The question isn’t why young women are “angry.” It’s why their autonomy is being positioned as a political problem, one that is increasingly tied to immigration, birth rates, and national identity, and used to justify a broader rollback of rights.

A familiar right-wing trope has resurfaced.  

“Forget the manosphere. It’s angry Leftie women we need to worry about,” declared a recent Telegraph headline, warning that young women “radicalised” by figures like Greta Thunberg are rejecting marriage, capitalism, and social norms altogether.

And to make matters even worse, it came not from an aggrieved male, railing against feminism, but from a woman – Rowan Pelling, a journalist long preoccupied with what she sees as the excesses of modern feminism. This isn’t new territory for Pelling. As far back as 2004, she was wailing about the “angry clamour” of politically engaged women and mocking feminist demands as trivial irritations.

What she presents as a cultural gripe about “angry Leftie women” is part of a broader political project. Across the UK, US, and Europe, narratives about declining birth rates, feminism, and “cultural decay” are tied with anti-immigration rhetoric, pro-natalist policy agendas, and opposition to LGBTQ+ rights. They form an ideological ecosystem in which women’s autonomy, migration, and social liberalism are framed as interconnected threats to national identity and stability.

An utterly bizarre comparison

At the centre of Pelling’s argument, is a claim that for every young man radicalised by figures such as Andrew Tate or Charlie Kirk, there is a young woman being similarly radicalised by Greta Thunberg.

This comparison simply doesn’t hold up. Tate is a self-described misogynist influencer who promotes an ultra-masculine, capitalistic lifestyle, and rigid gender hierarchies. He has also faced serious criminal charges, including rape and human trafficking.

Greta Thunberg is an environmental activist whose message centres on climate science, collective responsibility, and political accountability. Her advocacy is rooted in widely accepted scientific consensus rather than a worldview built on gendered power.

What gets ignored

Pelling’s framing also sidesteps context. Concerns about the “manosphere” aren’t abstract, they are tied to measurable harms, including rising levels of violence against women and girls in the UK, described by the government as a “national emergency.”

Redirecting scrutiny towards environmentally engaged young women risks trivialising a growing problem.

Even Pelling’s appeal to motherhood and concern for her sons, and her dig at programmes like Louis Theroux’s Inside the Manosphere, which she says focus on problematic men while ignoring the ‘femosphere,’ feel misplaced, even perverse.

Programmes like Theroux’s arguably help equip young men with the awareness to recognise and reject toxic behaviour. As a mother of sons myself, I’m glad my boys have watched Theroux’s episode on the manosphere, for exactly those reasons.

The rise of the ‘womansphere’ and its business model

But perhaps even more revealing is how this narrative fits into a broader trend, the rise of a conservative ‘womansphere.’

Across the US and beyond, female-led platforms, including podcasts, lifestyle brands, and influencer channels, are building large audiences by promoting traditional gender roles that embrace domesticity and submission, under the guise of empowerment.

But this isn’t just ideology, it’s also commerce.

These platforms monetise discontent, through sponsorships, subscriptions, branded content, and speaking events. The ‘trad wife’ aesthetic, apron-clad domestic bliss, large families, and cheerful submission, is packaged as a lifestyle product, making outrage at feminism a revenue stream.

There’s an obvious irony. The same voices decrying feminism are profiting from freedoms, economic, social, digital, that feminism helped secure.

Old playbooks, new platforms

None of this is entirely new. The playbook echoes earlier anti-feminist campaigns led by figures like US conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, who deeply opposed feminism, gay rights, and abortion. In the 1970s, Schlafly mobilised opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, arguing that feminism would make women unhappy and dismantle the family.

What has changed is the scale and sophistication of the delivery. Social media has transformed these ideas into content ecosystems, where backlash isn’t just cultural, but commercial.

When the narrative lands in UK politics

This ‘panic’ is no longer confined to the US and is becoming increasingly visible in the UK.

At events like the National Conservatism Conference, concerns about falling birth rates and “cultural decline” are regularly linked to critiques of feminism and calls for a return to traditional family structures.

Figures like former Tory MP and now GB News’ host Miriam Cates have framed low birth rates as an “existential crisis,” attributing them to cultural forces undermining traditional values. Cates has also tied falling birthrates to immigration.

“Mass immigration has had significant negative effects on our culture and economy, and represents a huge failure of democracy, given that the British population has voted consistently for lower levels of immigration,” she told GB News.

“But one of the main drivers for importing migrants has been chronic low birth rates, which have led to a shortage of young workers in our labour force.”

