Every first Saturday of the month, groups of men kneel in Croatian city squares to pray for women to dress modestly and for men to reclaim spiritual authority in the family. Croatian feminist collective fAKTIV says the prayer vigils have meagre public support but warns they are part of a broader backlash against women's rights across Europe. We spoke with them after their traditional Night March for 8 March about the wider pressures shaping women’s lives in Croatia and Europe: from work and poverty to reproductive rights, violence, and the rise of the far right.

The 10th Night March for 8 March, organised by fAKTIV, gathered 12,000 people ─ the largest turnout so far. Under what slogan was it held and what were its main messages?

The 10th Night March was held under the slogan 'Women – the Backbone of Resistance.' We know that women carry a double burden on their backs — we are the backbone of society, but also of resistance. We are burdened by overtime and unpaid work, the kind often described as a labour of love because it involves caring for family and loved ones, housework, and emotional care.

The same applies during official working hours: women uphold the last pillars of the welfare state. They make up the majority of the workforce in public services, and social protection has a female face. All of these systems are underpaid and understaffed.

In such conditions, in a system that neither cares for nor protects women, we become the backbone of resistance because we have no other choice. That is why we marched ─ to show that the system cannot break women’s solidarity, whether it means naming violence, standing with women workers whose employers and the state have owed them wages for decades, protecting a neighbour from an abuser, defending nature from investors and destruction, or taking a friend to a neighbouring country because she cannot obtain an abortion in her own country, where that right is guaranteed by law.

How do you interpret such a large turnout — does it reflect a growing sense that women’s rights are under threat, or greater mobilisation and awareness in society? How do you assess the state of gender equality in Croatia and Europe today?

Thanks to continuous work and collective organising, for years around ten thousand people have marched through Zagreb on 8 March. This year there were more than 12,000 of us. We consider our greatest achievement to be the people who march, drum and sing with us, paint banners and volunteer as stewards. We brought the International Women’s Day, historically a day of workers' struggle, back to the streets, back to the people, where it belongs. These are some of the reasons why people march.

At the same time, we live in a country where most salaries do not last until the end of the month. Public healthcare is underfunded, and social services such as kindergartens and homes for the elderly remain a privilege of larger cities. In Croatia in 2026 abortion is still most often spoken about in whispers, as if we were discussing a crime rather than healthcare. At the same time, organisations that want to ban abortion are announcing the formation of a new political party.

The new Minister of Labour is advocating raising the retirement age to 67 or even higher. In just one year, Varteks, the clothing manufacturer, has sold off its properties; Nama, the department store chain, has closed its doors; production has stopped at Gredelj, the railway rolling-stock factory; Alpina, the footwear manufacturer, has shut down its plants; the paper factory in Belišće has closed; and Benetton has left its factory in Osijek. Violence has become part of everyday life, and the number of people targeted by violence continues to grow. These, too, are reasons for marching.

Finally, we march to celebrate those who refuse to bend their backs. This year saw the first strike of foreign workers in Croatia. Women workers at the Croatian supermarket chain Plodine have refused to leave their union despite threats of dismissal. Across Europe we are witnessing the largest labour mobilisations in years, while antifascist and antimilitarist voices are growing stronger.

Every first Saturday of the month, men gather in Zagreb’s main square to kneel and pray for women to dress modestly and to ask for guidance for men to become the spiritual authority in the family. How do you interpret this phenomenon? Do you see it as folklore, a local religious movement, or a dangerous political gesture with wider social consequences? 

The men taking part in the so-called prayer vigils are in fact advocates for banning abortion and divorce, for women’s submissiveness and their return to the four walls of the household. They claim that our confidence threatens their masculinity simply because we dare to walk freely through the streets and demand our rights and equality.

They began their mission by kneeling in Zagreb’s main square and have since spread to other cities. Their expansion and persistence are not surprising – this is a carefully designed movement that seeks to impose its views as social and legal norms. Financially secure and internationally connected, they import ideas from abroad and attempt to implement them in Croatia.

What their vision of society looks like can be seen in the example of Poland and the way the country has treated women in recent years. Abortion is banned, and in 2026 women are dying in agony as a result. At the same time, activists fighting for safe and accessible abortion are facing criminal prosecution.

