+- cloven hooves (https://clovenhooves.org)
+-- Forum: The Personal Is Political (https://clovenhooves.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: General (https://clovenhooves.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=70)
+--- Thread: Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping (/showthread.php?tid=583)
Pages:
1
2
Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping - Elsacat - Jan 27 2025
Liberals want to erase women. Trump is standing up for our most basic rights. | Opinion
All hail Dear Leader, because At Least He Knows What A Woman Is! And that opinion article is by a woman. Nice think piece, Serena Joy.
But god forbid we criticize a conservative woman for having an opinion, that's "censoring wrongthink!" Only libfems are allowed to be trashed for their shit takes.
RE: Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping - Clover - Jan 27 2025
I really dislike how Trump is getting so much praise for this, as if this EO wasn't built on the backs of many women organizing and protesting and drafting up legislation and guidelines (apparently this IWF, and WoLF, and WDI) to maintain women's sex-based rights.
Quote:Independent Women is already leading the charge to help states pass legislation similar to Trump’s order. The center has put together blueprint legislation that defines sex-based terms, and eight states have passed it. Fourteen more have introduced the legislation, Parlato says."Already leading the charge" reads to me like they only recently got the go ahead thanks to Trump's EO, instead of them working on this for a long time. (Note: I do recall someone on here mentioning IWF is possibly an anti-abortion organization that was the reason Trump's EO had sneaky "fetal personhood" language in it, as they supposedly wrote a bulk of the EO.)
I think the part I hate the most is now how "gender criticial" is really going to be cemented as just "anti trans" with this administration and their allies focusing on transgenderism in such a way, that any gender criticism is completely ignored (since the Republican/conservative administration of course is in favor of traditional gender conformity).
I worry the cause is rapidly going to morph into "protect women's sex-based rights... so they can be motherly feminine beings they are 'naturally meant' to be!!"
RE: Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping - YesYourNigel - Jan 27 2025
So our rights are going to be completely destroyed but at least we're gonna be called women? Wow, how very gender-validating! I don't even care about abortion rights or protections against male violence or not being called slurs or wage equality anymore! All I need is my gendersoul being ticked and all my problems are gone!
Further evidence that there's barely any difference between conservatives' and trans activists' approach to gender.
RE: Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping - flytraps_ - Jan 27 2025
I don’t see how any feminist could have, in good conscience, voted for trump. I understand neither political party here cares about the best interests of women & girls. But Harris still would’ve been a better president. I don’t believe the women on ovarit who are praising trump are really radical feminists. They’re just conservatives.
RE: Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping - Herodotus - Jan 28 2025
(Jan 27 2025, 8:31 PM)flytraps_ I don’t see how any feminist could have, in good conscience, voted for trump. I understand neither political party here cares about the best interests of women & girls. But Harris still would’ve been a better president. I don’t believe the women on ovarit who are praising trump are really radical feminists. They’re just conservatives.
Exactly this.
For me personally, what helped me come to terms with this wild disconnect in self preservation and critical thinking is realizing that these women are not truly lost or just in need of a better logic framing in an in good faith discussion. Some of them truly just (knowingly or not) support an authoritarian hierarchy. I can only guess at their reasonings, ranging from sunk-cost fallacy to the years they have given in service as a bang maid and undervalued SAHM (a lifestyle I am not knocking) to the very real fact that women can be sadistic and cruel as well.
The definition of sex is important in that hierarchy because it creates a structure of abuse that they can also take part in. It’s easier to say to yourself “I’m not a victim, I am part of this ancient biological natural order where I am the supporter of big strong men who defend me and should be worshipped for the lowest bar of decency imaginable” than to truly sit with the realization that Trump, MAGA, and the hyper religious crowds in the US are only supporting labeling a woman a woman and stopping trans ideology because it serves their interests in sex based oppression and the illusion of total authoritarian family unit control. Misogyny is pervasive and scary and it’s less uncomfy to view the men in charge and around you as noble protectors rather than people who want to actively control, abuse, and belittle you.
Maybe I’m totally off base in my reasoning but that’s where I end up and it sure doesn’t make me feel better as a whole, but I at least stop feeling
mind boggled.
RE: Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping - YesYourNigel - Jan 28 2025
(Jan 28 2025, 9:00 AM)Herodotus women can be sadistic and cruel as well
Why are women never sadistic and cruel towards men? Why do we not have hordes of these women advocating for men to be enslaved or completely devoid of rights or whatever else that supposedly evil people only interested in personal gain would do? Why do evil women always work against other women, and against their own self-interests, and NEVER against men?
