Welcome to 2024, when we are still *checks notes* reducing a woman’s value to whether or not she’s married with children by a certain age.
Proof that this is still happening exists all around us, both in our own lives as well as in pop culture. Take, for example, that viral Harrison Butker speech, in which he told a group of college graduates that even if the women in the class may “go on to lead successful careers in the world”, their lives would truly begin when they found their “vocations” as wives and mothers.
And then of course, there’s Taylor Swift — a literal billionaire, an icon, a woman notorious for her generosity towards people she works with and charitable organizations, someone who routinely stands up for herself, and truly puts in the work — yet is apparently *not* worthy of role model status because, at 34 years old, Swift is unmarried and without kids.
Yes, Newsweek actually deigned to publish a piece arguing this. “At 34, Swift remains unmarried and childless, a fact that some might argue is irrelevant to her status as a role model,” a (male) writer argued in the piece. “But, I suggest, it's crucial to consider what kind of example this sets for young girls. A role model, by definition, is someone worthy of imitation. While Swift's musical talent and business acumen are certainly admirable, even laudable, we must ask if her personal life choices are ones we want our sisters and daughters to emulate.”
When Butker’s comment went viral — and then again when the Taylor Swift Newsweek op-ed dropped — people accused the women who pushed back on these narratives of “overreacting." They claimed we were making a big deal of someone having “different opinions'' when there are “bigger things going on in the world."
But here’s the thing: These are not just opinions or narratives. They’re ideas that are deeply rooted in patriarchy, and an upholding of these ideas threatens to take us back to a time where women have fewer rights. Right now, most notably, this rhetoric is affecting a woman’s right to choose, to claim ownership over her own body and control her reproductive future.
%20Muse%E2%84%A2%20EEG-Powered%20Meditation%20&%20Sleep%20Headband.png)
This is thanks, of course, to the 2022 Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade. The most notable repercussion of this decision is limited abortion access in many states, but the ripple effect extends far beyond that: People with life-threatening pregnancy conditions — like Amanda Zurawski, who has become a face of the movement to fight for reproductive rights — will face preventable complications as healthcare workers’ hands will be tied in providing life-saving care.
The full range of repercussions from this decision remain yet to be seen, but we’re already getting glimpses of the impact, and it’s terrifying. Recent research looked at trends in birth control and emergency contraceptive use in our post-Roe world, and (as suspected), a significant decline in the number of oral birth control prescriptions was observed in states with the most restrictive reproductive laws.
In the wake of Roe’s overturning, dozens of abortion clinics in states with restrictive laws closed. About 1 in 10 women get their birth control from this type of clinic, but the number is closer to 1 in 5 among low-income women and people of color, according to Women’s Health Policy. Ostensibly, the clinics’ closures affected this birth control access — and without abortion access, people who have lost their access to birth control will be forced to carry out pregnancies to term should they conceive.
The ripple effects of this are so much greater and more dangerous than they seem at first glance.
If the goal of overturning Roe vs. Wade was truly to reduce abortion rates, we’d be improving people’s access to contraceptives, not blocking it. And if protecting children and their lives was really the issue, then we’d focus our attention on things like paid leave, quality maternal care, accessible childcare, and gun control — because as it stands, we’re not doing anything to protect the lives of children who are already in the world.
Instead, it’s about control. It’s about the notion that women are nothing unless they create traditional family structures. That the goals and ambitions they have for themselves — and their decision to pursue these goals or ambitions ahead of, or in place of, motherhood, are irrelevant. As Anne Hathaway said during an appearance on The View, “when you are a young woman starting out your career, your reproductive destiny matters a great deal.”
Allowing women to make choices about their own bodies allows them to make choices about their entire lives — it allows them to gain independence, financially and otherwise. And that is something so many people are still wildly uncomfortable with.
These ideas — these stubborn, regressive, persistent ideas — about what women are good for and how they gain their value, are killing us. Literally. When we lose power over our reproductive choice, we’re not just being told we can’t make choices about our own bodies and futures. We’re also being told that we’re better off dead than choosing not to become vessels for pregnancies, regardless of what kind of danger these pregnancies may pose to our health. If that sounds like hyperbole, it’s not. People will, quite literally, die preventable deaths because medical professionals are banned from performing life-saving abortions.
So, no. Critics of that Taylor Swift op-ed and that controversial commencement speech are not overreacting. We’re not being hysterical women, we are advocating for a narrative change that could save lives. We’re fighting to be seen outside of our baby-making potential, and for the right to design our own futures.
Zara Hanawalt is a freelance journalist and mom of twins. She's written for outlets like Parents, MarieClaire, Elle, Cosmopolitan, Motherly, and many others. In her (admittedly limited!) free time, she enjoys cooking, reading, trying new restaurants, and traveling with her family.