The men taking part in the prayer vigils also clearly do not see gender-based violence as a problem, since they advocate pushing women back into the private sphere of the household. That means returning women to economic dependence on men, one of the main obstacles faced by women who want to leave abusive partners.

Of course they are dangerous, and we are already paying the price. In many countries this movement has entered the mainstream of the Catholic Church and official politics. Nevertheless, there is no ultraconservative movement that faces stronger public condemnation: on several occasions more than 70 percent of Croatian citizens have clearly shown they do not support either their politics or their messages.

Croatia introduced femicide as a specific criminal offence in 2024 (only four other countries treat the murder of a woman as a separate crime), punishable by 10 to 40 years in prison. Yet Croatia ranks third in the EU in the number of femicides. How do you explain this, and can the new law bring change?

At the 10th Night March, we asked precisely these questions: how many more generations must grow up in fear before physical and psychological abuse of women becomes a thing of the past? How many more decades must we fight before gender-based violence becomes history?

In the ten years we have been marching, numerous laws have been adopted, strategies written and conventions ratified. Thanks to women who shoulder the burden and tirelessly remind the system that inaction endangers women’s health and lives, penalties are stricter today, and protocols and shelters exist. But the reality remains thousands of reports of domestic violence every year, rising numbers of rapes, women threatened by those closest to them, and women killed by husbands, fathers, sons and former partners.

Femicide is the tragically predictable outcome of previously reported violence. The warning signs are there, the regulations and policies exist, yet the system fails and protection never comes.

Hatred, violence and abuse are not isolated incidents or moments of weakness; they form a structure that sustains male power and female subordination. It protects the privileged while leaving women and others on the margins to fend for themselves.

You also described the Night March as a struggle against fascism. What developments or processes lead you to believe that society is becoming fascist, and how do such tendencies affect gender equality?

Of course the Night March, as the largest feminist protest in the country, will explicitly address fascist threats in society and criticise a system that does nothing to stop them. Just as there is no antifascism without a struggle against capitalism, there is no feminism without a struggle against fascism. In Croatia we can no longer speak of occasional fascist outbursts; this is a continuous process that is becoming more widespread and more dangerous.

Hatred in public space and the media has become normalised. Public discourse is filled with disinformation and inciting lies, while the number of those suffering the consequences continues to grow. Foreign workers are attacked both in the Croatian Parliament and on the streets. Hatred towards Serbs is spreading, while transgender people are denied the right to exist.

Naturally, feminism and women’s rights are a thorn in the side of the political right. But as we said at last year’s Night March: feminism has no borders. There is no stronger, louder or more determined political force than women who refuse to remain silent in the face of violence, who refuse to bow down, who refuse to return to kitchens and church pews, and who defend their legally guaranteed right to abortion and stand in solidarity with those most vulnerable.

fAKTIV is a feminist collective based in Croatia fighting for women’s labour and social rights, advocating for reproductive and sexual rights, and against gender-based violence.

EESC's Civil Society Week – a living forum of democratic participation

Focus on Women's Rights:

• EESC marks the International Women's Day by championing women's voices
• Misogyny in the service of Russian imperialism, by Finnish writer Sofi Oksanen
• Women are the backbone of resistance, by Croatian feminist collective fAKTIV
• Equality means having a seat at the table where decisions are made, by The Brussels Binder
• Women in politics and the new frontline of online hate, by gender equality expert Barbara Helfferich

Hanna Liubakova, an independent Belarusian journalist in exile, is calling for a solidarity campaign to free her compatriot, journalist Katsiaryna Andreyeva, who is currently serving an eight-year sentence for livestreaming the government crackdown on peaceful demonstrations in Minsk in 2020.

'My brilliant friend and colleague Katsiaryna Andreyeva is still imprisoned. Her crime was telling the truth. I am asking for a campaign of solidarity to secure her release,' Ms Liubakova said in a video testimony, published by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC).

The Polish-Belarus film 'Under the Grey Sky', which had been screened at the EESC and featured in EESC Info, is inspired by Ms Andreyeva's story. A journalist with Belsat TV, she was initially given seven days of administrative detention on accusations of ‘organising riots and disrupting public transport’. It later became an eight-year prison sentence for high treason.