I completely agree with the rest of what you said, in that it's sunk-cost and also that women latch onto the only way women can have value while being in massive denial over the extent of their own mistreatment. But this sentence rubs me the wrong way because it creates the illusion that deceives all women from tradwives to libfems to TIFs, that the patriarchy can be used for the benefit of women and it just...can't. That's literally not how it works. And you might say it doesn't matter because these women THINK this is their ticket even if it screws them over, but it does matter, it does matter that so many supposedly selfish, power-hungry, narcissistic women are convinced that being harassed, raped, abused, denigrated and silenced by men is normal and even desirable - that it's something they're obliged to defend. And that men literally never do this for women, not just selfish men, but even supposed enlightened progressive men draw firm early lines on where women's rights need to end compared to men's.
Yes, backstabbing women for male approval is shitty and selfish. My problem is not with anyone calling these individual women selfish cruel jackasses, nor do I think these women need any empathy and excuses. My problem is with characterising this social norm as just "people bad" and separating it from the whole societal context when it's an entirely different kind of selfish compared to men actively preying on women. Women's paradoxical self-destructive tendencies result from completely different, opposite lifestyles under patriarchy compared to men, that's why they're so much more bizarre compared to men just wanting servitude from subhumans.
RE: Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping - Clover - Jan 28 2025
(Jan 28 2025, 9:00 AM)Herodotus💯 on all this.(Jan 27 2025, 8:31 PM)flytraps_ I don’t see how any feminist could have, in good conscience, voted for trump. I understand neither political party here cares about the best interests of women & girls. But Harris still would’ve been a better president. I don’t believe the women on ovarit who are praising trump are really radical feminists. They’re just conservatives.
Exactly this.
For me personally, what helped me come to terms with this wild disconnect in self preservation and critical thinking is realizing that these women are not truly lost or just in need of a better logic framing in an in good faith discussion. Some of them truly just (knowingly or not) support an authoritarian hierarchy. I can only guess at their reasonings, ranging from sunk-cost fallacy to the years they have given in service as a bang maid and undervalued SAHM (a lifestyle I am not knocking) to the very real fact that women can be sadistic and cruel as well.
The definition of sex is important in that hierarchy because it creates a structure of abuse that they can also take part in. It’s easier to say to yourself “I’m not a victim, I am part of this ancient biological natural order where I am the supporter of big strong men who defend me and should be worshipped for the lowest bar of decency imaginable” than to truly sit with the realization that Trump, MAGA, and the hyper religious crowds in the US are only supporting labeling a woman a woman and stopping trans ideology because it serves their interests in sex based oppression and the illusion of total authoritarian family unit control. Misogyny is pervasive and scary and it’s less uncomfy to view the men in charge and around you as noble protectors rather than people who want to actively control, abuse, and belittle you.
[...]
YesYourNigel Why are women never sadistic and cruel towards men? Why do we not have hordes of these women advocating for men to be enslaved or completely devoid of rights or whatever else that supposedly evil people only interested in personal gain would do? Why do evil women always work against other women, and against their own self-interests, and NEVER against men?These are good points. I think part of the thing is is that many people, men and women included, still do not believe that we live in a patriarchy. Or, that they believe the system which we call a patriarchy exists, but they refuse to call it such or accept that it is an unnatural authoritarian hierarchical structure that places men on top, and instead liken it to something "natural" and "just the way it is."
I am reminded of that quote:
Lyndon B. Johnson If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.And I feel like it relates to conservative/right-wing women, anti-feminist women, pro-forced-birth women etc. Systems of inequality cannot be used to create equality, but some women who do not want to dismantle oppressive systems, because the idea (false notion) that they could somehow get power in these oppressive systems is alluring. I think this is the part where it turns into "people bad" simply because women can be evil, selfish, and shortsighted just like right-wing men, because women are human. It is commenting on the core human part, the part that we would all be able to solely focus on if there weren't such rampant systemic sexism.
But you are right, no cruel selfish evil woman who lives under a patriarchal system could ever match the systematic cruel selfish evil nature of the male class who upholds the oppression of the female class. And yes, the (male-serving) reasons why women would choose to promote regressive misogynistic agendas and ideologies are completely different from men's (self-serving) reasons.
Regardless, though, it still hurts all the same to see women willingly choose to support the oppressor class... And act so joyous about it...
RE: Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping - eyeswideopen - Feb 9 2025
Thanks for posting this. One of the reasons I'm here is because I just can't take the constant fallatio for everything Trump and Musk do over at Ovarit. One or two executive orders rolling back the excesses of gender id will not even begin to cancel out all the harm he is causing to women, children, the poor, the environment, etc., etc. I'm just done with that garbage. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend and his actions will actually hurt us with the people that need convincing on the harms of gender (moderates and liberals).
