CEO at Future Forward Women on Feminist Advocacy

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/21 (Unpublished)

Dr. C. Nicole Mason, a feminist policy analyst and CEO of Future Forward Women, which is a bold new initiative to build women’s power and influence in the U.S. They unite and support catalytic leaders, organizations, and changemakers committed to propelling lasting change in the lives of women, girls, and families. She discusses gender equity, reproductive rights, and social policies. She emphasizes the setbacks in feminist policymaking, including the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the lack of paid leave, and rising gender-based violence. Mason critiques social media’s role in spreading misinformation and calls for media literacy to counter false narratives. She highlights disparities in women’s rights across U.S. states, naming Alabama and Mississippi as the worst. She advocates for proactive policies and stresses the need for offensive strategies to protect and expand women’s rights.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re here with Dr. C. Nicole Mason today. She is a feminist, policy analyst, author, and advocate for gender and racial equity. She is the president and CEO of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and previously served as the executive director of the Center for Research and Policy in the Public Interest. Her work focuses on the intersection of race, class, and gender in public policy.

She coined the term “she-cession” to describe the pandemic’s disproportionate impact on women. She graduated from Howard University and the University of Maryland, College Park. She is also the author of Born Bright: A Young Girl’s Journey from Nothing to Something in America and has been recognized as one of Fortune’s World’s 50 Greatest Leaders.

How did you become involved in gender equality advocacy, particularly with an inspiration and focus on feminist policy analysis?

Dr. C. Nicole Mason: How did I first become interested? While I was a student at Howard University, I took my first political science class. In that class, I started to learn about social inequality. Before then, I had no language for many of the things I had witnessed growing up in and around Los Angeles, California. A single mother raised me, and everything clicked.

During the summer break before junior year, like many students during school breaks, I was searching for something to fill my time off. On a whim, I signed up for a training program for a shelter for battered women. That training and volunteer experience changed my entire life. Again, I gained more language, not only for social inequality but also for the specific challenges women face.

When I returned to Howard University the following year, I founded the first feminist organization on campus: the Women’s Action Coalition. From that moment, I felt fortunate to have found my calling early on.

I knew that I wanted to figure out how to pursue this path—whether through feminist organizing or advocating for women’s issues. I didn’t know what my career would look like, but I knew this was what I wanted to do.

Jacobsen: What were the most pressing areas of concern in feminist policymaking and currently, particularly in light of the recent administration transition in the United States? How does this shift impact those with a feminist perspective?

Mason: Over the last ten to fifteen years, the women’s movement and the issues we tend to frame as “women’s issues “have faced many setbacks. We haven’t had many significant wins.

Many of our last major victories include the Violence Against Women Act, which was first passed in 1994 and has been reauthorized multiple times, and Title IX, which protects against sex-based discrimination in education. However, when we consider major policy achievements that have fundamentally changed the landscape for women in the U.S., there haven’t been many recent ones.

Instead, most of our victories have been incremental, and in some cases, we have even regressed—we have lost ground. The rollback of Roe v. Wade in 2022 significantly impacted reproductive rights, and we are seeing increasing challenges to gender equity policies at the state and federal levels. The lack of paid family leave, wage disparities, and barriers to affordable childcare continue to affect women, especially women of colour, disproportionately.

Moving forward, feminist policy advocates are focused on rebuilding protections for reproductive rights, securing paid leave policies, and addressing systemic gender inequities in the workplace and healthcare.

So, when we think about the fall of Roe v. Wade, we recognize that we have lost certain rights and protections. Some policies we had hoped for during the Biden administration’s first term—particularly in the early years—did not materialize. We had anticipated significant victories in childcare, care infrastructure, and the Build Back Better Act, but those did not come to fruition. This has been a moment of reckoning for those who work in this field, prompting us to reflect on what is possible, why we have not secured the major victories we had hoped for over the past decades, and what might explain these significant losses.

One issue I keep returning to in trying to understand why we have not progressed as much as we would have liked—particularly in recent years—is that women do not have enough power and influence to drive the policies needed to make meaningful change. That, in my view, is the fundamental barrier preventing us from achieving the goals we claim to strive for.

Jacobsen: What about policy measures aimed at combating gender-based violence, both in public and private spheres?

Mason: Gender-based violence is a significant issue, and it is personally important to me. I began my feminist organizing work in the gender-based violence space. The Violence Against Women Act was a major achievement, though not without complexities. Over the years, it has directed substantial support to both grassroots and national organizations committed to ending gender-based violence.