Ms Liubakova was one of the speakers at the EESC's conference Challenges for Women in Media – supporting and hindering factors, organised for International Women's Day 2026, where she flagged the risks faced by women journalists in exile and under authoritarian regimes. 

Herself sentenced to ten years in absentia for so-called extremism, she is on a wanted list in Russia and across CIS countries. 

'In reality, my crime was journalism. This is what transnational repression looks like,' she said.

For years, Alexander Lukashenko's regime has been one of the world's top jailers of women journalists, not a ranking any country should be proud of, Ms Liubakova said. 'For women journalists, repression has an extra layer: threats, pressure on families and attempts to discredit us as 'bad women', not just professionals.'

Twenty-eight journalists remain behind bars in Belarus, a country where independent media are treated as enemies. 

'This is because information is critical infrastructure – it determines whether society can resist propaganda and authoritarian control,' Ms Liubakova said. 

'Supporting independent media is not a charity. It is an investment in Europe's democratic resilience,' she concluded. 

You can watch the video here.

The 2026 Civil Society Week under the theme ‘People, Democracy, Resilience – Our Future’ was organised by the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) from 2-5 March. Together with the European Citizens' Initiative, the event fostered citizen participation, underscoring its significance in safeguarding European democracy and civil society. The week concluded with the achievement of an important milestone. The stage is now set for the EESC to take part in the Commission's Civil Society Platform and host its annual summit. 

The third edition of the Civil Society Week brought together more than 1 400 participants, including youth organisations, activists, organised civil society representatives from across Europe, journalists and EU policymakers. During Civil Society Week, 36 civil society organisations and more than 90 speakers were present, turning the event into a dynamic forum where participants met to network, reflect and exchange ideas on issues that directly affect people’s everyday lives.

The event was launched on Monday, 2 March with an opening session featuring Séamus Boland, EESC President, and DrKatherine Zappone, former Irish Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Mr Boland highlighted the importance of the event as a practical demonstration of why EU institutions, social partners and civil society organisations must work together. 

Throughout the week, dynamic sessions, packed discussions and strong audience engagement illustrated the growing momentum of organised civil society in Europe. More than a conference, Civil Society Week once again proved to be a living laboratory of democratic participation — a space where cooperation, shared responsibility and collective commitment to Europe’s future were not just discussed but put into practice.

The European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection, Michael McGrath, commended the EESC on its work as a vital link between EU institutions and civil society, describing civil society organisations as 'the watchdog of our democracy'. He noted that the EESC is already participating in the Civil Society Platform's Steering Group, with the first workshop already having taken place.

He also reiterated the European Commission’s commitment to deepening cooperation with civil society organisations and the EESC by actively involving them in the development of the Civil Society Platform.

The European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) took centre stage on the second day of the Civil Society Week on 3 March. After 14 successful years, the ECI has proven that it is no longer an experiment. With four initiatives surpassing the one-million-signature threshold in 2025, the ECI carries institutional responsibility. 

‘What was once an ambitious and novel idea has since evolved into a unique cross-border tool for participatory democracy’, said EESC member Maria del Carmen Barrera Chamorro, Chair of the EESC’s Group on the European Citizens’ Initiative.

Ten ECI initiatives were presented on ECI Day, including ‘Ban on conversion practices in the EU’, ‘Stop Destroying Videogames’, ‘Ethics, transparency and integrity for European political parties’, and ‘My Voice My Choice’.

Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Interinstitutional Relations and Transparency, underlined the dynamics of the ECI and its momentum. ‘The European Citizens’ Initiative allows people across our Member States to remain actively engaged with EU policies – and its numbers underline the popularity of this agenda-setting tool’, he said

Concluding the Civil Society Week, EESC President, said: 'I am immensely proud of what we have achieved together. We created a living forum – a powerful demonstration of collaboration, commitment and shared responsibility. Europe’s successful democratic future depends on this work, and I look forward to building on these efforts this year, in particular as we join the Civil Society Platform and its Steering Group and host the annual summit.'

The insights and recommendations gathered during the Civil Society Week contributed to the conclusions: Next steps for a democratic and resilient future – delivering together a Union of opportunities, security and resilience, presented at the EESC March plenary session.

