Future War for Women's Rights
- Apr 1
- 12 min read
Marshal Michel Ney’s massed cavalry charges at the Battle of Waterloo on June 18, 1815, remain among the most dramatic—and debated—moments of the Napoleonic Wars. By midafternoon, with the French army pressing against the Anglo-Allied line under the Duke of Wellington, Ney ordered repeated charges of heavy cavalry up the muddy slope toward the Allied position. Eyewitnesses described waves of cuirassiers and lancers advancing under artillery fire, cresting the ridge only to find disciplined infantry squares waiting. The assaults, launched with urgency and courage, failed to break the line and instead incurred heavy losses.
Historians have long pointed to a critical flaw: the charges went forward without adequate infantry and artillery support. Whether through miscommunication, battlefield confusion, or Ney’s own judgment, the cavalry attacked alone. Without infantry to exploit breaches or artillery to soften the squares, French horsemen circled and struck at formations designed precisely to resist them. Wellington’s troops, trained to hold formation under pressure, repelled each wave. By the time supporting elements could have been brought forward, the moment had passed and French momentum had ebbed.
The consequences were significant. The failed charges depleted France’s cavalry reserves and sapped the army’s ability to respond later in the battle. As evening approached, the arrival of Prussian forces compounded French difficulties. Napoleon’s final gamble—the Imperial Guard’s advance—also failed, and the army retreated. While Waterloo’s outcome turned on many factors, Ney’s uncoordinated assaults are widely cited as emblematic of the breakdown in French command and control at a decisive moment.
The episode is often used as a broader lesson about coordination and timing in complex efforts. Large undertakings—whether military campaigns or social movements—typically rely on aligned strategies, clear communication, and the ability to sequence actions so that one effort reinforces another. When components move independently, even bold initiatives can stall against organized resistance, and opportunities can be lost in the gaps between them.
Some commentators have drawn parallels between Waterloo’s missteps and debates over the trajectory of women’s rights in the United States during the 2010s. They argue that fragmented advocacy, competing priorities, and missed moments for coalition-building can blunt momentum. Others counter that the period saw significant gains alongside setbacks, and that the movement has been marked by both coordination and internal debate rather than a single, unified arc. As with historical analogies, the comparison is contested—but it underscores a recurring point: sustained progress, in any arena, tends to depend on aligning resources, timing, and strategy rather than relying on isolated surges of effort.
Economic context also shaped the debates that defined the 2010s. In the years following the global financial crisis, a market-oriented policy framework—often described by scholars as neoliberalism—remained influential across business and public life. Its emphasis on individual advancement, entrepreneurship and personal branding informed a strain of feminist discourse that highlighted success within existing corporate structures. Critics say that focus sometimes narrowed attention to individual achievement over collective bargaining, workplace protections and broader structural reforms.
The “girl boss” label, popularized in the middle of the decade, became a shorthand for that ethos. It celebrated women founders and executives who rose through competitive industries and encouraged others to do the same. The message resonated widely on social media and in publishing, where stories of rapid growth and personal reinvention drew large audiences. Supporters argued it helped normalize women’s leadership and ambition in spaces where they had long been underrepresented.
By the late 2010s, however, the brand had begun to fray. High-profile company stumbles, layoffs and reports of workplace issues at some firms associated with the label prompted scrutiny of whether the model delivered on its promises. Critics said the framing risked equating empowerment with proximity to corporate power, rather than with improved conditions for workers more broadly. Others noted that the emphasis on individual success could obscure persistent gaps in pay, access and representation across race and class.
That critique fed a broader reassessment of strategy within the women’s rights landscape. Some organizers argued that a focus on personal advancement, competition and visibility could unintentionally pit women against one another for limited opportunities, diluting the potential for coordinated action. Advocates on the other side cautioned against dismissing the gains of increased representation and visibility, saying that leadership roles can translate into influence and policy change when paired with broader coalitions.