However, under the current administration, some of the gains we have made since the passage of VAWA could be reversed. Critical funding and support for these organizations may dry up or be eliminated, which would have real and serious consequences for women and families, leaving them more vulnerable.

Another critical aspect of gender-based violence is the way it is perceived in society. A recent global study on gender-based violence revealed mixed results. Many people do not see it as a serious issue, with some believing that women or victims exaggerate their claims. Alarmingly, in some instances, respondents even expressed the view that perpetrators had the right to commit acts of violence, including sexual assault and domestic violence.

Thus, we are not only facing tangible threats to organizations and their continued ability to provide services but also broader cultural norms that either condone violence, romanticize it, or exhibit ambivalence toward it. As someone engaged in this work, I see the fight against gender-based violence as multifaceted. It involves shifting cultural attitudes and framing the conversation in ways that resonate with both men and women, lawmakers and legislators. At the same time, we must defend and expand the essential services that are already in place.

Jacobsen: What role does social media play in amplifying false narratives about gender-based violence? We have the statistics. We understand the policies that, while they may not eliminate gender-based violence, can significantly reduce it and move us closer to an ideal outcome. However, social media is the largest gossip network ever created, spreading false narratives that obstruct meaningful policy change.

Misinformation and disinformation on social media distort public perception of gender-based violence, undermining the legitimacy of experiences and discouraging policy initiatives that could address the issue. False claims and rhetoric reinforce harmful norms, making it even more difficult to implement solutions. In this way, social media plays a direct role in hindering progress, preventing necessary reforms, and sustaining a culture that tolerates gender-based violence.

Mason: I want to complicate the discussion around social media. For better or worse, when I first started doing this work, there was no social media. You got your information and facts through reputable, reliable news sources that adhered to ethical reporting standards. That is no longer the case.

Social media can be used for good. It can be a tool for raising awareness about important issues, sharing facts and personal stories, and making women—such as those involved in the Me Too movement—feel less alone. It can create a powerful echo and amplify an issue. All of that is beneficial.

However, social media can also be harmful, particularly in how misinformation and disinformation spread rapidly—whether about an issue or a person. This is especially concerning when it affects young people, from teenagers like my daughter to celebrities. Misinformation can shape a narrative, discredit a survivor’s story, and diminish the credibility of someone who has experienced violence.

We saw this play out on a celebrity level with Megan Thee Stallion when she was shot in the foot by Tory Lanez. The amount of misinformation and disinformation surrounding the incident not only skewed public perception but also took a severe mental, physical, and emotional toll on her. And that’s a celebrity—someone with significant resources and insulation. Now, imagine what that means for an everyday woman who is threatened, stalked, or harassed online through misinformation, disinformation, and digital violence.

Gender-based violence on social media is a major concern. However, for younger women, social media has also become their primary source of information. Until recently, I did not take that seriously enough. As an activist, organizer, and researcher, I now realize that if young people get their information primarily from social media, we must ensure they have media literacy skills to differentiate between good and bad information. We also need to provide accurate information that resonates with them.

The traditional fact sheet approach does not work anymore. Instead, we must rethink how we present important issues—condense them into digestible, engaging formats, such as 30-second to two-minute videos or messages. I do not think we have gotten that right yet.

Jacobsen: Public figures like Megan Thee Stallion and others have some protection. However, the consequences can be far worse for most people who are not famous or wealthy, like the rest of us. They may not experience the same amplified attacks, but what protections exist for them when they do? When it comes to everyday people, what policies effectively address online harassment? And beyond policy, how can we shift cultural norms to reduce emotional violence online before it escalates into physical violence?

Mason: That is exactly my point about Megan Thee Stallion and other celebrities, such as Amber Heard. These individuals, while subject to intense scrutiny and harassment, have layers of protection and resources that ordinary women do not. Women often do not have access to legal teams, public relations firms, or other forms of support when they face online harassment, stalking, or digital violence.

When discussing what should be done, the first thing that raises concern is the legal framework. Some laws are improving. In California and a few other states, there are laws addressing issues like revenge porn—the non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit materials. Perpetrators can now face legal penalties, including jail time. However, overall, our laws have not yet caught up with the pace of technological advancements.