The key messages emerging from four days of exchanges centred on the following European Commission’s key priorities:

• Supporting people and strengthening our societies.

• Protecting our democracy and upholding our values;

• Delivering together and preparing our Union for the future.

Those are to be achieved through citizenship education, strengthening social cohesion and affordable housing; building an enabling environment for civil society and democratic resilience, civic engagement through ECIs, completing the European Democracy Shield, building a functioning Civil Society Platform as a key element of the implementation of the ‘EU Strategy for Civil Society' and media and digital resilience for safeguarding democracy. Preparing the EU for the future should include allocation of sufficient funds for civic space, supporting volunteering and investing in social spending and promoting social economy.

The conclusions will feed EESC's debates and opinions and will be presented to EU institutions. (at)

Posts with non-consensual sexualised images are mushrooming across the internet, targeting women in more than 90% of cases. Although EU law clearly defines the sharing of such images as violence, the implementation of the AI Act and other rules is stalling amid a broader deregulatory mood in Europe, Oliver Marsh of digital rights watchdog AlgorithmWatch tells EESC Info.

# The rise of generative AI has made it easier than ever to create non-consensual sexualised images. How significant is this problem today in Europe, and who tends to be most affected?

It is hard to estimate the exact scale of the problem, but it is clearly significant.  For example, various research has found thousands of ads on Meta platforms (Indicator Media) and tens of thousands of sexualising posts produced by the Grok chatbot (AI Forensics) ─ potentially even millions (CCDH) ─ appearing in a matter of months.  And this is based on research into publicly accessible material ─ we do not know how much is being shared privately, for example schoolboys sharing modified images of their classmates (AlgorithmWatch) .  Regarding who is most affected, different research projects find that the subjects are usually women, whether in 80% or as high as more than 90% of the cases (AI Forensics, French Foreign Ministry).

#These images are often described as a new form of digital gender-based violence. What are the real-world consequences for victims, particularly women and girls?

 The EU has explicitly included non-consensual sharing of intimate images as a form of violence in its Directive of 14 May 2024 on combating violence against women and domestic violence .  This is important in terms of using the Digital Services Act to address the problem (see below), as the rules there are explicitly supposed to address gender-based violence as an example of systemic risk ─ and the EU is clear that non-consensual sharing of intimate images is violence under its terms. 

 I may not have the expertise to add much beyond what is available online about how this affects victims, but a point that is commonly noted is that just because the images aren't real does not make them less traumatic.  Our Journalism Fellow Ana Ornelas has worked on this topic, I believe, including in discussions such as this for Media Diversity.  We should also consider how this is another threat against women doing activities which require a public profile, such as running for elected office.  Though people are also subjected to this even without a public profile, e.g. by people they know, as mentioned in the AlgorithmWatch link above.

#From your research, what role do online platforms and algorithmic systems play in amplifying or enabling this type of abuse?

A lot of these images, and the apps or websites which can create them, are shared via platforms such as Discord and Telegram (Wired, Graphika). There are also Reddit forums in which people share tips, such as how to 'jailbreak' popular AI tools to get them to make sexualised images (Guardian). Very large platforms such as X, Meta, and app stores can spread these to very wide audiences, including via ads. Such platforms can and should use moderation ─  both algorithmic and human ─ to find and remove the accounts doing this (Indicator). Some are better than others. From our research, we see that X, for example, does not even remove some clear and easy-to-find examples of accounts that help people make non-consensual nude images. Grok is an extreme example of how bad the problem is on X, but the problem goes well beyond Grok (AlgorithmWatch).

#The EU has recently adopted major digital regulations such as the Digital Services Act and the AI Act. In your view, will these frameworks be sufficient to address this issue, or do important gaps remain?

In theory, they provide a series of tools to (i) make companies conduct risk assessments and (ii) provide data and reporting options for external parties to identify when platforms fail to mitigate risks properly.  The DSA could help ensure large platforms and search engines take measures to mitigate the spread of such images (and when it relates to illegal imagery, on other platforms too).  The AI Act could potentially help address the creation and deployment of the tools themselves.  For example, so far the EU Commission's response to the Grok case earlier this year was to say they are 'looking very seriously into this matter' and to announce further investigations. This is completely insufficient for such a serious failure by X. Also, together with others, we were highlighting the issue of non-consensual nudity on X, and other platforms, for months before the Grok case. Implementation of the AI Act is being snarled up in a general deregulatory mood in Europe, exemplified in debates around the Digital Omnibus.

