Your Body, My Choice, and the Evil Inclination

Introduction to Misogyny Through a Philosophical Lens

Misogyny Through a Philosophical Lens seeks to understand this current American problem through the eyes of nine diverse philosophers thinking on the ethics and morality of the most current wave of misogyny in the United States. Conditions under which male protesters carry signs reading “Make Me A Sandwich”  and screaming misogynistic threats and despicable slogans like “Your Body My Choice” as a signal that women should become incubators for babies and be forced from the workplace. What will be next? Will the next administration seek to take the right to vote from women?

The phrase “Your Body, My Choice” has undergone a disturbing transformation. Once a rallying cry for reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, it is now weaponized by misogynists to demean and threaten women. This grotesque distortion gained traction, especially after Donald Trump’s election

Misogyny Through a Philosophical Lens:  Your Body, My Choice, and the Evil Inclination

Misogyny Through a Philosophical Lens explores the post-election surge in misogyny emanating from the far right wing of the Republican party as well as college-age males across the nation. This is a disturbing trend.

From the Vice President Elect to eighteen-year-old college freshmen are adopting the egregious phrase “Your Body, My Choice,” a troubling transformation of My Body My Choice. To replace the initial “My” is a breach of all that is moral and ethical in the world. This post, then, appeals to the thinking of nine thinkers that focus on the ethical and, in some instances, morals. This post summarizes that thinking in the hope that some of what these giants had to say about them.

The Phrase Itself

The phrase “Your Body, My Choice” has undergone a disturbing transformation. Once a rallying cry for reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, it is now weaponized by misogynists to demean and threaten women. This grotesque distortion gained traction after Donald Trump’s election in 2016 when emboldened “manosphere” influencers used the phrase to undermine women’s rights and amplify violent rhetoric. Misogyny Through a Philosophical Lens addresses a philosophical tone to work around ethical and moral concerns dealing with this current egregious trend.

For many women, this phrase no longer represents empowerment but a chilling reminder of the threats they face. Sadie Perez, a 19-year-old college student, felt compelled to carry pepper spray and self-defense tools after encountering these threats on her campus. Her experience illustrates a broader issue: the systematic use of language to reinforce patriarchal power and intimidate women. To understand the ethical implications of this phenomenon, we can analyze it through the philosophies of Emmanuel Levinas, Jacques Derrida, Georgio Agamben, Immanuel Kant, Sam Harris, Richard Rorty, Jürgen Habermas, Martin Heidegger, and Noam Chomsky.

Misogyny and Responsibility: A Levinasian Perspective

Emmanuel Levinas argued that ethical behavior begins with recognizing the “Other” as fully human, requiring respect and care. Misogynistic uses of “Your Body, My Choice” violate this principle by reducing women to mere objects of control. This ethical failure not only dehumanizes women but also denies their autonomy and subjectivity.

Levinas would likely view the societal structures enabling such rhetoric as complicit in perpetuating harm. Sadie Perez’s story highlights this ethical breakdown. When a young woman feels she must carry self-defense weapons just to feel safe, it reflects a failure of society to fulfill its moral responsibility to protect and honor her dignity. Levinas challenges us to confront this systemic neglect and foster a culture that prioritizes respect for all individuals. Male or female, black, brown, or white, the onslaught of people expressing non-standard genders, and so forth.

Levinas and the Uniqueness of the Self and the Embrace of the Other

Each individual in Levinas’ thought is both self and other existing in non-reciprocal relationships. The act of singling out the other from the self is grossly unethical. In this piece, Misogyny Through a Philosophical Lens, we begin with Levinasian thought because it focuses on the notion of human response-ability in which the self embraces the other as the other. Levinas does not demand reciprocity, in the same way that Derrida might reject the same.

Deconstruction of Power: Derrida’s Likely Analysis

Jacques Derrida’s philosophy of deconstruction reveals how language can be manipulated to sustain power hierarchies. Misogynists hijack “Your Body, My Choice” to strip it of its original emancipatory meaning, rebranding it as a tool of control. Derrida would argue that this linguistic shift is not accidental; rather, it perpetuates entrenched patriarchal systems by distorting the narrative of bodily autonomy.

For example, the reappropriation of this phrase by “manosphere” influencers silences women’s voices while weaponizing their language. Derrida’s approach suggests the need to critically analyze how this linguistic manipulation occurs and to reclaim words from oppressive forces. Foucault would chime in here suggesting that embedded language not only shapes power relationships, but it identifies aspects of deep distrust of the other. This is an act of both denial and prosecution of the other. Agamben might also chime in by suggesting that such isolationist language is the foundation of the state of exception in which groups singled out are either isolated outside the law or subjected to the repudiation of being itself.