As debates continue, analysts point to the importance of aligning goals across constituencies and pairing representation with structural change. The lesson, they say, is less about rejecting one approach than about integrating them—linking leadership pipelines to labor protections, and individual success stories to collective efforts. The conversation remains ongoing, reflecting a movement that, like many before it, is adapting its strategies in response to changing economic and social conditions.
Debates over strategy in the 2010s also centered on intersectionality, a framework developed by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe how overlapping identities shape experiences of discrimination. Advocates said that, despite wider use of the term, parts of the U.S. women’s rights landscape continued to prioritize issues most visible to white, cisgender, able-bodied women, particularly in corporate and media spaces. The result, critics argued, was an uneven agenda that did not consistently reflect the needs of those facing compounded barriers.
Organizers representing women of color pointed to disparities in pay, maternal health outcomes and exposure to violence as areas where attention and resources lagged. Data from public health agencies during the decade showed stark differences in maternal mortality rates for Black women in the United States compared with their white counterparts. Indigenous advocates highlighted high rates of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Supporters of a more intersectional approach said these issues often struggled to maintain sustained national focus outside moments of crisis.
Disability rights advocates voiced similar concerns, emphasizing barriers to employment, healthcare access and public accommodations. They argued that policy conversations framed around workplace advancement or leadership pipelines did not always account for chronic illness, caregiving responsibilities or accessibility needs. Transgender women and nonbinary people, meanwhile, faced a wave of legislative battles over identification documents, healthcare and participation in public life. Advocacy groups said that inclusion in messaging did not always translate into coordinated support on policy fights.
Internationally, critics said the U.S.-centered discourse could overlook the conditions faced by women in regions experiencing conflict and economic instability. In countries such as Sudan and Myanmar, armed conflict and political upheaval disrupted access to education, healthcare and basic services. In parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, longstanding violence and displacement continued to affect women’s safety and livelihoods. Global organizations called for sustained attention to these crises, arguing that a comprehensive approach to women’s rights must extend beyond national borders.
Many leaders within the movement have since called for deeper coalition-building and resource sharing across communities. They point to efforts that link racial justice, disability rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy and labor organizing as examples of a more integrated approach. While disagreements persist over priorities and tactics, there is growing recognition among advocates that broader inclusion can strengthen campaigns and policy outcomes. As the movement evolves, participants say the challenge is turning widely accepted principles of intersectionality into durable, coordinated action.
Another focal point of criticism in assessments of the 2010s women’s rights landscape has been the movement’s response to mounting challenges to reproductive rights. Throughout the decade, state legislatures introduced a wave of measures restricting access to abortion, including limits on gestational age, clinic regulations and funding constraints. While national advocacy organizations mounted legal challenges and public campaigns, critics say those efforts often struggled to keep pace with the scale and coordination of opposition at the state level.
Legal analysts point to a series of court battles that signaled shifting ground. Although some restrictions were blocked in federal courts earlier in the decade, changes in the composition of the judiciary—culminating in a more conservative-leaning Supreme Court—reshaped the legal landscape. By the end of the 2010s and into the early 2020s, longstanding precedents protecting abortion access were overturned, returning regulatory authority to individual states. The outcome exposed vulnerabilities in strategies that had relied heavily on federal court protections.
Advocates have debated whether the movement devoted sufficient attention to building durable legislative and grassroots support, particularly in regions where restrictions were advancing most rapidly. Some argue that reproductive rights groups were often reactive, mobilizing in response to new laws rather than preemptively building coalitions capable of influencing statehouses. Others note that funding disparities, political polarization and structural barriers—such as gerrymandering—complicated efforts to translate public support into policy outcomes.
The issue also intersected with the broader questions of inclusion raised by critics. Reproductive rights debates, they said, were sometimes framed narrowly around abortion access without consistently addressing related concerns such as maternal healthcare, childcare, economic security and racial disparities in health outcomes. Organizations working under a “reproductive justice” framework sought to broaden the conversation, linking abortion rights to a wider set of social and economic conditions. Still, supporters of that approach said it did not always dominate national messaging.
