What People Get Wrong About Christian Women Who Voted for Trump

proudcatlady

Jan 12 2025, 7:18 PM

#21

i never really thought of it this way before. This explains so much of the bizarre, self-harming behavior you see from RWW. It’s sad you feel (understandably) that you need a long disclaimer that you don’t hate straights/moms or want to use misogynistic slurs. It’s ok to criticize other women who are doing terrible things, and it can be insidious when we’re afraid to call each other out. And it always seems like it’s lesbians who get yelled at first.

YesYourNigel

Jan 12 2025, 9:15 PM

#22

(Jan 10 2025, 12:55 PM)Possum But university-educated women in western countries are significantly less brainwashed than, say, an illiterate woman living under Taliban control. I just can't see educated women voting for Trump as anything other than "fuck you I wanna be on top". They have the ability to read and think. They have the ability to make choices and they choose the worst possible

University-educated women were brought up in traditional families, consumed male-centric media, dated men whose misogyny they were told to overlook because of "love" and "understanding" or whose misogyny is straight up fetishised as attractive by our culture, are employed by creepy male bosses, backstabbed by male colleagues, friends and family who will always side with men (unless an individual man damages their property), and gaslit by other traumatized women that this is all normal, are taught by male teachers in male-dominated subjects, live in a world where feminazis are crazy bitches persecuting all men over the sins of the 0,00001% (despite paradoxically also being blamed if they get hurt by men because duh ofc men will abuse you

Being educated in a man's world doesn't mean you'll see through the male bs. Why would you? Even the women who are educated with specific focus on feminism and gender, who really should know better, will tell you prostitution and fetishised violence over women is sexual liberation and that rape of men is a pressing feminist issue. If people who make feminism their degree can't look past men's dicks, why would someone educated in sth like meteorology have any better idea? Hell, even history or law enforcement, which should make male abuse of women blatantly obvious, is rife with victim blaming, denial and justifications for men. There is simply no environment in our society aside from perhaps radical feminist spaces (which are a tiny, vilified niche compared to liberal feminism) that allows women to decenter men completely. Yes, you have to be extra deluded, self-destructive and stupid to vote for Trump, but male-backed education isn't enough to get women to look past patriarchal biases.

Quote:yes if you are educated and financially stable you can live a pretty normal life without having to suck up to men

Not really. Men run things, and you can't openly challenge this unless you want to get into trouble for being "difficult" and "political". Even traditionally female professions have men in charge, so having your life stalled and sabotaged by male bs and misogyny is unavoidable, unless you never intend to leave the house (which is exactly the appeal for tradwives).

Besides, you can do plenty of things, but people don't because they want to lead a normal life. They want a partner and a family and friends with whom they can go out for coffee and talk about life instead of having them think they're crazy militant tinfoil-hat weirdos. Just because women aren't fully legally subhuman does not mean they are in a state where they can freely entertain feminism. It's not like all women have been trying to lead the exact same lives as men all along and the only thing keeping them from it was men holding them at gunpoint. We needed decades for women to start inching their way into areas that were denied to them even after the legal stops were lifted because they didn't think they deserved it, and were offput by societal discouragement.

Quote:Even if we removed men from the equation I think we would still organize ourselves into these castes of "good woman who deserves to exploit" vs "bad woman who deserves to be exploited.".

This simply isn't how it plays out. Unlike male communities, the easiest thing to do for women is to get them to prioritise every other group but themselves and we see this play out again and again (black women prioritise the (male) black community over female rights, gender criticals prioritise anti-trans and conservative men over female rights, liberal feminists prioritise trans/male rights/racism/kink/ANYTHING over female rights etc.). This is both due to men running things and also women's socialisation to always put themselves last because they're seen as the least important, least notable part of society (unless there's a man who owns them).

Quote:Women in racist communities are raised to believe they deserve to exploit and oppress WOC.

How? From everything I've seen, white women's racism is primarily motivated by wanting protection from brown men's violence over women, and white men, the same men who cover for their fellow rapists and abusers, allow and encourage these complaints instead of wailing about misandry because under white supremacism they don't want brown men "stealing and ruining their white women". White men's misogyny is so normalised that you can't complain about it without it being "extremist" and "political", and additionally a lot of men of colour come from cultures and religions where far worse treatment of women is openly encouraged. They objectively are worse, and this gets used both to cover up their misogyny under accusations of racism and to let white men off the hook.