#What role can civil society organisations play in protecting victims and pushing for stronger accountability from platforms and technology developers?

Despite how serious this problem is, there are still forces slowing regulation.  Companies argue that forcing them to put safeguards in place holds back the development of their technologies. Many politicians and administrations in Europe are swayed by these arguments and are worried that Europe will 'fall behind' in AI if they try to regulate it too much. Civil society can be a counterweight to these arguments ─ albeit far less well-resourced than technology companies ─ and speak up against the harms when companies are not held accountable, ensuring that politicians and regulators actually stand by their statements that non-consensual sexualisation is a horror that must be strongly addressed.

Dr Oliver Marsh is head of Tech Research at AlgorithmWatch, where he leads research work and partnerships on policy areas including the Digital Services Act and the AI Act. He previously worked on platform and data governance as an official in Downing Street in the UK, and as an analyst of online harms for CASM Technology, The Institute for Strategic Dialogue and Demos. 

AlgorithmWatch is a Berlin and Zurich based NGO whose mission is to ensure that algorithms and AI strengthen justice, human rights, democracy and sustainability instead of authoritarianism.

19-20 March 2026

Your Europe, Your Say! 2026

8 April 2026

Macroeconomic implications of the conflict in Iran

11 June 2026

Conference on delivering intergenerational solidarity

17-18 June 2026

EESC plenary session

In her acclaimed book-length essay, Same River, Twice: Putin's War on Women, the award-winning Finnish-Estonian writer Sofi Oksanen warns that misogyny is a foundation of state power in Russia, where traditional values are used to silence women and domestic violence legalisation has been relaxed. However, its goals are much broader: its international aim is to offer empathy and a spiritual haven for authoritarian rulers and misogynists around the world, threatening the rights of women and minorities globally. In Ukraine, misogyny is an instrument of war, and sexual violence perpetrated by Russian soldiers has genocidal intent, Sofi Oksanen tells EESC Info.

Same River, Twice intertwines your family’s history with a century‑long pattern of Russian aggression toward women. How does this personal historical lens help us understand the continuity of misogynistic state violence, and what responsibilities do you think the international community bears in confronting this legacy?

One thing is that I took seriously the changes in Russian legislation, for instance. At the same time, it seems not even Russians themselves really understood them, and many were confused, but that was exactly the point. 

For instance, the gay propaganda laws and foreign agent laws: they are all rather vague, and I remember many people in the West even laughing at them, because they were so weird.

Even Western media seemed to consider them somehow toothless. But these laws did not precisely define what could be said or shown. That was precisely why they were effective: the possibility of arbitrariness was part of their mechanism. If the authorities wished, they could use the law against virtually anyone. For the LGBTQ+ community, the law signalled that visibility was a risk. And when the visibility of a certain group becomes a risk, the next step is to broaden this practice to another group. And another group. And another group. 

The oppression of sexual and gender minorities must be seen as part of a broader whole. It is not merely a matter of the mistreatment of particular groups of people, but of humanity as such. Throughout history, persecution has first targeted the most vulnerable group. The repression has then been expanded until it has come to affect all citizens. 

When the legal protection of Russian women was relaxed, others in the West, I guess, thought it didn't concern them. 

When they started to hail Stalin as a great leader, others in the West, I guess, thought it didn't concern them. 

When they started to distort history, others in the West thought it didn't concern them. 

Until it did. 

To me, all this also tells us that in the West, Soviet history is not well enough known.  Or what would the West have said if Germany had suddenly had a leader with a Gestapo-background? 

Yet, it was totally fine that the Russian Federation suddenly had a KGB man as president. 

The only way to stop this tradition of violence is to stop Russia's impunity.

At present, 'peace talks' don't really touch much on this issue. 

If that is the case, sustainable peace is just a dream. 

Your essay argues that misogyny is a core pillar of Putin’s regime. Could you walk us through how this misogyny is woven into the state’s ideology and institutions, and give concrete examples of how it shapes policy and propaganda?

