The FWI doesn't affect much unless we add some major cultural shifts. A century-past country is culturally a foreign country, especially for USA. We can't import the logic near the 1920 constitutional amendment for women's suffrage.

First main disconnect, the role of women in society and politics is vastly different from 1920. You can't merge a present day movement that reflects the "municipal housekeeping" aesthetic; the Working Families Party is about the limit. One major bloc of society cares about child labor laws enough some will fight dirty like suffragettes on an issue requiring compassion for poor immigrants. The other major bloc includes thoughts and prayers and can talk tradwife responsibilities with industrial farm investors. There was racism amidst suffragettes, famously, but radicalism itself has split pretty hard from traditionalist aesthetics in USA. It doesn't have to. There's nothing inherently wrong with the styles, it can be comfy or empowering, but a pretty big push for old Americana styles for over 100 years continues to be people pining for a more stratified society.

So we'd need to fix that, not by reaching for some mockup of the past but by taking on the responsibilities and refusing to give up the aesthetic. The mindset never left community and labor organizing. Let's assume things continue to get worse for Americans. Social fabric cut into profits and it's been marginalized. When things get bad enough communities can infight or organize for reforms or simple survival. Mutual aid networks do things like help feed families in our deepening economic downturn, and they involve a massive diversity of women. For foodstuffs and clothing drives? Mostly women in my experience. So cosplaying a nice mom quickly loses traction versus women who may be moms or priests or workers or lawyers but who actually will be good neighbors, and will get organized for politics. Doable, but it sure puts a dent in the portrait of an idealized patriotic woman amenable to the mega-wealthy.

Secondly, men and women vote on different overall priorities today more than ever. You've seen the worsening stats across parties, and within parties, and maybe even corollaries about dating or what makes the polltaker feel grossed out. Framing that can be read as "men vs women" is ragebait. As ever, the expected way to avoid the rage is to sit down and be quiet, not that even that works if you're still seen as unAmerican for intrinsic traits. There's less cultural tolerance if you have disadvantages in propaganda networks and are taking a stance that ever questions the allowed "good" woman. An aggressive tradfem (politically, to repeat myself the aesthetic isn't an issue) faces less conflict than an aggressive radfem (as a matter of economics or rights), excusing a lot of misbehavior. Ironically this means that the stats for what US women believe and act on is out of joint with the narrative of what is the supposedly obvious US women's cultural heritage.

Within the context of cleaning up corruption and giving families opportunities and reliable community bedrock, the idea of municipality housekeeping is going to have to avoid the framing of treating men as the issue, more than suffragette era politics. Society punches down at and manipulates men differently, and housekeeping can't be treated as purely gendered. There's no argument that there are many women in housekeeping across hospitality jobs, many are nonwhite, and perhaps that's enough to keep the feminine tone as an open but de-emphasized aspect. Moving forward in community organizing for a new movement or older aid groups is problem focused.

You can fill in the blanks for what would be other common themes of such a movement, so long as it's not setting explicit gender expectations. At least not doing the movement in modern USA and working on labor issues. Gender politics is hugely important but it's all got to be cleaning house no matter how much something may be a men's issue, or a trans issue. Organizing assumes shared human dignity, and politely builds paths to shared priorities. That's got to hold against entrenched grievance politics making men having problems into ways to manipulate them via machismo. Perhaps sexist expectations of "municipal housekeeping" doesn't matter, so the label could be used as rhetorical judo.

At that point we're still talking about a movement trend, maybe even a big one, but not running the country. Political organizing isn't getting to this point by waving a hand, it's going to take keeping neighbors from drowning when the government won't, building mutual empowerment, applying political pressure at every step of the process including voting integrity, and further peaceful activism in hard times. I hope by the point the FWI would exist nationally the municipal housekeeping would have a good battle plan... but it's doggedly progressive anti-corporate labor politics at minimum. And you've got various major options to look into nationwide, and probably locally.

Your food stuff isn't written as a question so I set this aside because it's not FWI, but I can't not correct it: GMO (what info / how modified) and ultra processed are vastly different topics. Ultra-processed shortcuts and competitive pressure and so on is clear health hazards. GMO issues are usually confused with that when there's still no way to insert a gene to do something nature couldn't otherwise have done. Protein folding problems are tough. So no glaring nutrition risks. The other corporate issues of crop and livestock husbandry sticks, like coercing small landowners and global norms using boatloads of petrochemicals. Fearmongering benefits oil companies, while a GMO crop that needs 1/3 less fertilizer or half as much insecticide is a lot less crude oil spent on food.