Quote:there's more nuance to it than women are always acting out of brainwashing or desire for safety. I think a lot of these women are motivated by a desire to dominate 'lesser' women, not just a desire to protect themselves.

What does any woman personally get from calling other women whores? What benefit is there in advocating against rapists and domestic abusers being punished and ostracized? All these women get assaulted, abused and walked over just like you and me, maybe even more given how they don't allow themselves to call out the common pattern behind male abuse. They didn't luck out in any way. Why would any supposedly selfish woman want things that do nothing but harm her? Why don't any selfish women advocate for female supremacism or exterminating men or anything that would improve their lives? This is completely paradoxical, and just saying "idk, they just like feeling superior I guess" doesn't explain it.
This hierarchy makes absolutely no sense for women because it was built by men for measurable male benefit. Which is also why it's the first thing women ditch when they build their own movements (though male bs creeps in regardless via other routes) and the biggest problem becomes not the other supremacist movements packaged in, but the lack of any sense of self-worth that would put women's rights over any man with a sob story.

You don't need to add nuance in the form of paradoxical motivations for unnecessary complexity. Women prioritise misogynistic male interests because they live in a male-run world where worth and values rely entirely on male approval, where they put up with dehumanisation and abuse all their lives to the point where it's their main anxiety and limitation on their day-to-day life, and where the most acceptable role for them is one of quiet self-sacrificing servitude and obedience unless they raise their voices to parrot men. That's it. Women do this as a response to the same predictable patriarchal pressures that have been at play for centuries, every moment of our lives. They didn't independently invent spitefully self-destructive ideologies, nor is this down to individual women being evil people.

Quote:many liberal women have a similar attitude but instead of mommy-wife vs single-wh*re it's more like cool-sexy vs lame-prude.

Again, what reason do they have to care about any of this? What benefit is there to a woman, doubly so a straight women, if another woman sleeps around or doesn't have enough kink in her life? This whole hierarchy breaks down the second you remove men from the equation and try to make it about some vague individual sense of superiority that isn't being fulfilled or rewarded outside of just "man likes you, man abuses you less than men who don't know you", the deal that women have been marketed for as long as patriarchy has existed. Any sense of superiority is fundamentally rooted in trying to appeal to male hierarchies.

Libfems prioritise men because they're still trying to get respect and a sense of normalcy from inside a patriarchal system, similar to why conservative women do it. Both try to sell the idea of a happy tradwife/happy hooker, and both revolve their repulsion of the other around this false dichotomy. It's not that libfems hate prudes for any personal benefit, it's that they themselves don't want to fall into the Spinster Abyss of Lost Souls. They want to still stay relevant to men and have a voice, but also not be abused. But they don't even conceive of a possibility that isn't still rooted in Madonna-wh*re dichotomy because that's the only thing that society can conceive of. If women aren't property for men, then they'd naturally want to be "free" prostitutes. There is no third alternative.

Quote:maybe I'm creating my own madonna/wh*re hierarchy with my women who hate women vs women who don't hate women categories.

That's a valid position though - people who demand destruction of women's rights are lesser than those who don't because what they're doing it immoral. That degree of shittiness should reflect badly on the person. That's different from deplorable anti-human hierarchies where someone is lesser solely due to "man dick no like".

Quote:Women are human and humans can be petty, vindictive, sadistic, and stupid.

So why aren't they like this against men? Why does it ALWAYS screw women over? Even the most selfish, self-centered woman does this and directs her ire solely at other women while letting the men who abuse her off the hook. Why would a self-centered woman not want to turn on the men harming her? If women are just as selfish, why isn't the lowest-common-denominator feminism the kind that advocates a reverse-patriarchy with a class of legally enslaved men who need to coddle, serve and worship women under threat of violence, starvation and extermination, if all this women's anger and pettiness have nothing to do with patriarchal brainwashing? I don't see anything human about prioritising your abuser's benefits instead of your own, in fact I find that decidedly artificial.