Agamben and the State of Exception

Giorgio Agamben’s work provides a profound lens for analyzing how the ethical and moral behavior of national leadership can deteriorate into crises that obscure meaningful solutions. In his exploration of sovereignty, state power, and the concept of homo sacer (the sacred man who can be killed but not sacrificed), Agamben exposes the mechanisms by which leaders justify morally ambiguous or outright unethical actions, particularly during emergencies. His insights are critical for understanding how such behavior creates a “thick haze of smoke” that blinds both leaders and the public to viable resolutions.

The State of Exception

Agamben’s central argument about the state of exception—a situation where norms of law are suspended in the name of protecting the state—illuminates how leadership can erode ethical principles under the guise of necessity. Leaders often declare emergencies, whether real or fabricated, to bypass legal and moral constraints. This justification creates a context in which decisions, no matter how destructive, appear unavoidable. The erosion of accountability that follows turns these crises into self-perpetuating cycles, as the very systems meant to offer solutions are neutralized or ignored.

For instance, in the aftermath of major political or social upheavals, leaders might impose authoritarian measures claiming they are temporary. Yet, as Agamben points out, these exceptions frequently become normalized. This normalization creates moral apathy, as people become desensitized to the erosion of ethical standards. The smoke thickens when debates about the morality of these actions are framed as partisan or divisive, diverting attention from the actual consequences of leadership failures.

National Abandonment of Ethical and Moral Ideals

Agamben’s critique warns us of the ease with which societies, in their search for order, can accept the suspension of ethical considerations, allowing leadership to act unrestrained. To clear the haze, Agamben encourages vigilance over the actions of those in power, ensuring they remain accountable to ethical norms even in times of crisis. Recognizing and resisting the state of exception is thus critical to finding meaningful solutions while avoiding moral decay.

In his critique of Nazi atrocities, Agamben focuses on the Nazi death camps in which Jews and other social outcasts including Gypsies, homosexuals, and other minority populations both within Germany as well as in the areas of Europe occupied by the WW II German military and how that period of German history falls within his notion of the state of exception as well as the sacredness of the sacrificial offerings of a deranged society. Georgio Agamben, it seems to me, would embrace the current Misogyny Through a Philosophical Lens as a way of awakening people to the damage that may be done to the American idea of democracy.

Kant and the Universal Moral Law

Immanuel Kant’s categorical imperative requires that individuals act according to principles they would wish to be universal laws. Treating others as ends rather than means lies at the heart of this ethical framework. Misogynistic misuse of “Your Body, My Choice” directly contradicts this principle by treating women as objects rather than autonomous agents.

For instance, the rise in violent misogyny described by Isabelle Frances-Wright highlights the broader moral implications of this behavior. Kant would insist that society reject such rhetoric, emphasizing a universal moral obligation to respect every person’s autonomy. The phrase’s use as a tool of intimidation stands as an affront to Kantian ethics.

Rationality and Empathy: Sam Harris’ View

Sam Harris emphasizes rationality and moral responsibility in ethical decision-making. Misogynistic rhetoric like “Your Body, My Choice” reflects a failure of both. It prioritizes dominance and control over reason and empathy, fostering an environment where violence against women becomes normalized.

Consider the irrationality of a culture where women like Perez must arm themselves to navigate public spaces safely. Harris would argue for a rational discourse that dismantles such toxic narratives and encourages moral reasoning rooted in empathy and respect.

One might also speculate using Harris’ rational argument that the very same people who bemoan the Muslim concept of Sahirah Law being applied to the American legal system (something that would likely never happen in the United States because it would demand a declaration of a state religion to effect such a change. In other words, it would require a constitutional amendment and that is one most unlikely thing.) That being said, the history of Nazi Germany suggests otherwise.

Solidarity and Pragmatism: Rorty’s Approach

Richard Rorty’s pragmatism focuses on solidarity and shared human experiences. He would view the misogynistic distortion of “Your Body, My Choice” as a betrayal of the progress achieved through collective action for women’s rights.

Rorty might argue that combating this rhetoric requires fostering solidarity through shared values, such as safety, dignity, and equality. By emphasizing these commonalities, society can build alliances to resist and counteract the spread of misogyny. I believe that Rorty might add the notion of this trend as other than normal discourse, rather he would place it in the space of what he named abnormal discourse, a discourse that replaces normal discourse because the latter does not allow for particular questions to find answers in normative discourse and, thus, requires something other than the normative. While Rorty’s discourse pair is good for explaining science, it is less vital to the questions posed by the ethics that Rorty’s pragmatism encompasses in his understanding of how we communicate with each other.

