Online Harassment, Reproductive Rights, and the Urgent Need for Offensive Feminist Policies
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): A Further Inquiry
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/09/27
Part 2 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: 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?
Dr. C. Nicole 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 basic resources 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.
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 