Quote:There isn't always a sympathetic reason behind women hating women

To clarify, I'm not trying to characterise conservative women's stupidity, male pandering, sense of superiority and self-destructiveness as sympathetic in any way and please don't feel like you need to give them some benefit of a doubt or avoid characterising them as utter self-absorbed bootlicking shitheads that they are. I find them worthy of the lowest circle of hell alongside butch TIFs trying to throw women under the bus in exchange for male headpats.

But shitty people still function within the confines of our society and recognising what drives them makes it more effective to either challenge them or to predict their irrational behaviour. My alarm bells go off when I see women characterised as responsible in any way for the patriarchy, when in reality women's opinions and behaviour, by design, have 0 influence on male supremacism. If every single woman turned turbo-feminist tomorrow, it wouldn't affect men because men listen to other men, that's the whole point of male supremacism. But when every man was a male-supremacist, most women were as well. It's obvious to see why.

Conservative women are rooted in the exact same patriarchal limitations we're all subject to. They didn't set this system up, and they get assaulted, degraded, raped, beaten, silenced just as much as any woman does. They just think that women don't deserve any better and that forcing men to change is cruel and mean and misandrist, so you consistently see them idolise this idea of a husband who'll protect them from neverending abuse from other men. Yes, they play the Madonna-wh*re game and try to profit off of this system to the detriment of "lesser" women who they see as enemies rather than the men, but it all goes back to the fact that this is the only socially acceptable "out" for them from a lifetime of normalised abuse by men.

Not only is this an "out", there is also a measure of "respect" (though I hesitate to call it such) for mothers, unlike all those other spinsters who don't want to grow up and marry and birth babies. This is (delusionally) seen as the only thing that men will step aside to respect women for, unlike every job or opinion, or area of interest where men are automatically better. But again it comes back to this being the only acceptable "out" from endless patriarchal degradation.

Quote:I think his mother would develop patriarchal attitudes about what her son deserves because there's an instinct with parents to have their child succeed

Why wouldn't mothers develop female-supremacist ideas for her daughters and other women, doubly so because they're a lot more palatable and empowering to her as a woman herself? What about both sons and daughters? Do they get an equal patriarchal-matriarchal split?

The patriarchy isn't this individualistic idea that you want a man who you happen to be close to to succeed, it's that ALL men have more authority, competence and worth than women by virtue of being male. Patriarchy isn't something one single family can decide on its own, it's not something that happens by men coincidentally doing better or being more beloved and it definitely wasn't established by women.

Quote:I think if her son raped a woman, even without patriarchy she'd lean into rape myths about how her baby boy didn't do anything wrong because no parent wants to view their child as a monster.

So why do so many mothers tell their daughters to not cause a scene when they get assaulted or raped? The same mothers who were also told that when they themselves experienced this? Where is their parental protective instinct then?

ofc people will always default to biases and irrational emotional reactions, but these are obviously based in personal benefit. This is different from specifically ideological, supremacist ideas that are openly destructive to women and completely antithetical to their well-being, but that women paradoxically support anyway. This paradox isn't present in men - every cause they support and get invested in always has obvious benefits to them personally.

Quote:For the record I enjoyed your comment even though I disagree with a lot of it. I like that I can argue with you on this forum without getting a thousand downvotes or being dogpiled lol.

Yeah, I mean, it's refreshing that we can count on people to agree that conservative women are short-sighted idiots, as any woman with an inkling of self respect would. We just disagree on the exact reasoning guiding their behaviour. I don't think I could be civil if I had to hear another round of whataboutism trying to justify Trump voters by acting as if liberals are forcing them into it.

Edited Jan 13 2025, 11:02 AM by YesYourNigel.

Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐

452

Jan 13 2025, 8:26 PM

#23

YesYourNigel Men run things, and you can't openly challenge this unless you want to get into trouble for being "difficult" and "political". Even traditionally female professions have men in charge, so having your life stalled and sabotaged by male bs and misogyny is unavoidable, unless you never intend to leave the house (which is exactly the appeal for tradwives). [...] Just because women aren't fully legally subhuman does not mean they are in a state where they can freely entertain feminism.

