homelessness

President Donald Trump is targeting American history itself in a new push that looks less like patriotism and more like political control.

Trump is specifically targeting the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, or ACHP, which The New Republic's Timothy Noah warns is at work trying to destroy historic preservation of national sites and even Native American tribes.

ACHP regulators deal specifically with Section 106 of the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act, which requires federal agencies to consider how their projects might affect historic places before proceeding. So, if a project could damage or change a historic building, site or landmark, the ACHP steps in and works on ways to reduce harm. Trump, by contrast, wants to make huge changes that forever damage or eliminate historic landmarks, such as his bulldozing of the White House itself.

In his report, Noah said that Trump's ACHP is "reviewing" Section 106. The process of "reviewing" it is further along than Noah said he fully realized.

"Now the ACHP, which is under the firm control of President Donald Trump, has produced a draft notice of proposed rulemaking (text here and here) that would make it significantly easier for Trump 'to fast-track projects that destroy, or cause irreversible damage to, our historic places, with virtually no public oversight,' according to Sara Bronin, who chaired the ACHP under President Joe Biden. The ACHP is expected to publish the notice of proposed rulemaking by the end of this week," Noah wrote.

So far, Trump's plans have involved things like erecting his Arc de Trump, blocking Arlington National Cemetery and building the National Garden of American Heroes in West Potomac Park. However, projects like the East Wing prove he's fully prepared to take a wrecking ball to some of the most important public land in the United States.

"These regulatory changes would be like handing a box of matches to an arsonist," wrote Noah.

Greg Werkheiser, founding partner of Cultural Heritage Partners, told Noah, "We’ve never seen a proposal that would do this much damage to this much of the country’s history in one stroke.”

His group is currently dealing with litigation over Trump’s Kennedy Center overhaul, and Trump's idea to whitewash the grey Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

"Cultural Heritage Partners has set up an online war room to fight against the proposed Section 106 changes," Noah reported.

Bronin said, “I would encourage people not to get distracted by the types of projects that have been in the news, because these changes are geared toward a more systematic overhaul of the process” to “benefit some of the most destructive projects that are in the federal pipeline."

She explained that it isn't merely about building statues of himself in Washington; it's also about oil and mining operations in national parks protected by the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

One case dates back to an effort by former GOP Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who slipped in a provision into a 2014 defense bill that moved an area of Arizona’s Tonto National Forest from ownership of the local indigenous community to an Australian mining company called Resolution Copper. The mining operation would "obliterate" the native community. The one thing standing in its way has been Section 106. However, the use of the term “geographically compact” is now preventing the land from being protected because it's so expansive.

Noah also said that the text claims “noncompact, unimproved natural features such as mountains, valleys, bodies of water or landscapes, including ethnographic landscapes, do not qualify as property for the purposes of section 106.”

It will likely grant Trump the license to dismantle the entire Oak Flat area, known as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel.

“These two words,” Bronin warned, “would greenlight a wave of destruction of our historic and culturally significant properties that we’ve never seen before.”

Donald Trump recently took to his Truth Social platform to celebrate a Supreme Court judgment. In response to the court’s decision in Trump v Slaughter on June 29, he posted: “90 years of precedent has been COMPLETELY AND UNEQUIVOCALLY OVERRULED, greatly increasing Presidential Power at a time when it is most needed!”

With their latest book, Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Australian-American Jonathan Swan have written an “inside-the-beltway” account, as they say in Washington, for political nerds and Trump obsessives. It covers in intricate detail the first year of Trump’s second term in office. And, as one would expect from two journalists of their calibre, it is scrupulously researched and thoroughly sourced.

A newly exposed detail about President Donald Trump's fussy approach to decorating the Oval Office "might, quietly, be among the most telling" things about him, according to a new piece from The i Paper, exposing his half-hearted approach to the presidency.

In the piece, published Tuesday, journalist James Ball highlighted a recent revelation from the book, Regime Change, which explores the turmoil and destruction behind the scenes of Trump's second term. In one earlier chapter, authors Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan revealed that White House staffers would frequently stumble upon the president gluing gold decorations and accents to parts of the Oval Office, an early example of his relentless drive to renovate the building to his own liking.

