Folks here may be slightly familiar with the actress who urged that, out of fear of becoming pregnant while a law recognizing the personhood of humans who have developed to the point of having a detectable heartbeat is in effect (at least to the point of not allowing their direct execution without trial) women should not have sex.
After some very well phrased unpacking of meaning, a lady responding to the suggestion said this:
Her campaign also exposes modern feminism’s deeply flawed view of the relationship between men and women, seeing sex first and foremost as a bargaining chip or form of power that women hold over men, as if it ought to function primarily or even solely as a reward for men that women should withhold as a means of getting what they want — affirming and promoting the very anti-woman premise that feminists claim to oppose. And, like the overwhelming majority of activists who champion expansive abortion rights, Milano entirely ignores the existence of pro-life women, including those who were involved in passing the Georgia heartbeat bill, who presumably won’t be swayed or affected whatsoever by this boycott.
Finally, there is considerable irony in the fact that, after five decades, feminism has come back around to where social conservatives were standing the entire time — but now they believe that, in pushing their “boycott,” they’re somehow being transgressive.
Read the rest here.
The only thing I would have added is that, in reasonably designed surveys*, women are more opposed to abortion than men.
*folks here are probably familiar with my hobby-horse of wanting to see the questions used; it is amazing how often they frame “pro-life” in such a way that binding Catholic teaching is pro-abortion.