Communicative Ethics: Habermas’ Contribution

Jürgen Habermas’ critical theory of communicative rationality emphasizes the importance of dialogue based on equality and mutual respect. The weaponization of “Your Body, My Choice” represents a failure of ethical communication, where dialogue is replaced by intimidation and control.

Habermas would advocate for the creation of public spaces where respectful discourse can flourish, allowing individuals to challenge misogynistic ideologies and promote equal rights. His approach underscores the necessity of ethical communication in resisting oppressive narratives.

Habermas’s approach to communicative action upholds the Kantian and Levinasian challenges to linguistic danger signs. I, for example, adopted some vital concerns that Habermas attached to communicative action using them as a tool to advance teacher performance simply by sitting down and conversing in safe spaces and learning from each other’s experience. The last thing Habermas would suggest is something akin to what we are currently experiencing in the United States in which conspiracies thrive and facts are questioned without merit or evidence for such approaches. Ethics, without building group trust are, therefore, missing in action.

The Question of Being: Heidegger’s Reflection

Martin Heidegger’s philosophy of “Being” emphasizes living authentically in a way that honors one’s essence and potential. Misogynistic rhetoric undermines women’s ability to live authentically by fostering fear and subjugation. Heidegger might critique the societal structures that perpetuate this dehumanization, calling for a reexamination of cultural norms that allow such oppression to persist.

Linguistic Power: Chomsky’s Insight

Noam Chomsky’s analysis of language as a tool of power highlights the role of rhetoric in shaping societal dynamics. The misogynistic use of “Your Body, My Choice” demonstrates how language can be weaponized to assert control and suppress dissent.

Chomsky would argue that exposing and critiquing this misuse of language is essential for dismantling its power. By reclaiming the original intent of such phrases, society can challenge the dominance of oppressive narratives.

For Chomsky, the challenge of linguistic change is to exert pressure on a population to alter their behavior is possible only when linguistic change is organic, albeit, slowly made a part of the language in question. The sudden introduction of new linguistic combinations that are adopted by small portions of the population is bound to fail over time. But, as of this moment, this is not the case of the egregious bastardized phrase “Your Body My Choice” to be included in the American English language.

Conclusion

Misogyny Through a Philosophical Lens, while focusing on the appropriation of “Your Body, My Choice” argues that this trend is a chilling example of how language can perpetuate systems of oppression. Philosophers like Levinas, Derrida, Kant, Harris, Rorty, Habermas, Heidegger, and Chomsky offer ethical frameworks to confront and resist this rhetoric. Each emphasizes respect, dialogue, and solidarity as essential tools in countering misogyny and fostering a more equitable society. In other words, it is unlikely that this aberration will catch on as a permanent addition to the language. Unfortunately, much damage will likely be done as we allow this immoral and unethical stance to run its course.

Resistance Becomes a Moral Obligation and Ethical Imperative

Resistance to such burdensome speech is a moral obligation in Levinasian terms, an ethical imperative in a Kantian approach, and a violation of the ethics of hospitality and welcoming of the other. Both Harris and Rorty suggest strongly that rationality demands a welcoming of the other in meaningful conversation while Habermas insists on the rationality of human interaction, especially, but not limited to, one’s place in any conversation. Finally, Heidegger’s focus on being demands one to behave ethically toward one’s neighbor and, by extension, to the other in the world.

In the short term, I am not optimistic that we can put an immediate stop to this brand of weaponized politics, but I am fully confident that it will run its course someday and we will begin to understand the folly of the United States Federal Election machinery and will create a far simpler approach to express the will of the people.

Sources Cited

Levinas, E. Totality and Infinity.

Derrida, J. Writing and Difference.

Kant, I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

Harris, S. The Moral Landscape.

Rorty, R. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity.

Habermas, J. The Theory of Communicative Action.

Heidegger, M. Being and Time.

Chomsky, N. On Language.

Suggestions for Further Reading

Gender Trouble by Judith Butler – A key text on gender and power.

The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir – Explores women’s oppression and liberation.

The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood – A fictional but prescient depiction of misogyny.

The Subjection of Women by John Stuart Mill – Early advocacy for women’s equality.

The Misogynist by Eve Langley – Examines cultural depictions of misogyny.

Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit – Essays on gendered language and power.

Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center by bell hooks – Insightful feminist analysis.

Against Our Will by Susan Brownmiller – A foundational work on rape culture.

How to Be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi – Broadens the conversation on systemic power.

DISCLAIMER: This post’s images [and videos] are AI-generated creations intended purely for illustrative and conceptual purposes. They are NOT real-life representations and must not be interpreted as such. The singular purpose of the included images is to offer a visual means of exploring the ideas expressed in this post and nothing more.