"Most renovations to a historic building owned by the American people are carefully planned over the course of months, if not years, to make sure they are faithful to its history, use appropriate materials and methods, and are considerate of future occupants," Ball explained. "Trump bothers with none of that. Instead, he does whatever appeals to his taste, such as covering over the Rose Garden with concrete to make a patio, and applying endless ornamentation elsewhere."

Ball argued further that a particular "pattern" can be seen throughout Trump's second term: he becomes impatient with a project or policy and, instead of waiting, barrels ahead with a different, haphazard attempt. Some examples include his alarming acceptance of a new airplane as a gift from Qatar instead of waiting on a new Air Force One model, or his decision to risk his entire tariff agenda on a legally dubious theory instead of waiting for Congress to implement it properly.

As a result, Ball continued, much of Trump's second-term initiatives have come off as slapdash and shoddy, the handiwork of a president "in a hurry."

"Trump’s entire persona was built on the television show The Apprentice, which portrayed him as a CEO who could make huge things happen, whether that was hiring and firing or overseeing major construction projects," Ball wrote. "Instead, America is being left to reckon with a President in a hurry, who seems to cut every corner and half-ass every task, only to be left with a bigger mess than he started with when the bodge job doesn’t work."

He concluded: "Trump’s half-a——d political legacy is becoming impossible for even his supporters to ignore. The MAGA coalition is fracturing as the midterms draw nearer and the search for his successor begins. People living in Trump’s buildings must surely be hoping he was more careful as a construction boss than he has been as a politician."

When Donald Trump narrowly won the 2024 U.S. presidential election, many of the independents who voted for him cited the economy — especially inflation — as a key factor in their decision. Trump, on the campaign trail, promised to lower prices "on Day 1." But one year and a half into his second presidency, inflation is getting worse — not better — according to major economists like Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and the University of Michigan's Justin Wolfers.

Journalist Freddy Gray, writing for the UK-based i Paper, warns that many Americans believe the American Dream is on life support because the United States has become so unaffordable.

"Since COVID-19, inflation has eaten away at the 'American Dream,' and now, even those with good jobs and stable incomes find themselves taking on debt just to cover everyday costs such as putting food on their tables," Gray explains in his i Paper article. "Eating healthily has become financially onerous — the cost of vegetables, for instance, rose 12 per cent last year, tomatoes by 30 per cent in some states. In surveys, Americans report having to scale back on everyday indulgences, such as coffee or snacks, as well as cutting down on online subscriptions, just to afford the cost of more basic living."

Gray continues, "Housing is the greatest burden. Increased mortgage rates and stubbornly high property prices mean that buying a home is, for too many, beyond reach. The rental market is therefore often overcrowded. A typical urban-dwelling U.S. family will spend up to 60 per cent of their income on rent. In pricey San Francisco, the average cost of a two-bed apartment is $5200 (£3,880) a month. Owning and driving a car — that totemic symbol of the American life — is becoming financially difficult, too, especially in metropolitan areas. The costs of insuring, fueling, parking and financing a vehicle have all shot up in recent years. In Florida, partly as a result of extreme weather, car insurance premiums have increased by 75 per cent since 2020 — and in many states, full-coverage for motor vehicles is about twice as expensive as it is in the United Kingdom."

Joel Kotkin, an urban studies specialist at Chapman University in Southern California, argues that the U.S. has become a "neo-feudal" society — which, he warns, "threatens the future of democracy."

Another huge problem for the American Dream, according to Gray, is the high cost of education.

"Traditionally, American families achieved upward social mobility through higher education, or what Americans call college," Gray explains. "Those unable to afford the most elite institutions have long opted for public state universities. Today, however, even a cheaper college costs up to $30,000 (£22,385) per student per year in tuition and board. And it's median earners who find themselves too poor to afford the fees — yet too high-earning to qualify for generous financial aid schemes."

President Donald Trump has become remarkably unpopular with voters across the board since his return to the White House, and according to a USA Today report, he is also "losing his grip" more and more over a critical voting bloc that has backed the GOP for generations.