In the aftermath, movement leaders and analysts have called for a reassessment of priorities and tactics. Proposals have included expanding state-level organizing, investing in long-term voter engagement and strengthening alliances across issue areas. While there is no consensus on a single path forward, many agree that the erosion of federal protections marked a turning point—one that underscored the need for sustained, coordinated strategies capable of operating across courts, legislatures and communities.
Coverage of the # MeToo movement during the 2010s likewise drew scrutiny from analysts who said its impact was uneven when measured against its initial surge of public attention. The movement prompted a wave of reporting on sexual harassment and assault across industries, leading to high-profile resignations and internal policy changes at major companies. Yet legal scholars and advocates note that translating those cultural shifts into durable statutory reforms proved more difficult, with federal legislation advancing slowly and many workplace protections remaining dependent on state law and private arbitration agreements.
Some reform efforts did move forward. Several states passed measures limiting the use of nondisclosure agreements in harassment cases, extending statutes of limitations, or mandating training and reporting standards. Congress approved changes affecting how legislative staff report harassment. Still, researchers say enforcement gaps persisted, particularly for low-wage workers and those in industries with limited oversight. The reliance on civil settlements rather than criminal proceedings in many cases also raised questions about accountability and deterrence.
Within the movement, organizers debated strategy and scope. Critics argued that the focus on prominent figures in media, politics and entertainment risked overshadowing abuses faced by workers in agriculture, domestic labor and service industries. Others countered that high-visibility cases helped shift norms and encouraged reporting, creating openings for broader reforms. Both sides acknowledged the challenges of building cases that meet legal thresholds, especially given evidentiary standards and the risks faced by complainants.
Looking back, analysts say # MeToo reshaped public conversation but did not, on its own, resolve longstanding gaps between awareness and enforcement. They point to the need for clearer reporting pathways, stronger whistleblower protections and consistent standards across jurisdictions. The debate reflects a broader theme running through assessments of the decade: that cultural momentum, while significant, must be paired with coordinated legal and institutional change to produce lasting outcomes.
Analysts also point to organizational structure as a limiting factor in the 2010s, particularly when addressing cross-border issues. Much of the women’s rights activity during the decade operated through decentralized networks—grassroots groups, social media campaigns and loosely aligned coalitions. While that model enabled rapid mobilization and broad participation, critics say it often lacked the coordination needed to sustain long-term international initiatives or respond cohesively to crises spanning multiple regions.
The decentralized approach proved effective in raising awareness, amplifying local voices and adapting to specific cultural contexts. Campaigns could emerge quickly, drawing attention to abuses in one country and linking them to broader global conversations. However, policy experts note that without centralized planning or shared strategic frameworks, efforts sometimes struggled to translate visibility into coordinated diplomatic pressure, funding strategies or multilateral action. In complex international environments, fragmented advocacy could be outpaced by governments and institutions operating with clearer hierarchies and resources.
Global advocacy groups attempted to bridge those gaps, but alignment remained uneven. Differences in legal systems, political priorities and cultural norms complicated efforts to unify agendas across regions. For example, initiatives focused on labor rights in Southeast Asia, conflict-related violence in parts of Africa, and reproductive healthcare in Latin America often required distinct strategies and partnerships. Without consistent coordination, critics argue, these efforts risked operating in parallel rather than reinforcing one another.
Funding structures further shaped the movement’s international reach. Many organizations relied on short-term grants tied to specific projects, limiting their ability to build sustained infrastructure or respond flexibly to emerging crises. Smaller, locally led groups—often closest to the issues—faced challenges accessing global funding streams or maintaining visibility in international forums. Advocates say this imbalance sometimes reinforced a cycle in which well-resourced organizations set agendas while frontline groups struggled to scale their work.
In response, some leaders have called for hybrid models that combine grassroots energy with stronger coordination mechanisms. Proposals include shared data systems, long-term funding commitments and regional hubs capable of aligning campaigns across borders. While there is no consensus on the best structure, there is growing agreement that addressing global challenges requires both local expertise and sustained, coordinated strategy. The experience of the 2010s, they say, underscores the difficulty of advancing international goals without a framework that can connect disparate efforts into a cohesive whole.