We need stronger legal protections to address online harassment, misinformation campaigns, and digital violence. At the same time, we must also engage in cultural shifts—educating people about digital ethics, strengthening media literacy, and fostering an environment where online spaces are not used as platforms for abuse. The issue will persist until policy and cultural change align, disproportionately harming those lacking the resources to fight back.

A woman can be harassed, threatened, or even physically harmed as a result of online violence. However, there are few laws and protections in place because of the significant lag between what is happening on social media and the legal safeguards that women—or people in general—believe they have or should have.

People often hide behind the First Amendment, citing freedom of speech as a defence for harmful behaviour. As a result, we are in a precarious situation because there are not enough legal protections. Even when we consider the Violence Against Women Act, its provisions on stalking exist—but do they truly address how violence against women is carried out on social media today? No, they do not. We have a great deal of work ahead of us.

Am I confident that this administration—or even in the next four, five, or ten years—will see proactive, offensive legislation addressing these issues? No, I am not. Social media companies like X, Facebook, Instagram (all owned by two major corporations), and TikTok have no real incentive to enact protections. We have already seen them roll back existing protections, and Facebook has even started allowing misinformation to spread unchecked.

This is not just about Russian bots. It is misinformation across the board—about individuals, about gender-based violence, about laws and protections. These issues can be misrepresented or outright fabricated, with little accountability.

In terms of what we might be able to do, I believe there is an opportunity to start thinking about new technologies and their intersection with gender-based violence. We need to articulate what digital violence looks like today and what effective protections might entail for victims. It is time to develop strategies, solutions, and legal protections that reflect the modern reality of online violence.

Jacobsen: Here’s a perennial issue in the United States. I have colleagues worldwide who cannot access the same basicresources we often take for granted—whether in African countries, Latin America, or elsewhere. When USAID funding was being pulled back or cut, many of them expressed concern. While some of those decisions were politically motivated and administration-driven, that is true for most government agencies.

These cuts devastated them because they directly impacted social and healthcare programs that provided essential humanitarian aid. I am now seeing the same pattern unfold domestically within the United States—where vulnerable communities are losing access to critical social and healthcare services.

I’m speaking as a foreigner—a Canadian. So, when I look at international commentary, I see the same pattern happening domestically in the United States—not just with the rollback of Roe v. Wade but also with restrictions on maternal healthcare access, abortion, reproductive rights, and so on.

What do you think of the current policy? Looking ahead through the rest of the 2020s, what policies might serve as a bulwark against the ongoing repeals and restrictions? What is always astonishing is that women’s bodies and their choices for the future continue to be politicized.

Mason: This feels like a full-frontal assault. What is happening in the United States has a global ripple effect. We see that with USAID. It is all deeply connected.

And yes, this is a full-frontal assault—on the safety, dignity, viability, and well-being of women, people, and families, both in the United States and around the world.

What concerns me most is that we do not have a robust response that matches the magnitude of these attacks. That terrifies me, to be completely honest. Even at the policy level, we lack an offensive strategy to combat the rollbacks that have happened—and will continue to happen.

Right now, the fight is about holding the line and trying to preserve what we have, which, to be frank, is not enough. The United States enjoys a level of relative privilege compared to many other countries, and I do not want to overlook that. However, I have conducted the analysis. I can say with certainty that for some women in certain states, their conditions—though relatively different—are on par with those in other parts of the world.

Women in these states are facing severe poverty, poor maternal health outcomes, and high rates of violence. Some women in the U.S. are flourishing, but it feels like they live in two different Americas for many others.

My concern is that we do not have a policy response that matches the scale of what is happening—or what is yet to come.

I do not know when you plan to publish this. Still, in just the first few weeks of this administration, we have already seen significant developments that will directly impact women and families.

For example, I would estimate that at least 30%, possibly even 50%, of the federal government workforce consists of women and people of colour. The attacks on the federal workforce are not typically framed as feminist or gender issues, but they should be—because women make up a significant portion of that workforce.

Yet, this administration has not fully addressed these issues meaningfully. They have made threats and vague statements about what they plan to do regarding women’s and gender issues. We have already seen direct attacks on gender identity and the rights of trans people.

These are real, tangible concerns. And unless we shift from a defensive to an offensive strategy, we risk losing even more ground.

They have not yet focused on women in the way we know is coming. That moment is inevitable, and we are not prepared for it. The situation is already horrific, but we have not seen a sharp turn in their strategy.