In a recent episode of USA Today's The Excerpt podcast, host Dana Taylor noted that "Trump has long counted on white working-class and rural voters as one of the most reliable parts of his political base," but they are now beginning to drift away from him, driven by "frustrations over the economy, healthcare, immigration, and the cost of living." Reporter Chris Kenning appeared as a guest to discuss the potential fallout of these voters feeling burned by Trump, but also "not necessarily ready to become Democrats."

"That has been a really important group for a long time," Kenning explained. "And in 2024, two out of three white working-class voters backed him according to some exit polling. And he also won nearly 70 percent of the rural vote that year according to some of that same exit polling. Some people were drawn to vows to kind of reboot the economy post-COVID through bringing back manufacturing and industries like coal and cracking down on illegal immigration."

He continued: "But it's been interesting because there's been a series of polling from a lot of different organizations in recent months that has really shown that disapproval has started to rise among those groups, including reaching some slight majorities. And most of that seems to be driven by economic concerns, but you had a CBS poll in May that found 54 percent of white non-college voters disapproved of his performance, and that was up from 32% in February of 2025. Among rural voters, you had a June Reuters poll that found 48 percent disapproved of Trump, and that was up from 34 percent after he took office. So it's a significant shift that we've seen."

In speaking with voters about their dissatisfaction with Trump, Kenning said that "pocketbook issues" relating to the economy were the "big one" for most of them. Rising gas prices thanks to the war with Iran were one of the biggest pain points, given that people see them every day while driving around, with rising grocery prices also being a leading factor. Housing costs and medical insurance were some of the other affordability issues that voters mentioned, as they felt the impact of Trump's policies "close to home."

All of this distress puts Trump and the GOP in an even worse position than they were in 2018, when they suffered bruising midterm losses to the Democrats.

"[It's] typical that a president's party loses seats in the midterm elections," Kenning added. "I think during Trump's first term, the GOP lost 41 seats in the House but retained the Senate. But in 2018, working-class voters still approved of Trump's economic management by a much bigger margin than they do now. So how that plays out is yet to be seen, but we've seen that some polling suggesting that more people among this group say that they're willing to consider voting for a Democrat, which is still under half, but it's up from the 2018 midterm. So we could see a change. But I think some of the experts I talked to, as you mentioned the stickiness, it's not necessarily that they believe a lot of people are going to suddenly vote Democrat who've been voting Republican. It may just be that people stay home and that could cut into the GOP efforts to maintain their majorities."

In 2024, one of the Trump campaign's most effective lines of attack against Democratic nominee Kamala Harris was, "Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you." The argument was that while Democrats were obsessed with language policing and pronouns, Donald Trump was focused on real issues like inflation, jobs and the high cost of living. And that messaging worked, enabling Trump to pull off a narrow victory.

But 18 months into his second presidency, Trump is suffering from weak approval ratings in poll after poll. Political scientists, interviewed by The New York Times' Thomas Edsall, laid out some of the many reasons for Trump's unpopularity.

Trump's "kiss of death," Edsall argues in a Tuesday column for the Times, ranges from "job losses" and his "imposition of tariffs" to a "record surge in the national debt" and "the economic havoc resulting from his war against Iran."

Matthew Dallek, who teaches political history at George Washington University in Washington, DC, told Edsall, "Governing via conspiracy theories, personal whim and wish-casting, Trump has taken his place as the most consistently inept president of this century. At home and abroad, in many Cabinet and sub-Cabinet agencies, the administration's culture is dominated by incompetence."

Michael Bailey, a political science professor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, cites Trump's refusal to listen to expert advice as a major flaw of his second presidency.

Bailey told Edsall, "Many presidents have made mistakes, but none have made mistakes so cavalierly as President Trump. He makes rash, reckless decisions; at best, they are based on barstool theories of how the world works — and at worst, they are driven by corrupt motives. Since he 'just knows' he is right about how tariffs work, no evidence will sway him. In the short term, the country has been, in many ways, resilient. But he is corroding state capacity, democratic norms and the very sense of a unified nation."

But while Bailey is highly critical of Trump from a policy standpoint, believes that the president is "quite skilled as a political leader" and notes his "hold on the Republican primary electorate."