I agree. I live in a liberal state, with liberal male coworkers, "highly educated," blah blah. There's no way I could bring up to my coworker how his claims that his young son is just "naturally" more boundary-pushing because he's a boy, and his younger daughter is more timid and submissive because "she just is," are rooted in biological essentialism and the children's behavior is based on how they have been raised since they were babies in a sexist society. Or if I brought up that saying "b*tch" is a misogynistic slur and I'd prefer we'd not use that term? How likely would saying something like that make me be treated as some sort of "feminazi weirdo" in my workplace and likely no longer a tech/nerd "cool girl"? Very likely. The fact that women can't state basic feminist ideas without worry of ostracization shows how male-centered society still is, even in the "educated" parts of the world.

YesYourNigel We needed decades for women to start inching their way into areas that were denied to them even after the legal stops were lifted because they didn't think they deserved it, and were offput by societal discouragement.

I'd also like to point out how quickly this minute progress can backslide. I'm not even going to bring up things like historical photos of women from before the Iran revolution to afterwards, or even comparing the lives of Afghan women before the Taliban fully took over recently. Those are very obvious examples of horrific misogynistic backslides. Even in the United States, after the election of Donald Trump and a Republican congress, we can already see techbro shitbags (and other companies) backpedaling on DEI and boldly stating biologically essentialist sexist bullshit:

Zuckerberg Says Most Companies Need More ‘Masculine Energy’ “Masculine energy I think is good, and obviously society has plenty of that, but I think that corporate culture was really trying to get away from it[.] [...] It’s like you want feminine energy, you want masculine energy, [...] But I do think the corporate culture sort of had swung toward being this somewhat more neutered thing[.”]

Zuckerberg, who launched his career by rating the attractiveness of women at Harvard University[.] [...]

“If you’re a woman going into a company, it probably feels like it’s too masculine. It’s — there isn’t enough of the energy that you may naturally have[.”]

From Yahoo/Bloomberg article.

YesYourNigel Unlike male communities, the easiest thing to do for women is to get them to prioritise every other group but themselves and we see this play out again and again (black women prioritise the (male) black community over female rights, gender criticals prioritise anti-trans and conservative men over female rights, liberal feminists prioritise trans/male rights/racism/kink/ANYTHING over female rights etc.). This is both due to men running things and also women's socialisation to always put themselves last because they're seen as the least important, least notable part of society (unless there's a man who owns them).

These are good points. Even in some of the Lipstick Alley threads I was browsing, there was discussions about how black women put the black community first which meant focusing on black men over their own female liberation. Misogyny is the world's oldest prejudice. White men oppress white women, black men oppress black women, Asian men oppress Asian women, atheist men oppress atheist women, liberal men oppress liberal women, and so on. When men and women are segregated into "their" homogenized groups, the men oppress the women.

YesYourNigel From everything I've seen, white women's racism is primarily motivated by wanting protection from brown men's violence over women, and white men, the same men who cover for their fellow rapists and abusers, allow and encourage these complaints instead of wailing about misandry because under white supremacism they don't want brown men "stealing and ruining their white women".

Some women on Lipstick Alley had valid points about how black women have been oppressed by white women. One example was how white women wanted "their" enslaved black women pregnant at all times so that the white woman would not would have to nurse her children, since it was painful and time consuming. Those white women objectified black women as milk machines. That is clearly a historical example, and we could point out how the reason the white woman was having children was likely because her husband demanded her to be, so she was dealing with misogyny, but that can't be used to absolve her of the decision to force black women to be her slaves. Overall, if men can be racist, women can be racist. All human beings can form prejudices and promote bigotry. And if women can be racist, then they are participating in people of color's, women of color's, oppression.

I think this is some of the important criticisms of the second wave, for instance Audre Lorde's The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle The Master's House:

Audre Lorde As women, we have been taught either to ignore our differences, or to view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces for change. Without community there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression. But community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist.

And then in her essay There Is No Hierarchy Of Oppression:

Audre Lorde I simply do not believe that one aspect of myself can possibly profit from the oppression of any other part of my identity. I know that my people cannot possibly profit from the oppression of any other group which seeks the right to peaceful existence. Rather, we diminish ourselves by denying to others what we have shed blood to obtain for our children. And those children need to learn that they do not have to become like each other in order to work together for a future
they will all share.

Within the lesbian community I am Black, and within the Black community I am a lesbian.