RE: Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping - YesYourNigel - Feb 10 2025
(Jan 28 2025, 12:23 PM)Clover I think part of the thing is is that many people, men and women included, still do not believe that we live in a patriarchy. Or, that they believe the system which we call a patriarchy exists, but they refuse to call it such or accept that it is an unnatural authoritarian hierarchical structure that places men on top, and instead liken it to something "natural" and "just the way it is."Yes, but men refuse to acknowledge the patriarchy because they want to keep benefiting from it. When men call the patriarchy "natural" and "just the way it is", it's because they like it that way. When women do it, it's because they genuinely believe that they don't deserve anything better and that men cannot change for the better, or that it's cruel to make them. It's giving up, rather than rubbing hands at the potential exploitation and entitlement. Certainly both sides are also usually motivated by general human fear of change and the adaptation to the cultural mainstream and current hierarchies, but that's on top of these motivations. Certainly a man isn't going to be invested in letting go of free bangmaids and servitude, whereas women who are told they don't deserve and can't have anything better are obviously working within severe limitations. They might be personally invested in their chains and feel superior because their chains are shinier than other women's, but that's different from men wanting to place and keep women chained to exploit them in the first place.
Quote:some women do not want to dismantle oppressive systems, because the idea (false notion) that they could somehow get power in these oppressive systems is alluring.
My point is that power is impossible for women under patriarchy. What women see as power is really just a male protection racket. Madonnas being appreciated over wh*res isn't power - it's just women being subjected to male violence less than other disobedient women by signaling their loyalty to the male cause and distracting men with more suitable, less cooperative victims. Now, do these women feel a superiority complex over lesser women? Yes. But that's not power. Exploiting women is never done for women's benefit, it's done for men, and as such enabling male exploitation of women cannot be a road to power for women.
It reminds me of people saying that women held real power by "controlling" men behind the scenes. That's not power. That's just women making do with what they've got in order to gain the approval and subsequent protection from male violence. Women climbing the social ladder from "Completely inferior targets of rape and violence" to "Good women who know their place and should only be raped and beaten by the man who owns her" is not power, even if it gets sold to women as power. And again it's important to remember that none of these women are spared male violence - their political alignment (aka parroting men) forbids them from truly holding their ground that rape and violence are universally bad. And that means they're always an acceptable target for it.
When we hear of extreme cases like black or Jewish Nazis, it's obvious that they're self-hating and trying to cope within a supremacist system. No-one thinks they're power-hungry. But for women we apply different standards where the patriarchy suddenly becomes a viable way for women to achieve power. Why? Is it because the patriarchy is such an everyday obligatory part of every woman's life that it's possible to somehow exploit it for female benefit? But that only explains further why so many women get more efficiently brainwashed into doing the patriarchy's bidding even to their own detriment, rather than explaining it as a thirst for power via paradoxically powerless means.
Let's be real: no woman in existence would support any self-destructive dehumanising and disempowering misogynistic idea if she wasn't born into a world where misogyny was normal and treated as common sense. This is something that every woman, even the shittiest, most narcissistic, short-sighted one, has to contend with. No woman gets to opt out of being inferior under the patriarchy, and they all know it. Even the most perfect, idealised tradwife knows she's one misstep away from being a wh*re and b*tch. Even the most passing butch TIF is one terrifying, erm I mean, ✌"dysphoria inducing"✌ misstep away from being discovered by her "bros" and being treated the same way. Playing the patriarchy's game to prove you're not as bad as other women does not mean you get to opt out of the patriarchy's contempt of women, and every single woman feels this fear to her core. Even if they fool themselves into thinking they're somehow "winning" the patriarchy, they're always fully aware that they need to keep their head down and know their place as women in a man's world.
RE: Not even sure where to post this horrifying example of Trump-humping - Wandering_Feminist56 - Feb 11 2025
I was also dumbfounded and disappointed to see the massive Trump support. Now I've already been feeling uncomfortable there, but this was a whole new level. I saw women (? who even knows...) say that all prominent male politicians are rapists so it doesn't matter, even though Harris is a woman! I saw a comment that stuck with me, it was saying that a lot of users are sanctimoniously arguing from a place of privilege: THEY could afford to place the definition of woman, no matter what else comes with it, over abortion and contraception access. Maybe they're of an age where it personally doesn't matter anymore or some other reason, but being perfectly fine with helping to take away access to reproductive control is imo a massive, absolutely massive betrayal of women. It's not fun anymore. I saw one of the louder ''radfems'' from my country proudly and blatantly post about liberal tears after Trump won and it really lead to me thinking, what the hell is this even anymore, who are these people, and what do they have to do with radical feminism? Any feminism at all, even?