Donald Moynihan, who teaches public policy at the University of Michigan, told Edsall, "There are three categories of Trump failures: disasters of mismanagement, disasters by design and disasters of greed. What are the achievements of the second Trump presidency thus far? Persistent inflation, sluggish economic growth, an unpopular war, aggressive immigration enforcement that has outraged many and the shredding of the safety net to fund a large tax cut…. Trump no longer feels the need to be bound by precedent, norms or good advice."

Rottinghaus told Edsall, "What's different about Trump is that many of his supporters evaluate him less by traditional policy outcomes and more by whether he's fighting the political and cultural battles they care about. In today's polarized environment, political identity often outweighs measurable policy success or failure…. What distinguishes Trump is his willingness to pursue high-risk, high-visibility policies with relatively little concern for expert consensus or institutional caution. That increases both the potential payoff and the potential for costly failures."

William Allen White changed his mind very publicly. Once an ardent anti-populist — the equivalent of a conservative today — he eventually embraced the progressive cause — more or less a modern political liberal.

What White didn’t do was obscure his identity or opinions. He proudly credited himself as editor and publisher of The Emporia Gazette. His name was emblazoned on dozens of books and on the Gazette masthead besides.

That’s why I find it peculiar to find White misquoted by an anonymous website that long surfaced as the first result of Google searches about the Kansas judicial selection amendment. The “Kansas Information Network” includes no names or email addresses. It offers scant content beyond a lengthy page about potentially voting for state Supreme Court justices.

According to the Secretary of State’s Office, the group behind that website was incorporated in 2025 by Josh Ney, a high-profile lawyer who has represented Republican lawmakers and spoken publicly in support of the amendment. He also incorporated the similarly named “Kansas Information Network Action,” which promoted the other group’s website via Google.

You might know Ney as the “N” of KN Law Group. The “K” was once Ryan Kriegshauser, recently appointed by President Donald Trump as the U.S. attorney for Kansas. Ney served as the state’s securities commissioner under Gov. Sam Brownback and has made his presence felt during the Statehouse session.

All Kansans have the right to speak out on issues of public importance. That’s a good thing.

But with the amendment vote set for Aug. 4 and fundamental rights for Kansans at stake, the anonymity and curious approach of the website leave a sour taste. Republican officials have taken the bait, with Rep. Adam Smith, R-Weskan, citing it as authoritative on Facebook. His post was then reshared by the Cowley County Republican Party.

Ney has been a outspoken advocate of changing the Kansas Supreme Court selection process, as he told the Rotary Club of Wichita on Monday.

“For the for the past 17 years, I’ve been asked to testify at various times as we’ve debated this, whether it’s nominating commission reform, federal model for the court of appeals and ultimately transparency issues with the current system,” he said.

The website doesn’t mention Ney’s role as incorporator, or his continued advocacy. It doesn’t say who created the content or paid for the associated advertising.

What’s in a name?

Let’s sort through this all piece by piece. The title caught my eye first.

“Kansas Information Network” contains three nouns, all of which also appear in the name of an actual state agency: the “Information Network of Kansas.” That group aims “to enable digital access to Kansas state and local government information and services for public use and benefit.”

Kansas Public Radio once hosted its own “Kansas Information Network,” although the project appears not to have published any stories since late 2017.

Neither the state agency nor the public radio project have any connection to the new, amendment-focused, website. Nevertheless, the bland, utilitarian design of its website conveys bored authority. Kansans learning about the amendment debate might confuse the new site for a long-running, authoritative resource.

But there’s more

On its “About” page, the website includes the following misquotation from William Alan White: “The facts are fairly and honestly presented; truth will take care of itself.”

The source of this quote is a memoir by legendary journalist George Seldes titled “Witness to a Century: Encounters with the Noted, the Notorious, and the Three SOBs.” In it, he quotes the Emporia newspaperman as saying: ‘That’s it, that is our formula: ‘The facts fairly and honestly presented; truth will take care of itself.”

You’ll notice that the Kansas Information Network adds an “are” to the quote, presumably for ease of reading. That still makes the quote incorrect. You can also read White’s words each and every day in the Kansas Reflector’s email newsletter. We use the correct version as our motto.