Another area of concern for researchers has been the rise of online misogyny during the 2010s and the difficulty advocacy groups faced in responding to it at scale. Social media platforms enabled rapid growth of communities that trafficked in harassment, conspiracy theories and rigid ideas about gender. Women in public-facing roles—journalists, academics and politicians—reported sustained abuse, including threats and coordinated campaigns designed to silence them. While companies introduced moderation policies and tools, critics said enforcement was inconsistent and often reactive.
Scholars studying digital culture note that some of these online spaces also drew in young men experiencing isolation, economic stress or a lack of social support. In forums centered on grievance-based narratives, participants were sometimes exposed to content that framed women as responsible for personal setbacks. Experts in extremism and online behavior say that, in a subset of cases, these dynamics contributed to the adoption of more rigid and hostile beliefs, with occasional spillover into real-world harassment or violence.
Advocates have argued that responses from the broader women’s rights movement did not always address the full ecosystem driving online misogyny. Efforts frequently focused on protecting targets of abuse—through reporting tools, legal remedies and public awareness—rather than on prevention strategies aimed at reducing recruitment into harmful online communities. Some analysts say that approach left gaps in addressing underlying factors such as loneliness, mental health challenges and limited access to constructive support networks for men and boys.
At the same time, experts caution against framing the issue solely in terms of one movement’s responsibilities. They point to the roles of technology companies, educators, mental health providers and policymakers in shaping online environments and providing early interventions. Initiatives that combine digital literacy, community-based mentorship and accessible counseling services have shown promise in reducing susceptibility to harmful narratives, though they require sustained investment and coordination.
As discussions continue, there is growing emphasis on multi-layered strategies that pair protections for those targeted by abuse with prevention efforts addressing its roots. Researchers highlight the need for clearer platform standards, better data on online harms and partnerships that span sectors. The experience of the 2010s, they say, illustrates the complexity of confronting digital misogyny—and the limits of fragmented responses to a problem that crosses social, technological and institutional boundaries.
Taken together, assessments of the 2010s women’s rights movement point to a decade of visibility and volatility—marked by rapid cultural shifts, but uneven policy gains and coordination challenges. From internal debates over strategy and inclusion to external pressures in courts, legislatures and digital spaces, advocates faced a landscape that often moved faster than institutions could adapt. Analysts say the period underscores how momentum, while powerful, can dissipate without sustained alignment across legal, political and social fronts.
At the same time, researchers caution against viewing the decade solely through the lens of failure. They note that many of the issues brought to the forefront—sexual harassment, pay equity, reproductive autonomy and gender-based violence—now occupy a more central place in public discourse than in previous eras. That visibility has created new entry points for advocacy, even as it has exposed gaps in organization and long-term planning. The challenge ahead, experts say, is translating awareness into durable systems of protection and accountability.
Looking forward, advocates are increasingly focused on building more integrated approaches. In the United States, that includes expanding state-level organizing, strengthening cross-movement coalitions and investing in long-term civic engagement. Internationally, it involves closer collaboration between local groups and global institutions, as well as more consistent funding and shared strategies. The aim, supporters say, is to create a framework capable of responding to both immediate crises and structural inequalities.
Some commentators have turned to historical and cultural narratives to frame the moment. In Greek mythology, the story of Pandora tells of a world released into hardship when a forbidden jar was opened, unleashing suffering and uncertainty. Yet the myth also holds that hope remained inside, offering a counterbalance to despair. For many advocates, the metaphor resonates with a period in which setbacks have been significant, but not definitive.
Across regions, women’s organizations, grassroots networks and community leaders continue to push for change—whether through legal challenges, education initiatives or mutual aid efforts. From local campaigns to expand healthcare access to international movements addressing violence and economic inequality, the work is ongoing. Observers say the path forward will likely be shaped by lessons drawn from the past decade: that progress depends not only on visibility, but on coordination, inclusion and persistence.
Comments