State-by-State Inequality, Women’s Rights, and Feminist Policy in the U.S.
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/28
Part 3 of 3
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. In this 3-part interview, 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: I recently spoke with South Korean feminists and women’s rights activists. They are facing similar challenges. Their former 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 major issue, 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.
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. 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. 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?
Dr. C. Nicole 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. 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.
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.
In-Sight Publishing 