Let’s place quibbles about verbiage aside. The citation of a legendary Kansas journalist and political progressive lends implicit assurances of the website’s handedness. White’s name looms even larger given the surrounding pages’ anonymity.

Perhaps most humorously, the Kansas Information Network includes a page of “Helpful Resources.” It includes the names, numbers and websites of Kansas public officials — with the notable exception of judicial selection amendment supporter and state Attorney General Kris Kobach. Finally, it includes a link the KTWU public TV show “Sunflower Journeys.”

That struck a nerve with me because the producer and host of the show for 27 seasons, Dave Kendall, has written columns for Kansas Reflector. Kendall no longer works for KTWU or the program, but he was surprised and amused to see it mentioned in such a context.

“To me personally, it’s just another laugher and SMH (shaking my head) moment,” he wrote me via email. That being said, he wrote later, “it would be unfortunate for those who see SJ on this list as some sort of stamp of approval.”

I reached out to Ney multiple times for comment on the site and his connection to it. I emailed twice, sent a text message, and left a voicemail. He didn’t respond.

Advocacy for change

Ney’s connections with both organizations has been previously reported.

The Sunflower State Journal’s Brad Cooper wrote about Kansas Information Network Action — and its $264,000 ad buy backing the amendment — on June 15. He noted that Ney had incorporated it.

Former state Rep. Jason Probst, D-Hutchinson, wrote about the website and Ney on a Substack blog entry titled “When Truth isn’t good enough to win…” from July 12. Want to know how the Kansas Information Network misleads? Read this piece. Probst details how a supposedly unbiased information source can manipulate voters.

Ney himself spoke out about the amendment in an interview with KAKE-TV posted June 22 He added his name to an open letter released July 14 from Kansas attorneys supporting the measure. The day before, he commented for a piece by my pal Joel Mathis in the Kansas Leadership Center’s Journal.

He submitted testimony in favor when the amendment was being debated in 2025. All the way back in 2009, he wrote an article titled “Does the Kansas Supreme Court Selection Process Violate the One Person, One Vote Doctrine?” published in the Washburn Law Review.

Most recently, he spoke at the Wichita Rotary event. Over the course of an hour, he offered about as good of a case for changing the Kansas Supreme Court nomination process as I’ve heard.

“In Kansas and in any constitutional republic, do we need an exception to democracy?” he asked the audience. “I think the burden of proof ultimately needs to be on the person who is asking the people to cede their inherent authority to someone else. Another way of asking that is: Are Kansans in 2026 capable of picking their own government?”

With all of this being said, I don’t know why the Kansas Information Network needed to be anonymous.

I might not agree with Ney’s conclusions, but that’s the way our nation’s marketplace of ideas works. His experience with the Kansas legal system makes him a more persuasive messenger than a random website. Nothing prevents the Kansas Information Network from trumpeting Ney’s experience or reprinting that law review piece.

As a longtime tiller in the fields of professional opinion, I don’t understand how someone both wants to passionately express their opinions on one hand and help incorporate a secretive group supporting such opinions on the other.

Perhaps amendment advocates prefer obfuscation.

The misleading rhetoric around the vote suggests as much. Why come out of the shadows when you can instead rely on the goodwill generated by Kansas icons such as William Allen White and durable programs such as “Sunflower Journeys”?

Political operatives can list good reasons to vote for the amendment and good reasons to vote against it. But Kansans should show consistency and moral clarity in identifying themselves in making their cases to the public. It might also help if they refrain from telling total fibs about what passage would mean.

As Ney ended his speech to the Rotary on Monday afternoon, he recommended the audience check Ballotpedia’s summary of the amendment as a worthwhile, unbiased source. For some reason, he didn’t mention the Kansas Information Network.

Clay Wirestone is Kansas Reflector opinion editor. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.

President Donald Trump used a nationally televised address on July 16, 2026, to unveil a collection of declassified documents. He said these documents, which the White House posted online during the address, show serious vulnerabilities in American election systems, extensive Chinese acquisition of U.S. voter data, and an intelligence community effort to suppress reporting on those threats.

A common misconception is that declassification works like a curtain being pulled back: A “Top Secret” marking comes off, and the public sees the truth. In reality, a released record may be raw reporting, a fragment of a communication, a source’s claim or a draft assessment. Each carries a different relationship to reliability and analytic judgment.

