In the game of Trump-era feminism, the level up from abstinence is sterilization. Yet more than anything, the women who undergo the procedure are communicating risk aversion and dooming their party.
Leftist women’s pledges to abstain from sex, termed the “4B movement,” seemed sterile enough. It is a refusal to date, copulate, marry, or parent, all in the name of resistance to ideology. Of course, there is the bit in there about protecting oneself from unwanted consequences that loom as irreversible. Now, women are moving forward with sterilization appointments and pushing them as the only remaining option.
HOW KAMALA HARRIS PLOWED THROUGH $1 BILLION
Such plans are on the spectrum of responses to Republican ownership of Congress and the White House following Election Day. The idea behind sterilization is insurance against finding oneself pregnant, whether by rape or casual sex, and being unable to control the outcome. It is a “necessity due to the politics and subjugation coming our way,” according to one of five proponents whom Newsweek interviewed about the procedure.
In sum, they undergo one, definite unwanted procedure to avoid a different, improbable unwanted procedure. A weighing of choices, but one that moves away from rationality rather than closer to it. The women who encourage it intend to convey a firm, rebel spirit alongside resentment at the situation. What their audience receives instead is a desire for safety upon safety upon safety, and so forth.
DEMOCRATS WEIGH CHANGE IN STRATEGY TO AVOID MIDTERM AND 2028 DEFEATS
The anger part makes sense — they are unhappy and frustrated as the loud minority. But a sense of strong independence lacks as these women roll over into something they admit they do not want. It is not ascetic, but cowardly. One woman from the Newsweek story described her thought process as such: “I had no choice but to proceed to ensure that I can protect my health should I be assaulted during a Trump presidency, should my husband’s vasectomy fail and/or should my hormonal birth control become inaccessible.”
That is an incredible list of failsafes she rattled off as her motivation. Each should provide sufficient security — that is, after all, why she bought into them in the first place — but one after another they paint a picture not of the desire not to be pregnant, but of inescapable fear.
Like the hyper-masculine, anti-marriage Right of Andrew Tate, this feminist, pro-sterilization Left founded itself upon fears and fiction. But unlike the reactionary spirit Tate and company embody, these women fall into just what the Democratic Party has built for them. Lies, particularly about what the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 has in store, has fear-mongered women into thinking that the world is against them, that they can find no joy apart from complete control, usually childless.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
As a result, the more progressive one strays, the more likely she is to sound shockingly risk-averse. That is the paradox the Democratic Party has conjured up within itself as it assures its token subgroups that they are in danger. It is not a risk if there is nothing in the balance — sterilization is once-and-done. The move avoids risks that would end with either joy or uncertainty.
It is an odd outcome for the “new way forward” party of Vice President Kamala Harris. The sterilization movement, especially, is hurting the party’s attempts at “pro-family” optics. For everyone else, this development is worth the gamble on a new administration.
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
