In 2025, cultural arguments on the importance of feminism have pervaded every aspect of our lives, acting as one of the most crucial battlegrounds for our rights and freedoms. It is also an incredibly pertinent topic to youth, especially young women who are fighting their way toward successful, fulfilling adulthoods. 

The feminist movement’s enemies are not new, but this time they are bolder. Pronatalist policies advocating for increasing the birth rate and expanding family size, disguised as promotions of patriotic values, are sweeping across the U.S. with alarming speed, coming directly from the federal government with a horrifying top-down command. 

Behind their pastel packaging lies something far more sinister: an attempt to reestablish the cult of domesticity, to remind women that their highest virtue and most productive contributions to society are childbearing and submission.

Daily headlines, sent straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter to keep up with the latest at and around USC.

This resurgence is not accidental. It is dangerously institutional and strategic, and voters who participated in the 2024 presidential election are very much cognizant of its roots as gender polarization was placed under the media’s spotlight. 

After sitting through lengthy lectures on the complexities of gender relations, my education has sufficiently informed me that we cannot simply dismiss the issue as a debate on reproductive care. Therefore, I cannot comply with the threatening political regression we are undergoing without elevating it to a matter of survival. 

When the government begins to incentivize childbirth while slashing access to reproductive care, it imposes control over half of the nation’s population. When leaders argue for traditional “gender roles” under the masks of economic stability or national survival, they are not appealing to morality. 

These policies do not emerge in a vacuum; they are the fruits of decades of backlash against feminist gains, repackaged for a new generation. We shouldn’t be merely passive observers at this turning point. 

The danger lies not just in legislation but in normalization. Suddenly, asking for equality is perceived as radical. Even among my informed peers, defending bodily autonomy is often perceived as selfish. 

In my casual conversations with peers, expressing that I do not wish to raise children is frequently met with judgments, as though we have returned to a time when we have no established notions of feminism beyond the fundamental demands for suffrage and opportunities to work outside of home life. 

It’s as though the third-wave movement’s fight to protect and reclaim our identities has once again become a luxury of the past rather than the foundation of a just society.

In addition to the politicians and public figures, even our communities are succumbing to this pressure. A study conducted by the Survey Center on American Life found that young men are turning their backs on feminism, no longer perceiving it to be a significant response or criticism to social inequality. The choice from a portion of the population to dismiss feminism as a key voting issue also becomes a catalyst for the ultimate victory of the man sitting in the highest office today. 

Some young men have even begun to believe that American society has become more hostile to men. However, this contemporary crisis against the stability of masculinity should not be an excuse to antagonize women against men, forging a fierce fight between the two populations. At the same time, party leaders continue to manipulate their followers’ opinions.

Carrying forward the words of established theorists such as Audre Lorde, bell hooks and Judith Butler, their advice echoes vividly in my mind. From the interlocking system of oppression to moral psychology putting emotions in actions, our founding mothers of the new left proposed that maintaining femininity during dark times fuels us to gain new sources of courage. 

We gradually become aware that we do not have to accept the vision forced upon us by state-sanctioned regression, and we can fight back with an urgent yet practical sense of solidarity. 

With a new fascist regime on the rise, I can’t help but imagine our future having a striking similarity to Octavia E. Butler’s “Parable of the Sower.” In this speculative novel, a post-apocalyptic world is saved by a young girl whose superpower is hyper-empathy. This is not any physical strength beyond human comprehension, just the uncontrollable ability to feel the pain she witnesses in others. 

I dream of all of us growing the same talent to navigate our crumbling world against the weight of domestic violence, wage gaps and reproductive suppression. Even in the midst of rampant authoritarian rule, we can refuse to numb ourselves, knowing that fascism thrives on an indifferent attitude.

USC has the potential to be a practical training ground for the society we want to build under unique female leadership. Since we are already exposed to rich resources, I encourage every undergraduate to take a class within the Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences’ Gender and Sexuality Studies department or an interdisciplinary course that explores these critical issues with fresh perspectives. 

Through our interactions with one another, we have the opportunity to exercise a form of hyper-empathy, not merely theoretical, as we design systems that prioritize care at their center. After all, the feminist doctrine and knowledge do not just operate in the realms of critiquing literature and film but also permeate popular culture, the workplace, health, science, sports and, importantly, our self-fulfillment.