I’m an international affairs professor with nearly 30 years of experience in the U.S. intelligence community, including executive roles in the Central Intelligence Agency, National Counterterrorism Center and National Security Agency. I would advise anyone reviewing this release – or any declassified intelligence – to keep one distinction in mind before drawing conclusions: Declassification changes who may see information, but it does not determine whether the information is true, important, current, corroborated or representative of the broader intelligence record.

The archive is not the assessment

The 17th-century French statesman Cardinal Richelieu is commonly credited as saying, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.” It’s an apt warning here – not because intelligence collection is indifferent to truth, but because of what it deliberately preserves.

Intelligence agencies collect widely and retain material across a full spectrum of reliability, including reporting that was later contradicted, downgraded or explicitly discounted, because judging what matters is supposed to happen through analysis over time, not by declining to collect something in the first place.

In my experience, that means the government’s holdings almost certainly contain a report that appears to support nearly any serious allegation someone could make about a public official, a foreign government or a disputed national event – sitting alongside the later reporting and analytic judgment that determined how much weight, if any, it deserved.

Mistaking a document’s existence for proof of its content – without the context of what came after it – is, in my assessment, the most common way declassified material can get misread.

‘Intelligence report’ is misleading

The phrase “intelligence report” adds to the confusion. It is often used as though it describes one kind of document. It does not. A report might be an unevaluated database entry, a clandestine source account, an intercepted communication or a finished assessment such as the President’s Daily Brief. These documents sit at different points in the intelligence cycle: planning, collection, processing, analysis, dissemination and evaluation. Evaluation, though it’s listed as a step in the cycle, is continuous.

A human-source report includes both what a source said and how the intelligence officer handling that source assessed the source’s access, reliability and possible motives. Those judgments help analysts weigh the reporting. They do not make it definitive. A well-placed source can misunderstand what he heard. A generally reliable source can still be wrong.

Signals intelligence can create a different kind of false confidence. Intercepted communications can appear definitive, but a single intercept shows only that something was said. It does not establish that the speaker knew the truth, that the communication was complete or that later reporting supported it.

Finished intelligence exists to weigh those questions. Analysts compare reporting streams, test assumptions, identify gaps, assign confidence levels and state what remains uncertain. Finished products can still be wrong.

This is why intelligence work runs on a cycle, with evaluation happening at every stage, not only at the end. That discipline is what keeps flawed or incomplete information from being mistaken for settled fact.

Material held by agencies such as the CIA spans a wide range of reliability, from raw reporting to finished assessments. Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo

What a declassification review exists to catch

That distinction matters in any declassification, but it becomes especially important when the process is rushed.

Removing a classification marking is only one part of the process. Review also asks what release might expose beyond the text: a human source, collection method, foreign liaison relationship, ongoing operation or analytic context needed to keep the public from being misled.

One document can also involve several agencies. A report about a foreign leader might draw on information from a CIA source, quote communications collected by the National Security Agency and discuss a diplomatic relationship managed by the State Department. Large-scale declassification is therefore normally interagency work, not simply the decision of one office.

The Biden administration’s decision to declassify intelligence on Russian preparations leading up to the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine moved unusually fast by intelligence standards. I was involved in that process while serving at the CIA. But the speed served a specific purpose: warning allies and shaping Russian calculations before an invasion occurred. The review process was compressed, not abandoned.

What to look for once something is released

Readers should ask practical questions when declassified material appears: Is this document raw reporting, an intercept, a source account, a draft or a finished assessment? Was it released with the caveats, later reporting and interagency review needed to judge its weight? If it is being used to challenge an intelligence assessment, does the release show how analysts evaluated that material, what other reporting they weighed and why they accepted or discounted it?

None of these questions requires assuming bad faith. They are the same questions intelligence professionals ask before turning information into judgment. A raw report in a classified system is evidence that something was reported. It is not, by itself, proof that the report was true.

Brian O'Neill, Professor of Practice, International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A new movement, “masculinism”, is uniting the right behind extreme anti-feminist views, chiefly in the United States. It promotes the dominant role of men in society, including the idea that men should dominate women.