News

Eh not really getting the idea across:

Religion is, and probably always has been a means of control. That's not to say that it is that at every level, or that it's only that. Religion is designed to bring you comfort and assistance in your times of need, while charging you a fee for the service. The business has to run, the staff and bills have to be paid, the top officers need to be fabulously wealthy. Not all religions are against Women, Children, BIPOC, and LGBTQ, but if you're trying to exert control, they make easy scapegoats. White men make all the money, Let us hold down all these minorities so you can smother them to make yourself feel better, now pay us.

One of my friends attends and assists with a great little church. It's a small, modest community church. The pastor is gay, and drag queens come to read stories occasionally. The place is just kept up with. They're not squeezing 30% out of the community. I'm not one for church, but I approve of what they're doing wholly.

Well surely it was never going to affect them. They are one of the good ones, it's the others that need to be controlled. Why would they ever come for me if I am living a proper God fearing life?

They unironically think Harris was some kind of monster and that it was all worth it to keep trans out of sports.

Making sure that women have very little self-respect is one of the primary functions of American Evangelicalism.

I don't know who that is, but she needs to make that happen.

I read years ago that white republican women will put up with being treated as lesser in their circles in order to treat others as lesser. So they're fine with being spoken down to and shuffled aside so they can feel free to yell at minorities.

They do, but there is an assumption that the relationship between women like that and the wealthy ruling class men they attach themselves to is reciprocal. It, of course, is not.

Take the woman who has a child by Elon Musk. Her and Musk had a romantic getaway and brief liason. She clearly wasn't upset at being pregnant by him. There was an assumption that she'd be cared for. Even if not directly, indirectly. She definitely did not anticipate that she would actually be confined to an apartment 24 hours a day, entirely neglected without any contact from the father of her child. Nor that she'd be left with a child to raise on her own, and no support either financial or emotional or in terms of literal labor.

Call her ignorant and bigoted, both are valid criticisms. But she absolutely was not anticipating this outcome. There is a presumption from conservative/fascist women that they occupy a position of hierarchy over non-fascist/non-conservative women. That by virtue of supporting fascism and patriarchy that fascist men will afford them personhood. They don't believe in any of the assertions of feminism. They instead believe that women who suffer at the hands of men simply deserve it. That all women are judged in some kind of meritocracy, where belief in fascism and support of fascists itself is a determining factor of merit.

They are infuriatingly wrong. But do not be so quick to mischaracterize all conservative/fascist women as knowingly participating in the elimination of their own rights. They are systematically indoctrinated. Inexcusably, I will add. There is no justification for supporting fascists, no justification for supporting violence against women. To combat the ideology they espouse it is crucial to understand not just what they say but what they think.

They are fine with women being doctors and dentists. They won't have any respect for those professions if they are female dominated, but they are caring roles so they fit into the fundie worldview. Lawyers might make them uncomfortable. They would be fine with women as paralegals, but they would want a man in the courtroom and the boardroom.

None of them should be paid well enough to live truly independently. Can't have women building wealth outside of marriage. It's a process really. Give them a couple generations in power and they might clamp down on employment outside the kitchen or the nursery.

I actually think it's more targeted toward the Andrew Tate and Fresh and Fit follower types, and the propaganda does appear to be working on younger men, who are rapidly becoming more "conservative." They're extremely insecure in their masculinity, and think the subservience of women would be affirming.

Of course, it actually just hurts everyone, barring the people that benefit from keeping the working class divided.

Conservatives believe hierarchies are natural and unavoidable. If you can push someone else down on the hierarchy then that will put you higher up on the hierarchy then you were before. Shrinking someone else's piece of the pie leaves more pie available for you.

Leftists believe in making a bigger pie.

It benefits you, because with almost half the population removed from the paid labor pool, you are more likely to earn more, and get jobs you likely would not have gotten before.

It's not about what's good for you, it's about what's good for the people in power. And as women increasingly turn away from the Republican party, they're going to want to disenfranchise them.

That's the thing: it isn't. The patriarchy is bad for 95% of men, as well, but a huge chunk of those believe it's good for them because at least they're not a woman.

How ironic, that dehumanizing rhetoric is exactly how we got here.