Point USA (TPUSA). She is infamous for her avant-garde (so to speak) public appearances mourning her late husband, as well as for her relentless gospelizing of women being placed on this God-given earth to churn out children with just as much haste as they should churn butter on their homesteads.
In her husband’s wake, Kirk has embodied the ultra-conservative values of TPUSA and unleashed them on an even larger scale with an even more vulnerable audience. She is attributed as bolstering Christian-nationalist ideas of delicate, submissive femininity and having “more babies than you can afford.”
Arguably worse is that men respect her authority because of her misogynistic rhetoric; consequently, the idea that a woman’s authority is valid only when she rebukes social progress is embossed into the modern American psyche, not only at her hand, but at that of the men who tolerate her.
Let me be clear: despite her “girlboss” persona, Kirk is not a feminist — she would certainly be the first to tell you that. What she and her PR team whitewash is her indulgence in the benefits of feminist ideals whilst proselytizing the invalidity of womankind without reserve. Yet, every time she addresses hoards of right-wingers from her podium of self-importance, Kirk seems remiss of the foundational idea of feminism as a sociopolitical shift: freedom. Freedom of choice, freedom from others’ jurisdiction and freedom to exist on this planet as a woman, without the incessant din of patriarchal musings.
Perhaps unbeknownst to her, Kirk is living and capitalizing off the very freedoms she claims women do not need. She is a CEO. She is a mother. She is pursuing her Ph.D. from Liberty University. She hosts a podcast. None of these feats would ever be even a remote possibility for her without feminism.
Kirk is preaching from behind bulletproof glass, in both the literal and figurative senses.
As is common in our present cultural and political mediascape, many internet users have noted this irony and, subsequently, mocked Kirk through oftentimes brutal memes and irked critique. But, what goes unsaid is the severity of Kirk’s prejudiced agenda — and that is certainly not a laughing matter. Coping through online humor is perhaps a temporary bandage to an ever-bleeding wound that spasms and sputters with unbridled misogyny upon being neglected.
For the sheer livelihood of American women, it is high time for this wound to be cauterized.
It is a glaringly simple truth that must be elucidated: traditional gender roles and values are not under attack, though Kirk so often claims otherwise. Rather, a woman’s choice to live a certain lifestyle is on the precipice of total erasure. Does a woman want to perfect her sourdough starter, serve her husband and be a mother? Does she want to become a lawyer, never marry and travel the world? What about a combination of those things — or none of them?
A woman’s choice should not be political in any context, but it is. Kirk is directly responsible for the partisanship of female livelihood, as well as the normalization of oppressive notions formed against her own gender.
The intention of this argument is not to tear down Kirk or muddy her name — we have myriad smears against women from all sides of the political spectrum circulating American media, and it is inherently misogynistic to attack a woman’s character on the basis of her relationship with gender. The point at hand is instead the cruciality of educated critique in understanding why, exactly, it feels like we’re going backwards in widespread attitudes towards women. Because we are, and the proof is uncanny.
We, as an ever-shifting American people, have the responsibility to veto attacks on women. It’s as simple as that. What’s more, we as women have the responsibility to support one another in a world that thinks our very existence to be inferior. After all is said and done, feminism at its genesis was a demand for equality fostered through rich sisterhood and feminine connectivity.
It would be an insurmountable shame if women continue to be enemies to our own kind.
Siena Ferraro is an Opinion Editor. She is a sophomore studying journalism. Do you agree conservative counter-feminism is normalizing misogyny? Send all comments to opinion@dailycardinal.com
