How to Rebel Effectively for Women's Rights

Use scientifically informed strategies that work

I spent six years reading historical annals and scientific research about effective rebellions. From Socrates sentenced to death for “corrupting youth” (by instructing them to question authority), to citizens resisting the reign of Genghis Khan, to hundreds of years of civil rights movements in America, including lesser known stories of the first women allowed to serve as military pilots.

As someone who studies productive conflict, I cannot be idle during the current rebellion for women’s freedom and bodily autonomy. A conversation about women’s bodily autonomy begins with an inconvenient truth.

Closed-Mindedness

The moral conviction around abortion exceeds other political issues. People don’t feel as strong about discrimination (52% of Republicans say that Black Americans face “a lot” of racism). Nor religion (53% of Democrats say it solves more problems than it causes). Nor universal basic income (52% of Republicans support a guaranteed minimum livable income for everyone). The issue is complicated as 60% of Americans support the legality of abortion in the first trimester of a pregnancy, and this number drops to 28% in the second trimester. But for those people with a clear position on abortion, their belief tends to be strong, certain, and there is a sense of absolute morality - where any disagreement is wrong and immoral.

This is a critical historical juncture, as we are witnessing a reversal in women’s rights. Knowing that it is hard to change people’s minds, the question is how to proceed.

Breaking the Moral Gridlock

Strategy One: There is merit in two-sided messages, where there is an acknowledgement of conflict, uncertainty, and ambivalence. Two-sided instead of one-sided messages increase an audience’s curiosity while reducing defensiveness.

Consider a thought experiment:

A woman is pregnant with Siamese twins who share critical organs - one heart, two lungs. Unless separated at birth, the doctor says they will both die. If separated, one twin gets access to the heart and lungs with a chance at survival; the other twin will die. Is it morally acceptable to save one twin rather than let both perish?

This is not an easy question. This is not an outlandish question. It it unfortunately common to make critical medical decisions of whether to save a mother or child. It is not always possible to save both. This thought experiment is an inkling of existing cases where physicians must be granted exceptional flexibility to provide adequate interventions that they alone are experts in. When abortion is illegal, women receive inadequate or inappropriate medical care because physicians are legally limited in what interventions can be performed during a pregnancy. There is an irony in having non-professionals informing physicians of what they can and cannot do: an increase (not a decrease) in injuries, illnesses, and deaths during pregnancy.

I raise this thought experiment to initiate the initial two of many important strategies for dissenting and defying effectively.

Strategy Two: Stick to objective evidence as often as possible. Label what is a subjective opinion and what is an objective fact. This directs the audience to how you are trustworthy, competent, and minimally biased (few of us are ever unbiased).

But there are a host of other strategies to create more productive conversations. No matter how intelligent and discerning we are, messengers end up being as important (if not more) than the messages. Think about how you can be viewed as warm, trustworthy, competent, and whether you like it or not, charismatic.

Strategy Three: Be sure to engage in behaviors that allow you, the messenger, to show that you are a pragmatic, loyal group member. For instance, show your conservative cred.

If you support the military, detail this with actions instead of words. This happened in 2021, when liberal and conservative senators formed a rare collaboration to repel an “unfair, antiquated” policy where students at military universities could not be pregnant. The beauty of this policy is that it increased the options available to women, removing social and economic punishments for being pregnant while broadening the options available to women. This is a goal that everyone can agree on: reduce the number of abortions. By attending to concrete issues instead of disingenuous terminology (pro-choice versus pro-life), creative solutions and better decision-making arises.

You can show how you are a legitimate group member by detailing past behaviors and accomplishments. This is not the time for humility. You are detailing how the group matters to you, which could be a small social circle, political party, or national pride. Show how you are pro-family. Clarify that far from being an outsider, you have made sacrifices and are personally tied to this issue.

Strategy Four: Be intentional with language. Ask people to think beyond the immediate issue of pregnancies. Don’t get caught into a debate of when life begins. Because if someone believes life begins at conception, this is not a useful debate. Move to one year later. Five years later.

How can we help women and men both be autonomous beings over the next five years? What can we do to help women reach their potential five years from now? Notice the use of the word “we.” This is intentional. It brings other people in as collaborators, not adversaries. It moves the conversation forward from describing issues to problem-solving mode.

Strategy Five: Asking people what they believe or what led them to their beliefs is far more ineffective than asking how their ideas would work. Put the onus on others to explain how harm will be reduced, how exceptions will be made for dangerous situations (such as maternal pre-existing medical conditions), and what plans exist for increasing financial and social resources following birth. This is especially relevant for low-income families that lack a safety net to raise children effectively.

I am making an assumption that nobody wants a child to be raised with inadequate nutrition, healthcare education, and socialization. If so, the issue of women’s bodily autonomy is tethered to guaranteed healthcare, childcare financial assistance, accessible and financially feasible adoption services, and community-based models to care for vulnerable and orphaned children.

Be Agile on This Mission and Every Other

There is no single solution for making progress on an emotionally volatile issue such as the legality of abortions. Build a large arsenal of psychological strategies such that you can choose which will lead to the best possible outcome in a given situation. The choice of strategies depends on who you are speaking to, the prevailing emotions, the reason for the conversation, along with other situational factors requiring careful attention.

Right now we need people to fight antiquated governmental strategies to control women. We need principled rebels on an ethical mission for them, their kids, other people’s kids, and everyone too busy working to afford a family meal or a doctor visit to be part of this conversation. And as we initiate this mission for equality among men and women, alliances will be essential. So will self-care.

When government officials possess authority to force women what to do with their bodies and most agonizing decisions, we’re in the minority. There are strategies for dissenting and defying effectively when in the minority.

Resist the allure of complacency. Build mighty alliances. Produce messages that change the minds and actions of the majority. I wrote a social-help¹ handbook with additional strategies to be maximally effective in your mission.

Use these strategies on the frontlines.

Future generations will thank you.

………………………………………………………………………………..

Dr. Todd B. Kashdan is the author of The Art of Insubordination: How to Dissent and Defy Effectively (Avery/Penguin) and a Professor of Psychology who leads The Well-Being Laboratory at George Mason University.

Take the PRINCIPLED REBEL quiz.

Follow me on socials: Twitter or Facebook or Linkedin or Instagram

1. Too many self-help books exist. The world would benefit from fewer people trying to be their best selves and instead try to create the best society and culture for a greater number of people.