Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter

Women in America are living through a political déjà vu — except this time, the voices dismissing us come from both sides of the aisle. We are watching two movements, supposedly opposites, merge into one chorus that tells women our boundaries, our fears, and our lived realities are nothing more than “victimhood.”

Once upon a time, it was easy to identify the people undermining women’s rights. They were the Schlafly-era conservatives who argued that a married woman cannot be raped, the lawmakers who treated domestic violence as a “private matter,” and the lobbyists who tried to gut the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) before it ever took root.

But today, the very arguments once used by anti-feminist conservatives have been repackaged and repeated by activists who claim to be progressive.

It is a strange and deeply cynical merger:

Trans rights activists and men’s rights activists now speak the same language when policing women's boundaries.

• If a woman says she is uncomfortable in a vulnerable space, she is told she is irrational.
• If she describes fear, she is accused of bigotry.
• If she asks for privacy, she is treated as socially dangerous.
• If she names male violence, she’s accused of being a “man-hater.”
• If she says that womanhood is a biological reality, she is accused of transphobia by people who do not want to deal with the substance of her concerns.

The tactics are identical, even though the ideologies claim to be enemies. Both groups use the same pressure point: silence the woman by attacking her character.

No wonder so many feminists — including Abigail Shrier and countless others — have walked away from the Democratic Party. They didn’t bolt because they wanted to, but because they were told, repeatedly, that speaking about women’s safety was unacceptable. Many of them didn’t find a political home on the right either; they simply refused to remain in spaces where women could not speak plainly without being insulted.

The Old Anti-Woman Playbook: SAVE, Spivack, and the Mail-Order Bride Lobby

This convergence becomes clearer when we revisit the early 2000s, when Congress was evaluating expansions to VAWA. At the center of the debate was an organization with a deceptively innocent name: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE).

SAVE promoted the now-debunked claim that “women frequently fabricate abuse” and circulated materials arguing that false allegations were the primary threat to American men. They lobbied to restrict protective orders, weaken criminal penalties, and expand notification requirements that would have endangered victims.

Key to this story is Natasha Spivack, founder of the mail-order bride company, Encounters International. Spivack sat on SAVE’s board during the group’s early years — a detail largely ignored by mainstream coverage but crucial to understanding the architecture of the anti-VAWA campaign.

Her own business had been sued after a Ukrainian woman nearly died at the hands of the American man Spivack matched her with. A federal jury found that Encounters International failed to inform the woman of her rights under domestic violence law. That case helped spur Congress to create stronger protections for foreign-born spouses — protections SAVE later fought to weaken.

During the 2012 VAWA reauthorization battle, NBC News uncovered that the coalition opposing expanded protections included the Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, and at least one convicted domestic-violence offender who co-signed letters to Congress. Women advocating for confidentiality protections were dismissed as manipulative.

The language was unmistakable.

And today, it appears again — this time coming from entirely different political circles.

The New Version of the Same Old Argument

Women who speak about vulnerable spaces today encounter rhetoric that echoes the anti-feminist language of the past:

• “You’re exaggerating.”
• “Your fear is irrational.”
• “Your boundaries are exclusionary.”
• “Your safety concerns are attacks on someone else.”
• “Your voice is the problem.”

The target has evolved, but the method remains constant.

Single mothers, survivors, detransitioned women, athletes, and women advocating for sex-based rights are framed as agitators simply for asking to be taken seriously.

This is not progress — it is regression disguised as compassion.

The Westport Lesson: Even Women's Ideas Are Now Treated As Dangerous

The temporary removal of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage by the Westport Library in Connecticut offered a revealing glimpse into this new discomfort with women’s perspectives. The book was deemed too “controversial” to shelve, despite being part of an ongoing national conversation.

It returned only after public protest.

When even a bestselling author’s arguments about girls’ well-being are treated as threats, we have drifted into a point in history where women’s ideas, not just women’s boundaries, are policed.

The JD Vance Crossroads - And What His Moment Really Means

This brings us to JD Vance — not as a savior or a villain, but as a political figure standing at the intersection of a national gender reckoning.

Vance does not traffic in the manosphere rhetoric that blames women for society’s collapse, nor does he echo the talking points of groups like SAVE. But political reality is not governed by intentions; it is governed by associations. If any movement allows its most misogynistic voices to speak unchecked, the broader public assumes those voices reflect the movement’s values.

This is not a matter of electioneering. It is a matter of moral clarity.

A country cannot be led by a coalition that appears comfortable dismissing women’s fear as fragility, or women’s boundaries as bigotry, or women’s lived experience as inconvenience. Women — who have survived every iteration of this argument — know precisely what it means when our discomfort is minimized.

JD Vance, like every national figure in this polarized era, faces a choice: set his own tone, or allow the loudest extremes to set it for him.

Women are watching — not because we want validation, but because we have learned, painfully, what happens to a society that ignores the voices of half its population.

History has already written the ending of that story.

The question now is who will read it.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'