Similarly, figures such as Jacob Rees-Mogg have emphasised the need for higher birth rates, tied to cultural preservation or national identity. Nobody could accuse Rees-Mogg of not practising what he preaches with his six children with their ‘heritage’ type names.

Reform UK

Nowhere is this narrative clearer than in Reform UK. Not only does the party present itself as a defender of freedom while echoing MAGA-style cultural politics, but it hypocritically portrays itself as the ‘defenders of women’ against immigrants and other perceived outsiders.  

But as the Good Law Project observes: “Reform UK is spreading racist lies, claiming migrants are a threat to women. There’s no credible evidence to support these claims – it’s just a cheap political ploy to sow division and stoke fear.”

Meanwhile, Nigel Farage has called for a “180-degree shift” to reverse the declining birth rate. Addressing a global gathering of right-wing activists in London last year, he also praised “our Judeo-Christian culture.”

Historically, “Judeo-Christian” as a term, emerged in the 1930s and ‘40s to unite Jewish and Christian communities against fascism and the appropriation of “Christian values.” But in more recent decades, it has been repurposed.

Today, it is often deployed for a particular vision of European identity. Critics argue it masks older prejudices, positioning certain groups as outside a supposedly shared heritage and is often used by the far-right to promote white identity. 

As the European Society notes, the term is used in ways that are “hypocritical” and “dismissive of Jews… and frequently used to exclude and demonise Muslims as part of a broader shift from overt anti-semitism to overt islamophobia.”

From ‘family values’ to policy influence

Such ideological framing becomes more concrete when you look at figures within Reform’s orbit, such as James Orr, the party’s head of policy. In March, Orr spoke at CPAC Hungary, a political festival closely associated with Donald Trump’s MAGA movement. There he shared the stage with the white nationalist Estonian politician Martin Helme, leader of the far-right Conservative People’s Party.

Helme has expressed radical, anti-migrant views. In 2013, he said his immigration policy was “If you’re black, go back,” adding: “I want Estonia to be a white country.” He has also faced accusations of misogyny and sexist behaviour, with critics accusing his nationalist, far-right party of using offensive language targeting female politicians. As well as opposing LGBTQ+ rights, framing them as “propaganda,” Helme promotes policies aimed at boosting birth rates, which are often aligned with encouraging traditional gender roles.

Similarly James Orr is known for his anti-migrant views, having described asylum seekers as “invaders.” At the 2026 CPAC Hungary conference, he stated that Reform UK’s policy should not only stop mass migration but also focus on how to “reverse it.” Orr advocates for “pro-natalist public policy” to address what he views as a critical decline in birth rates. He is also known for his strict anti-abortion position, having previously described UK abortion laws as “extreme.” He argues against termination of pregnancy in all circumstances, including cases of rape, incest and serious risk to health.

Just this week, a Reform candidate in Wales, stunned a husting by claiming women should stay at home to care for children rather than work. So much for Nigel Farage’s promise of “beefed-up” vetting, as candidates with openly regressive views are still slipping through.

Positions like these suggest rights are not settled freedoms, but open to challenge and reversal.

Following the money and the networks

The UK is part of a wider, well-funded international network pushing similar ideas. Campaign groups, legal organisations, and advocacy bodies, often with roots in the United States, are investing significant resources into reshaping the conversation around reproductive rights.

One example is ADF International, whose UK arm has received some £3.4m in funding since 2019 and spent nearly £3.2m, according to Charity Commission filings. Its stated mission is to promote “Christian principles and ethics,” but in practice this has meant backing legal arguments and campaigns that challenge abortion access and reinforce traditional gender roles.

As Kerry Abel of Abortion Rights has warned : “The fact that anti-abortion MPs and ex-MPs are flocking to Reform is deeply worrying. This is not about being ‘pro-family’ – it is about stripping women of their rights and rolling back decades of progress”.

What the ‘angry Leftie women’ panic is really about

The backlash against “angry Leftie women” isn’t really about attitudes, or even generational divides. It reflects a deeper political anxiety about shifting demographics, changing gender roles, and the erosion of traditional hierarchies.

The question isn’t why young women are “angry.” It’s why their autonomy is being positioned as a political problem, one that is increasingly tied to immigration, birth rates, and national identity, and used to justify a broader rollback of rights.

Because ultimately, this isn’t a crisis caused by women stepping out of line. It’s a reaction to the fact that they no longer feel obliged to stay in it.

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

Comments are closed.