They see themselves as being special and having a sense of power within the family-unit – The Queen of the Castle if you will. But out in the real world they’re not special and are treated just like any other person. Which goes hand in hand with religious indoctrination and the sense of moral superiority that comes with it. They’re a good mom/wife after all. While those other, feminist women are just whores. Running around, spreading their legs for everyone and getting abortions every other week.
They’re just brainwashed and protecting their ill-conceived position of “power”.
It’s called understanding. Which is actually productive and helps counter their narratives. Whereas walking around calling people “fuckin’ morons” doesn’t really do anything.
This article mentions that they are trying to disenfranchise people with the citizenship proof requirements, and it also mentions that they specifically want to disenfranchise women, but it doesn’t draw a connection between the two. In order for those to be connected, women would have to have more difficulty in producing that proof than men (which may be the case, but the article doesn’t show that).
To actually answer your question, though, at least from the conservative women I’ve talked to, they are fine with that. The conservative women I know are weak, and they essentially want to give up responsibility in exchange for freedoms. They actually want women to be second class citizens because it means that they don’t have to worry about anything (but they do have to just do what they are told).
There are old, conservative women who spent their lives as housewives who feel threatened by working women, so they want to maintain/go back to the status quo of women staying in the home (ignoring the fact that working class women have always worked). On the other hand, there are young, conservative women who do work, who yearn for the pretend vision of white, upper-middle class 1950s, where they get to just stay home and do what they want all day.
TL; DR: They essentially want to be like children, worry-free in exchange for less freedom.
P.s., there are definitely plenty of conservative women too stupid or unwilling to admit to themselves that the conservative position is women as second class citizens, but I wanted to respond with the perspective I’ve heard from people who seemed to be more honest.
In order for those to be connected, women would have to have more difficulty in producing that proof than men (which may be the case, but the article doesn’t show that).
Just for clarification, this part has been answered in other articles discussing this subject. Married women would have a tougher time meeting proof-of-citizenship requirements if they took their husbands’ name (which happens 99.9% of the time) because their birth certificate would still have their maiden name. Since the voting rolls contain their married name and not their maiden name, the names wouldn’t match which would be grounds for removal from rolls. This would be made worse for those women who were married recently, as it’s more likely that even more documentation such as a drivers’ license would also still contain their maiden name and would therefore not be considered acceptable proof.
Women would have to provide additional documentation (such as a marriage license), but it’s expected that this alone would cause some women to consider it not worth the hassle and therefore not bother voting.
P.s., there are definitely plenty of conservative women too stupid or unwilling to admit to themselves that the conservative position is women as second class citizens, but I wanted to respond with the perspective I’ve heard from people who seemed to be more honest.
Sadly, there are women who openly embrace this line of thinking. Particularly those who were raised in ultra-religious households where women being subservient to men in all matters is the norm, and have no problems forcing those views on the secular women that they view as “whores”. Mostly, it’s a subconscious way of lashing out against the fact that they themselves have been oppressed for their whole lives and therefore feel better being the oppressor instead of the oppressed. But they are out there.
Married women would have a tougher time meeting proof-of-citizenship requirements if they took their husbands’ name
Yeah, that all definitely sounds reasonable to me. It’s just weird that if that’s the point the article was trying to make, they should have supported it a bit.
Right-wing and conservative women, please explain yourselves. 🙈
They see themselves as being special and having a sense of power within the family-unit – The Queen of the Castle if you will. But out in the real world they’re not special and are treated just like any other person. Which goes hand in hand with religious indoctrination and the sense of moral superiority that comes with it. They’re a good mom/wife after all. While those other, feminist women are just whores. Running around, spreading their legs for everyone and getting abortions every other week.
They’re just brainwashed and protecting their ill-conceived position of “power”.
Also called internalized misogyny.
That is an awful lot of words to say ‘they’re fuckin’ morons’.
It’s called understanding. Which is actually productive and helps counter their narratives. Whereas walking around calling people “fuckin’ morons” doesn’t really do anything.
Yes, your understanding the morons will absolutely help the morons to not be morons. Good luck with that.
Thanks :)
You’re going to have to defer to their men for permission for them to speak.
This article mentions that they are trying to disenfranchise people with the citizenship proof requirements, and it also mentions that they specifically want to disenfranchise women, but it doesn’t draw a connection between the two. In order for those to be connected, women would have to have more difficulty in producing that proof than men (which may be the case, but the article doesn’t show that).
To actually answer your question, though, at least from the conservative women I’ve talked to, they are fine with that. The conservative women I know are weak, and they essentially want to give up responsibility in exchange for freedoms. They actually want women to be second class citizens because it means that they don’t have to worry about anything (but they do have to just do what they are told).
There are old, conservative women who spent their lives as housewives who feel threatened by working women, so they want to maintain/go back to the status quo of women staying in the home (ignoring the fact that working class women have always worked). On the other hand, there are young, conservative women who do work, who yearn for the pretend vision of white, upper-middle class 1950s, where they get to just stay home and do what they want all day.
TL; DR: They essentially want to be like children, worry-free in exchange for less freedom.
P.s., there are definitely plenty of conservative women too stupid or unwilling to admit to themselves that the conservative position is women as second class citizens, but I wanted to respond with the perspective I’ve heard from people who seemed to be more honest.
Just for clarification, this part has been answered in other articles discussing this subject. Married women would have a tougher time meeting proof-of-citizenship requirements if they took their husbands’ name (which happens 99.9% of the time) because their birth certificate would still have their maiden name. Since the voting rolls contain their married name and not their maiden name, the names wouldn’t match which would be grounds for removal from rolls. This would be made worse for those women who were married recently, as it’s more likely that even more documentation such as a drivers’ license would also still contain their maiden name and would therefore not be considered acceptable proof.
Women would have to provide additional documentation (such as a marriage license), but it’s expected that this alone would cause some women to consider it not worth the hassle and therefore not bother voting.
Sadly, there are women who openly embrace this line of thinking. Particularly those who were raised in ultra-religious households where women being subservient to men in all matters is the norm, and have no problems forcing those views on the secular women that they view as “whores”. Mostly, it’s a subconscious way of lashing out against the fact that they themselves have been oppressed for their whole lives and therefore feel better being the oppressor instead of the oppressed. But they are out there.
Yeah, that all definitely sounds reasonable to me. It’s just weird that if that’s the point the article was trying to make, they should have supported it a bit.
I appreciate you taking the time to do it. Conservative women confuse me so much.
Father will vote in my interests.
“This is not what I voted for”
“That’s just silly, why would I vote when my husband votes!” Blah blah blah, something in the Bible, toxic tradwife bullshit etc
💀 lol while actively pushing politics that erode their rights away
We should ignore them, since they’re so proud about taking others voices and choices away.
deleted by creator