Infantilizing Women

How the ‘Pro-life’ movement infantilizes women

Sep 30, 2026

Much of the mainstream "Pro-Life" movement infantilizes women. This infantilization relies on long-existing stereotypes of the female sex, and betrays one prong of the movement's ambivalent sexism, namely, benevolent sexism, as reflected in its "woman-protective" anti-abortion rhetoric and advocacy.

Infantilization

"Infantilization is the term for when one person treats another in a way that’s inappropriate for their age and/or abilities.” [5] People may, intentionally or unintentionally, infantilize women "by giving them unsolicited advice, trying to control their life decisions, or insinuating that they shouldn’t have their own agency and can’t do things on their own." Infantilization "shows that you don’t trust their intelligence or decision-making skills, and that only you know what’s best for them.” [5].

The infantilization of women and "the undermining of pregnant women’s decision-making capabilities is evident in the women-protective antiabortion rhetoric.” [2]

Ambivalent/benevolent sexism

"Rather than experiencing [either] benevolence or hostility toward women, ambivalent sexism" describes the phenomenon where "people who hold sexist beliefs feel both, hence their ambivalence, depending on the degree to which" a female person "conforms or violates conventional norms of" traditionalist female gender roles or ideas of femininity. [3]

"[R]esearch has connected ambivalent sexism to anti-abortion attitudes (e.g., Huang et al., 2016; Osborne & Davies, 2012). Scholars have also started to acknowledge a shift over time from viewing people who have abortions in uniformly negative ways to viewing them in seemingly positive, but infantilizing ways. In other words, people who seek and have abortions are treated with condescending paternalism masquerading as positive regard and protectiveness (e.g., as helpless, fragile, naive; Duerken & Lawson, 2017; see also Glick & Fiske, 1996) as well as with overt misogyny and disrespect (e.g., selfish, bad; Cockrill & Nack, 2013). Although both hostile and benevolent sexism contribute to the continued subordination of people who seek and have abortions, the shift toward the benevolent sexism of women-centered anti-abortion rhetoric portrays pregnant people as needing to be protected from having abortions. This shift positions them as less capable, competent, and independent, and as property for men to defend." [3]

"Ambivalent sexism, particularly benevolent sexism, has also been connected to objectification (see also Calogero, 2013; Calogero & Jost, 2011). Consistent with benevolent sexism, the notion that pregnant people are precious and unknowing objects is inherent to women-centered anti-abortion rhetoric (e.g., Hooberman & Ozoguz, 2022; Osborne & Davies, 2012)... In the context of abortion, objectifying treatment is characterized by the diminution of people who have sought or had abortions, and efforts to prevent them from having abortions when that is the pregnant person's decision." [3]

Discussion

A piece published by The Christian Post titled, “The abortion chatbot is cruel — and not just to preborn children,” is illustrative.

The piece was written by Roxy Lamorgese, the Executive Director of Pre-Born!, a faith-based, anti-abortion organization that provides digital marketing strategies and grants for ultrasound machines, evangelism training, and other resources to a network of faith-based, anti-abortion pregnancy centers.

Ms. Lamorgese criticizes Charley, a chat bot designed with women in mind who are living in states with abortion bans and who are considering or have already decided to terminate their pregnancies. Charley points these women toward vetted clinics, telehealth providers or support resources, and is completely confidential.

While it is unsurprising that the executive director of an anti-abortion organization would oppose efforts to provide women with information that they may (or may not) use to obtain abortions, Ms. Lamorgese presents her objection to Chatbot Charley in woman-protective language infused with the infantilization of women characteristic of ambivalent/benevolent sexism. She wrote:

Put yourself in an abortion-minded mother’s shoes for a moment… The mothers considering it are often — though not always — under intense emotional pressure, in addition to suffering emotional and physical vulnerability…
They often say they chose to abort because of financial or social insecurity. They say they “can’t afford” a baby, or that they aren’t prepared for single motherhood.
Women don’t need a chatbot when these fears are swirling through their mind….
They need another person to accompany them through the decision, regardless of their ultimate choice. They need another person who can help them feel safe and think clearly.

Implicit within Ms. Lamorgese's woman-protective argument is the idea that women's faculties are overcome by their emotions upon experiencing an unplanned pregnancy, and thus their judgment and thought processes are clouded. To overcome this emotional stupor, Lamorgese explicitly states that women require the intervention of a third-party in order to "think clearly."

In essence, "pregnant women considering abortion are described as incompetent decision makers because they are emotional." [2] They are infantilized.

The “weaker sex”

The mainstream "Pro-Life" movement's "benevolent and protective attitude should not be interpreted as harm-free for women." [2] Psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske note that "benevolent sexism may involve positive attitudes toward women, but that these sexist beliefs also 'reflect very traditional and controlling presumptions about women, such as ‘the weaker sex’," and thus they are in need of protection. [2]

As a member of "the weaker sex," a woman's perceived "weaknesses" are therefore treated "as more authentic than her own statement of desire to not be pregnant." [2]

This infantilization characteristic of ambivalent/benevolent sexism "operates as Glick and Fiske suggest: the attitude toward women is positive, but it is based on ideas of women’s inferiority with respect to decision-making abilities." [2] Hence, women are not treated "as equal citizens capable of making decisions for themselves. Women’s ability to bear children is respected, but their ability to make decisions is undermined." [2]

Conclusion

The woman-protective, paternalistic language employed by much of the mainstream "Pro-Life" movement, "especially as it appears in anti-abortion legislation" and in anti-abortion advocacy such as the piece written by Roxy Lamorgese, infantilizes women and "creates the assumption that women are inherently reactionary, incapable of sound decisionmaking, and so endangered by their own choices as to require third-party protection (Abrams, 2015) (Jesudasen & Weitz, 2015)." [4]

People may, intentionally or unintentionally, infantilize women "by giving them unsolicited advice, trying to control their life decisions, or insinuating that they shouldn’t have their own agency and can’t do things on their own." [5] Infantilization "shows that you don’t trust their intelligence or decision-making skills, and that only you know what’s best for them." [5]

"The infantilization of women has many social implications and consequences. Socially, it indicates the status of women as lesser than men. For example, infantilizing women in the workplace implies that women are worse at or incapable of performing their job. The consequences of infantilizing women are serious because they further entrench existing sexist ideology and impede women's autonomy. In the past, the infantilization of women has justified legal limitations applied to women. For example, before women gained the legal right to work in the same fields as men, infantilization was used to argue against equality in the workplace. Infantilization falsely reaffirms claims that women cannot perform the same functions as men, just as a child is incapable of performing the same tasks as adults." [6]

"Today, infantilization remains a sexist practice" used to undermine women’s autonomy, opportunities, and status as equal citizens. [1]

rePro-Truth

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?