Truthfully, I do believe that misogyny, is the world's oldest oppression and likely the root start of a lot of other oppressions, such as when groups of people started interacting with other groups of people who have different cultures, skin colors, and facial characteristics. Regardless, I feel like the lesson I can take away from this is that when women of color discuss racism, the ways race and sex intersect to give them a dual axis of oppression, that deserves equal recognition.

One example is how white women's reproductive rights largely focus around the right to an abortion/ability to get sterilized, while for women of color, not only do they also need the right to an abortion, they also have dealt with racial oppression in the sense that they may have been sterilized without their consent because of their race or face greater odds of dying in childbirth because of their race (and black women's newborn babies are more likely to survive when under the care of a black physician than a white physician). And it seems like what the women on Lipstick Alley criticize on Ovarit is an overwhelming focus on feminist issues that "only" affect "all women", which kind of ends up being issues that "mostly" affect white women. If the topics being discussed are ones primarily affect the "absolute female" (no other axes of oppression, the woman is stripped of her race, ethnicity, sexuality, class, [dis]ability, etc.), then that's going to bring in primarily white heteronormative women (just based on demographic statistics alone). Some of these white women are going to understand the concept of white privilege and systemic racism. The ones who don't are more likely to dismiss any other axes of oppression women may face, and encourage a focus on the areas of oppression they personally face at the expense of dismissing any oppression they don't face.

YesYourNigel My alarm bells go off when I see women characterised as responsible in any way for the patriarchy, when in reality women's opinions and behaviour, by design, have 0 influence on male supremacism. [...] Conservative women are rooted in the exact same patriarchal limitations we're all subject to. They didn't set this system up, and they get assaulted, degraded, raped, beaten, silenced just as much as any woman does.

💯 This is key. The only time conservative women don't get silenced is when they are promoting something that benefits male supremacy. Same with any woman. Like that's why neoliberal feminists don't get cancelled at universities while radical feminists do—radical feminists identify women's oppression as the result of male dominance. Women of any background are not silenced when what they say benefits men. "Tokenized" women, objectified women—tokens get spent.

Kozlik's regular member account. 🍀🐐

YesYourNigel

6 hours ago

#24

Quote:One example was how white women wanted "their" enslaved black women pregnant at all times so that the white woman would not would have to nurse her children, since it was painful and time consuming. Those white women objectified black women as milk machines. That is clearly a historical example, and we could point out how the reason the white woman was having children was likely because her husband demanded her to be, so she was dealing with misogyny, but that can't be used to absolve her of the decision to force black women to be her slaves

But how does this relate or translate to anything modern-day white women are advocating? I can certainly find plenty of things that white men advocate and openly benefit from when it comes to racism, not least of which is this stupid-ass "race war" over which race of men "owns" which "pure" women. What benefit is there to women parroting these things that isn't just trying to get on men's good side? As I said, this is the first thing women ditch when they make their movements. It's just not something they're genuinely invested in. In fact the only conservative thing I see women genuinely invested in, as in actively heralding and investing large amounts of independent thought to, is religion. Everything else is just parroting Nigels or male influencers and not really having anything to contribute outside of that. I've literally never seen a white male supremacist woman that wasn't either married to a louder more aggressive husband like that, or trying to suck up to a shitty male friend group. That is not to say that women can't be racist, but that they subconsciously recognise that white supremacism isn't for them, just as men recognise the opposite.

With so many men I talk to, it's just a matter of time before they start spewing racist (and without exception sexist) crap. It's gotten to the point where I brace myself every time I talk to a man for a longer period. I've never had this consistent experience with women. And it's obvious that all the white supremacist influencers are men. Women are only really paid attention to if they parrot what white men are saying in that "See? She's not one of the crazy ones!" way, and then promptly forgotten about. Same goes for the far-right. Not only do white women not make white supremacism a part of their identity, even slightly progressive white women are far more open to discussing racism, to the point of self-flaggelating over even recognising cultural practices as misogynistic. Meanwhile progressive men don't think about racism unless they can skirt the problem by pinning the blame onto other groups like white women, or literal Hitler-worshipping Nazis.
So white women are already less invested in white supremacism, they do push back on it in very large amounts (enough that they're made fun of for obsessing over cultural appropriation and such) and are more willing to call it out. That doesn't mean white women are not racist (all white people are subject to racist biases) but rather that vilifying white women as this specifically problematic group is unfounded. Again, all white people are subject to white biases, but white women show time and time again they're willing to critically examine them, unless they're surrounded by conservative men.

