Peter Espeut | There is a feminism without abortion

In the light of the overturn by the US Supreme Court of Roe v Wade, I have been intrigued at the interview five weeks ago by New York Times columnist Ezra Klein with feminist and legal scholar Dr Erika Bachiochi. The latter argues in her 2021 book, The Rights of Women: Reclaiming a Lost Vision, that the sexual revolution coupled with hi-tech forms of contraception and easy abortion have been devastating for women’s well-being and the cultivation of virtue. I would like to share some of her views today and next week.

At the beginning of the interview, Bachiochi states that the real question facing feminism is: Are women and men the same, or are women and men different? She answers her own question: “I think there’s many ways in which we’re the same and many ways in which we’re different … . But it seems to me that the question of sexual and reproductive asymmetry, the fact that men and women engage in the same sexual act in heterosexual sex, but that women can get pregnant and men cannot, is really the one that all feminists are responding to in their different kind of ways.”

In other words, some feminists want gender equality to mean that – like men – women should be able to enjoy sex without getting pregnant.

With abortion and hi-tech forms of contraception easily available, Bachiochi says, “the casual sex culture has become sort of the default. And I think that tends to be better for a male sexuality”.

“It seems to me that the way sex, as thought about today … is very much pleasure in mind. And I think, again, there are pretty dangerous asymmetries for women there. Because when you decouple sex from marriage and from childbearing, and pleasure is left to be the only marker, that it tends to be far better for men.

“I think pleasure is a great side effect … to sex. I think it’s great when sex is pleasurable. But as it turns out, for women, sex is far more pleasurable in commitment. And why in commitment? Because for sex to be pleasurable for women, there needs to be kind of a vulnerability, where a woman is relaxed enough to enjoy sex. And her partner needs to really take interest in her sexual pleasure. And that doesn’t generally come in the hookup culture.

“But so what’s interesting is to go back to how the early American women’s rights advocates thought about this, because I think many people now know that they were opposed to abortion. And we can kind of talk about how they thought in a very nuanced way. But they really were worried about these threats of undisciplined male sexual desire. And they saw that you can make men and women equal in a lot of different ways.

“You can bring … women down to men’s standards, which is freewheeling, quick sex. Or you can bring men up to women’s standards, which is actually what these women were hoping for.

“I think real ‘male normative’ is the way in which the casual sex culture has become sort of the default. And I think that tends to be better for a male sexuality.

“So I guess in that way, freeing women to have sex just like men, which is basically what the pill and abortion do, I think also hasn’t been good for women … . Men have blasts of testosterone beating through them in a way that’s different from … women. And that does tend to lend to greater sexual desire and sexual aggression, especially sex that is quicker, and easier, quicker release. It’s a different kind of sex than women want.

“And that itself may empower women – I hope it would empower women – to kind of take their place again as gatekeepers of sex. And that is to expect more from men when they engage in sex, to expect commitment. Because if they do wait, if they are able to put off men and to expect more from them, to expect a greater maturity, to expect them to hold down a job, to expect them to get off their computers and get off porn and all sorts of things, that I think there could be a real maturation of men that is required.

“I’m not saying that it is women who mature men. Men mature themselves. But by women taking seriously these asymmetrical burdens that she holds in sexual intercourse, that it hopefully will empower her to just say ‘No!’ more, and expect more, and then, as the economists say, raise the cost of sex. I think that would be a good thing. And I think that would be a very good thing in poor neighborhoods, where women just don’t have the bargaining power that wealthy, educated women have in relationships. And so, that’s my hope that we would see something like that. And I’ll certainly be working toward that.”

NOT IN THE EQUATION

In today’s casual sex culture when women get pregnant outside of a committed relationship, with abortion as an option, the casual sex can continue unabated. Poor women tend to choose to have their children, and then there is the tendency for men to just walk away. He was in it for the pleasure of casual sex; fatherhood was not in the equation.

“And so when poor women choose to have their children, which they tend to do in larger numbers, when those children are unexpected, than wealthy women do and educated women do, they’re bereft of the paternal support they need, both emotional support for their own children, for themselves in the difficult work of caregiving, but also especially financial support. And I think that’s led to a feminization of poverty.

“And I think a pretty good argument can be made, at least I try to make it, that disconnecting and decoupling sex from marriage, and marriage from childbearing, is pretty devastating for the poor.”

There is a feminism that celebrates motherhood!

More from feminist and legal scholar Dr Erika Bachiochi next week!

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.