Currently, they are prioritizing other objectives—reducing the federal workforce, erasing people from data records, and pursuing other concerning policies. That, in itself, is alarming.

But if I were to emphasize anything, it would be the need to connect the dots—understanding what resistance looks like in other countries, how different populations have resisted regimes like this, and what strategies might be possible here. We need to start thinking about offensive and power-building strategies because we do not have one right now.

Jacobsen: I recently spoke with South Korean feminists and women’s rights activists. They are facing similar challenges. Their current leader, President Yoon Suk Yeol, came into power on a strong anti-feminist platform. One of his key promises was dismantling their equivalent of a government agency for women and families, the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF). While his administration failed to abolish the ministry, it weakened its influence, leaving the ministerial position vacant for nearly a year.

Other alarming trends are emerging there as well. Deepfake pornography is a growing concern, disproportionately targeting young women and girls. The South Korean government has increased penalties for producing, distributing, or possessing such content, with potential prison sentences of up to three years. However, digital sex crimes remain a majorissue, and feminist groups continue to advocate for stronger enforcement and support for victims.

At the same time, the 4B Movement, a feminist movement that rejects marriage, dating, sex, and childbirth as a protest against misogyny, has gained traction. Some women outside South Korea, including the United States, have supported its principles, especially in response to global rollbacks on women’s rights.

In December 2024, President Yoon attempted to declare martial law, citing national security concerns. This move was immediately resisted, including mass protests and political opposition. The National Assembly responded by impeaching him on December 14, 2024, with 204 out of 300 lawmakers voting in favour. Following his impeachment, Prime Minister Han Duck-soo assumed the role of acting president, and the Constitutional Court is expected to rule on the impeachment by March 2025.

These developments show that resistance to repressive policies exists within South Korea. However, many of the arguments made by anti-feminist groups there mirror those in the U.S., especially their focus on declining birth rates. These issues are often framed as broad demographic concerns without considering the underlying social and economic factors influencing women’s choices.

People make choices based on their lived realities. Instead of engaging in abstract discussions about birth rates, policymakers should examine why individuals make these choices and implement policies addressing their concerns.

If there is any hope to be found, many countries are facing similar struggles, though the specifics vary. However, we also see legal challenges emerging against unjust systems. Are any particular U.S. states that stand out to you as holdouts for women’s rights? In The Handmaid’s Tale, New York was portrayed as a holdout in Margaret Atwood’s dystopian future—do you see similar dynamics today?

Mason: I recently completed a 50-state analysis on where women have the most power and influence. New York is one of those states. In my analysis, I examined 12 indicators and eight policies. There are several states where, at this moment, I am fortunate to be living. On the other hand, there are states where women are struggling—where they have little power and influence and where they are doing poorly across all social and well-being indicators.

What strikes me is that it often comes down to a state border. You cross one border, and you have rights. You cross another, and your rights are significantly diminished, and your likelihood of doing well declines.

What do you make of that? What do you make of living in a country where everyone should have the same rights, access to opportunity, and equal protections, yet the reality is so uneven? There are “holdout” states; we know which ones they are. I feel fortunate to live in one of the states where women have more protections. But my biggest concern is for the women who do not.

Some people might say, “Well, move to New York.” But it is not that simple. 

Jacobsen: Many women cannot afford to move, even if they want to. 

Mason: That is what keeps me up at night.

Jacobsen: According to your 50-state analysis, which state is the worst?

Mason: Alabama. And number two is Mississippi.

Jacobsen: No surprises there.

Mason: No, not at all. 

Jacobsen: I remember Chris Rock’s comment about Mississippi—he joked: M-I-S-S-T-A-K-E. He called it that in his usual succinct way.

Mason: It is outright hostile to women. But the reality is that women are living there under those conditions. This is not about my coastal elitism, as some people like to claim. When I shared these findings with a friend, she said, “Oh, that’s just your coastal elitism—you people on the coasts always think that way.”

But I told her, “No, this is based on facts. This is not a narrative I am imposing on Mississippi and Alabama. These are real conditions that women are living under.”

So, yes, while there are states where I am relieved to live, my primary concern remains for women who do not have the option of living in those states. The question is: “What should we be doing to support them? How do we ensure they, too, have their full bundle of rights?”

Jacobsen: Thank you. I appreciate it. Have a good afternoon.

Mason: You too. Hopefully—I need that.

Jacobsen: Thanks.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.