An additional thing I notice is that non-white/non-western women both lean more conservative (even though they tend to be characterised as progressive for some reason?) and will have their bar set in absolute hell in regards to feminism, because their cultural environment is so much worse. Now, them advocating for different pressing issues is not bad in and of itself (obviously a community with debilitating rates of domestic violence will fixate on that more than on not having to hear sexist comments at work), but the problem comes when they direct the bitterness over their situation towards white women, rather than the culture, religion and the men ruining their lives in their own community. This then results in dismissing white women as spoiled rich b*tches for focusing on such petty demands like equal representation in the government or fields of employment, instead of domestic violence or gang rape. Result: conservative women (unsurprisingly) always ALWAYS prioritise their Nigels and the male community that harms them, instead of women's rights.

Most conservative women, regardless of race, only really have an interest in feminism as far as it can net them more separate-but-equal "respect" and less violence in their (usually religiously-motivated) role as sacred feminine mothers.This attitude is palatable to conservative women because motherhood is the only role for women that is encouraged and the only one that garners them superficial respect. This gets worse the more that even basic things like job opportunities and equal relationships feel like a foreign, fantastical and out-of-reach idea. But female equality shouldn't be defined by the barest minimum that seems achievable to conservative women living in more extreme patriarchal environments, not least because in many cases, the road to having women not fall into abusive straight relationship in the first place is de-normalising misogyny beyond just the most extreme rape and wifebeating and providing women with independence and a sense of self-worth that keeps them from pairing up with abusive men in the first place.

I am definitely not trying to sweep white people's racist biases under the rug, or tell any woman who isn't white that she should not focus on how her race informs her life as a woman just because it's "unrelateable" or "hostile" to white women (which is exactly what ends up happening on Ovarit). Being blind to your own race is a privilege and proclaiming much-needed openness on that front as "political" or "divisive" is the same as what women go through around men. What I see happen is that progressive women of all races prioritise everything except women's rights, which results in extreme exploitation on the part of men who claim they're justified because they have more oppression points, leading to mass gaslighting under accusations of bigotry. White men repurpose that for their race war and cry foul that their property aka white women are getting ruined, said white women think white men give a shit about their rights and get sold the fairy tale of the white male protector who might still rape you and beat you because that's what manly virile men do, but he'll do it less than brown men. Meanwhile violence over women gets downplayed and covered up when committed by white men (which is simply the norm, nothing to see here) and brown men's violence gets used to justify white supremacism, and on the progressive side many tears are shed over poor poor violent men of colour and how racist it is to ever hold them accountable or even mention their extreme cultural issues with misogyny, which is seen as just a quirky expected result of male frustrations. No-one points out the actual problem because men run the show and they don't give a crap about women. Women just cheer on from the sidelines.

My point is specifically in how race gets used to dismiss and tear down women's rights - progressive women end up self-flaggelating and covering for violent and abusive non-white men, conservative white women rush to their abusive misogynistic boyfriends to protect them from brown men and do mental gymnastics where "Karen" proves that their poor Nigel is persecuted for being white when he reposts racist memes. Black women and women from non-Western more misogynistic cultures hold resentment over "rich white women" for "having it easy" with their petty "first world feminism", and also for making their community look bad when their abusive Nigels fuck things up beyond repair. There is also a significant xenophobic sentiment against progressive values in numerous non-Western cultures (including some majority white ones) that absolutely gets exploited to sell misogyny and religion to progressives and this isn't talked about nearly as much. All of this results in the constant issue present in every mainstream progressive cause where women get told to shut up because there's always something that is either more important than, or which justifies misogyny.

We need to talk about racism in order to further the rights of all women, not the opposite. I'm sure we can work towards the goal of equal humanity for all women without someone always trying to veto women's rights because of culture/Nigel/choice/sacred femininity/white privilege/religion etc. When discussing race and socio-economic background helps extend equality to ALL women, that's great. That is exactly why we need to discuss it more. But if it only serves to stall and derail from women's rights, then fuck no.

Edited 4 hours ago by YesYourNigel.