There is a need for the firm yet peaceful stand that only we women are capable of taking.
When the world is burning with war fever, it is especially important for us to keep our heads clear and put an end to this madness.
That is why we launched the “Women Against War” petition, and why I encourage everyone to also sign the national petition.
I believe it is crucial that this petition be supported by those who truly feel and understand the weight of what is at stake. And I believe these are especially women, because women have always suffered profoundly in every war. They are the ones who were left alone with the children. Or they were the ones who had to care for a husband or father returning home whom they barely recognized anymore, because he was no longer the same person.
Women have borne this burden very deeply, and precisely for this reason, I believe women know exactly how high the stakes are in this moment. That is why we call on and welcome every woman—young women, mothers, grandmothers, and even those who do not have children but understand that the lives of future generations may depend on the coming years, and on our decisions—to stand up for peace.
Because I believe that when women raise their voices and stand together, it carries weight. We can speak in a different way—often differently than men—and I believe there is a real need for that firm, confident, peaceful female stance that only we are able to represent.
🧠 WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING?
This statement is not anti-war policy, but
👉 an emotional legitimation operation, whose purpose is
to place a specific political direction in a position of moral superiority, wrapped in criticism-proof language.
The speaker: Szentkirályi Alexandra
🔴 1️⃣ “Women for peace” = moral appropriation
“…that firm, peaceful stand that only we women are capable of.”
👉 Technique: moral gatekeeping
Peace is framed not as a shared human concern, but as a “female monopoly.”
📌 Consequences:
- those who don’t join → morally suspicious
- those who ask questions → “don’t understand what’s at stake”
- those who are men → inherently less credible
This is exclusion, not community-building.
🔴 2️⃣ Instrumentalization of historical trauma
“…women have always suffered in wars… left alone with the children… the husband is no longer the same person…”
👉 Technique: trauma framing
❌ What’s missing:
- a specific war
- a specific decision
- specific responsibility
🎯 Effect:
The listener doesn’t think, but instead
➡️ identifies + feels fear + experiences a sense of moral obligation.
🔴 3️⃣ “We women” vs. “them” – identity as a weapon
“We can speak differently than men…”
👉 Technique: identity polarization
This is not equality, but:
- a gender-based moral hierarchy
- a political stance tied to biological roles
📌 Implicit message:
“Any woman who is not with us is betraying her own gender.”
🔴 4️⃣ The “petition” as an emotional filter
“…those should sign it who truly feel and understand its weight…”
👉 Technique: emotional filtering
This is not an invitation to participate, but:
- prior moral qualification
- a loyalty test
❗ The petition is not a tool, but an identity badge.
🔴 5️⃣ Peace rhetoric, war logic
Paradox:
- “peace”
- “unity”
- “firm stand”
⬇️
In reality:
- exclusivity of a single narrative
- delegitimization of criticism
- emotional pressure
This is not a culture of peace, but emotional mobilization.
🎯 SUMMARY – WHAT IS THIS IN ONE SENTENCE?
This is not the liberation of women, but:
the use of female identity as a political shield
to render a specific narrative
morally untouchable.