I do agree, but my experience with fundie women (Christian women who “know their role”) is that yes, there is point where they are victims of this system of belief, but they will NOT think twice about using their proximity to power to victimize/bully/subjugate others, whether it’s people of color, lgbtq or anyone not in their bubble.
Exactly. One of the most complicating factors in feminism has always been that there have always been means for women to use proximity to men to gain power over others in accordance with the power of those men. For example in the era shortly following the abolition of slavery in the United States women had practically no rights that did not come from their husbands or fathers, but could still get a black man killed by claiming he hit on her.
Some women prefer it that way. In exchange for autonomy they receive a form of alternative authority and are able to abdicate responsibility for the power exerted in their names. If you already wanted what they demand of you, then you have little reason to question the morality involved here and they sell a life that for some is very nice. And it’s not like you’ll need an abortion to save your life or will find your husband getting violent or will have a queer kid. That happens to other people, less holy people, sinners. They’re the ones who are why your life is difficult.
And there’s also the hypocrites. The Phillis Schlafely types. They believe they belong in their place but don’t want to do it so they try to make it mandatory.
It’s like if you change it up and let the kids who never get picked first be the team captains, the very first people they pick will be the people who never picked them. Everyone just wants to be winners.
In the loyalist worldview, there is nothing but hierarchy. That’s why these people are stereotypically awful to waitstaff: those employees are beneath them. Anything short of subservience is a personal attack.
I need folks to understand that people in this tribalist mindset do not evaluate information. They only accept or reject claims based on interpersonal loyalty. Reality itself is defined by whatever the people above them say, today. Their betters must be smarter and richer and more handsome, or else they wouldn’t be above them. ‘Where’s your Bugatti?’
Reasoned argument is a learned behavior. It’s visibly not what these people are using their brains for. They’re still just shuffling cards. So yes, many individuals above them are now wrong and ugly and poor, and condemning them will involve a lot of familiar terms that outgroup critics told them in vain. But they’re not fixed. They didn’t suddenly recognize the system. They just passed their excusable limit on bad things happening to them, personally.
And they’re still liable to waltz back in, even if it gets worse. All they need are better excuses to raise the limit.
I do agree, but my experience with fundie women (Christian women who “know their role”) is that yes, there is point where they are victims of this system of belief, but they will NOT think twice about using their proximity to power to victimize/bully/subjugate others, whether it’s people of color, lgbtq or anyone not in their bubble.
Angela from The Office.
Exactly. One of the most complicating factors in feminism has always been that there have always been means for women to use proximity to men to gain power over others in accordance with the power of those men. For example in the era shortly following the abolition of slavery in the United States women had practically no rights that did not come from their husbands or fathers, but could still get a black man killed by claiming he hit on her.
Some women prefer it that way. In exchange for autonomy they receive a form of alternative authority and are able to abdicate responsibility for the power exerted in their names. If you already wanted what they demand of you, then you have little reason to question the morality involved here and they sell a life that for some is very nice. And it’s not like you’ll need an abortion to save your life or will find your husband getting violent or will have a queer kid. That happens to other people, less holy people, sinners. They’re the ones who are why your life is difficult.
And there’s also the hypocrites. The Phillis Schlafely types. They believe they belong in their place but don’t want to do it so they try to make it mandatory.
It’s like if you change it up and let the kids who never get picked first be the team captains, the very first people they pick will be the people who never picked them. Everyone just wants to be winners.
In the loyalist worldview, there is nothing but hierarchy. That’s why these people are stereotypically awful to waitstaff: those employees are beneath them. Anything short of subservience is a personal attack.
I need folks to understand that people in this tribalist mindset do not evaluate information. They only accept or reject claims based on interpersonal loyalty. Reality itself is defined by whatever the people above them say, today. Their betters must be smarter and richer and more handsome, or else they wouldn’t be above them. ‘Where’s your Bugatti?’
Reasoned argument is a learned behavior. It’s visibly not what these people are using their brains for. They’re still just shuffling cards. So yes, many individuals above them are now wrong and ugly and poor, and condemning them will involve a lot of familiar terms that outgroup critics told them in vain. But they’re not fixed. They didn’t suddenly recognize the system. They just passed their excusable limit on bad things happening to them, personally.
And they’re still liable to waltz back in, even if it gets worse. All they need are better excuses to raise the limit.
Then spend your time that way. I’m far more concerned with one guy, with heaps of allies, setting the terms across the country.
Others can make sure some women learn “their real place.”
I don’t see how anything you said after “but” was related to anything except to annihilate your first 3 words.