Russia is not alone in its misogynistic project: its international aim is to offer empathy and a spiritual haven for authoritarian rulers and misogynists of the world. Even in the most egalitarian democracies, there is misogyny, homophobia and racism. Russia empowers and supports those who hold these opinions, incubating like-minded communities abroad. So, this is its aim on the international scene, and this is a key component of its foreign policy.

The Soviet Union had an ideology to export and expand its influence abroad. Communist ideology might sound attractive on paper. But now Russia is in a different position, and it has understood that misogyny is, for them, a good export product. In domestic politics, the very same misogyny is used to keep women out of positions of power (see more below). 

In 2017, domestic violence was essentially legalised when the legislation addressing it was relaxed.

The Orthodox Church has campaigned strongly for these amendments. 

Patriarch Kirill has declared that the criminalisation of domestic violence was a foreign invention. 

And then there is the education system supporting the gender roles and ideas blessed by the Kremlin. 

The foreign agent law is another instrument, branding NGOs, human rights organisations and women's rights organisations as unpatriotic foreign agents. 

All this sends a clear message about what a proper patriot looks like: a victim-shaming bully. 

In Ukraine, misogyny is an instrument of war, colonisation, and imperial aims. It's a cheap weapon, and efficient. 

In what ways does the targeting of women reinforce Putin’s consolidation of power domestically?

It keeps women out of all the places where there's power. It makes sure women stay out of politics, economic power and public forums in general. The only women who are allowed to enter the public sphere are the ones supporting Putin's regime, like Maria Lvova-Belova, who is in charge of deporting Ukrainian children to Russia and their naturalisation as Russians. 

In general, studies show that online hate speech targeting women makes women more hesitant to enter public discussions. In Finland, studies have shown that online hate speech already makes women less willing to enter local politics, jobs related to legislation, journalism and so on. If this is the effect of gendered hate speech in Finland, one of the most gender-equal countries in the world, what is the impact on a country where gender equality as such is considered a Western export product, corrupting Russian values? 

The gender roles supported by the Kremlin in Russia are based on patriotic, military thinking, where women are supposed to stay at home and deliver babies. 

At the same time, Western leaders are targeted by very misogynistic disinformation campaigns: in the Russian public sphere there's no space for positive female role models supporting gender equality. 

You describe the sexual violence perpetrated by Russian forces as a ‘systemic and genocidal’ tactic. How does the regime deliberately employ rape and other gender‑based crimes to achieve military and political objectives, and what impact does this have on Ukrainian communities?

What we know from previous wars is that the better command responsibility an army has, the better it is for women, or civilians in general. So, not all armed forces rape and torture civilians - they will not do it if they are not allowed to, or if there's punishment for these actions. 

In the Russian army, there's a tradition encouraging looting, torture and sexual violence targeting civilians. If previous generations have never been held accountable for these crimes, how could the present generation even think they could be held responsible for them? 

Over 90 percent of Ukrainian prisoners (including civilians) are tortured in Russian captivity. The methods used keep repeating the same patterns and tools, they seem to be especially keen on torture with electricity, and the same methods are used against women and men alike. Torturing genitals is common. 

Rape is genocidal when you can show genocidal intent and motivation: castration is quite clearly genocidal. If you harm someone's genitals in a way that might affect their ability to have children, it's genocidal. Many witness testimonies describe how Russian soldiers comment on their sexual violence by saying sentences like: 'We'll rape you until you don't want to have sex with Ukrainian men anymore', or 'You won't be able to bear more Ukrainian babies into this world', and so on. 

The main goal of the Kremlin is to destroy Ukraine as a nation, and a nation is destroyed by destroying communities and families, and that is exactly what sexual violence does. 

Sexual violence can also be seen as biological colonisation as one of the consequences is the number of children born out of rape. 

Finnish-Estonian novelist, librettist and playwright Sofi Oksanen is one of the most awarded literary authors in Scandinavia. Her books have been translated into 46 languages and sold in more than two million copies. She gained international fame with Purge, a play turned novel and later adapted into both film and opera.  Critics hail her as a mistress of human drama, who incorporates historical and contemporary issues that move the reader. Her most recent work is Same River, Twice: Putin’s War on Women, a literary essay on colonialism and oppression, women, and war.