Look at how Teheran women were dressed in the 70s, and contrast that to how they're dressed now. The same future awaits American women.
this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
1017 points (98.5% liked)
News
25665 readers
3862 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Handmaids Tale, anyone?
Margaret Atwood is rolling in her... checks google... Well-appointed Canadian home.
I'm sure she's just going "I literally warned all of you, and the government is using it as an instruction book."
load more comments
(15 replies)
The Anti-DEI people hate women? Whodathunk
Imagine how little self-respect you'd have to have to be a woman and vote Republican.
Making sure that women have very little self-respect is one of the primary functions of American Evangelicalism.
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?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(26 replies)
This isn't a leaopards eating faces thing for republican women. These women derive social, economic, and political benefits through their association with the men who hold power in our patriarchal system. By aligning with backwards gender roles or evil ideologies, they feel protected and valued within the system even as it restricts their autonomy. They know what they're doing.
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.
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.
This may be true for some women, maybe in the "tradwife" and white supremacist circles. But if, as you say, it's critical to understand what these women think, you have to understand that they are not a monolith. There are other motivations to consider.
I was raised in a fundamentalist, evangelical church. Within that community, there was no presumption of a hierarchical position over other women. There was only our god-given position to be subservient to our fathers, and later, our husbands. We could either obey the divine plan to someday reach heaven or disobey it and be resigned to hell. There was no in-between.
Now, a reasonable person would see this as patently ridiculous. But the problem is that reason has no place in this worldview. You doggedly follow a literal interpretation of the King James Bible, or you go to hell.
Many years ago, when I was 16, I had asked for a particular privilege. And my mother agreed to grant it if I would listen to some audio tapes that she had of a series of sermons from a woman. Now, that was unusual in itself, because women are not allowed to teach men within fundamentalist churches (Because The Bible Says So™). So this was definitely a teaching that was only meant for women. What I heard was horrifying.
The entire point of this sermon series was to teach women how to be good, submissive Christian wives. The lesson of one tape was literally that if your husband commanded you to commit murder, you would have to do it, because God put him in charge of you and your duty to God was simply to follow orders from your husband.
A woman would not be judged for breaking a commandment if she followed the direction of her husband. The husband would be punished for causing someone to break God's commandments, but the wife would be spared because she was simply doing her duty as a wife to follow what her husband said.
Women's agency is completely removed in this scenario. Which sounds exactly like what the men described in the article want.
Again, the problem here is that reason has no purchase in this worldview. No amount of evidence or argument is going to change their minds or magically give them a sense of agency.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I can't help but think of how this cartoon from the beginning of November got it completely backward
Eh not really getting the idea across:
Scanning the article, the practical threat (besides crazy ideological stunts) seems to be stealth disenfranchisement of this type:
House Republicans passed a bill (which stalled in the Senate) this session to require citizens to have a passport or birth certificate matching their name to vote. This would be a back-door ban on voting for any woman who took her husband's last name and doesn't have a passport, an estimated 69 million women. It would also disproportionately affect Republican women, who are more likely to be married, more likely to have changed their name and less likely to have a passport.
load more comments
(14 replies)
Project 2025 will create the Christian Taliban. I highly doubt the dumb fuck female MAGA voters will realize what they voted for.
Some of them want to be subservient. I've heard some even lament voting before. The Christian brainwashing is pervasive to all parts of life.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Christian right woman will support this. "He's right, I'm not fully capable."
load more comments
(1 replies)
"When they came for me, there was nobody left to help."
Republican women: dehumanizing themselves to pwn the libs since Reagan.
Incels are finally having their moment. Next they will propose laws requiring hot girls to date them.
Not date them, breed ala handmaids tale
Incels aren't getting shit out of this, this benefits rightwing patriarchs who have abused wives at home.
Incels are alone in a basement or some shit dreaming about being the rightwing patriarch but the rightwing patriarch doesn't likely feel anything but disgust for the incel. They'd purge the incel in a heartbeat if they could.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
What if wanting to believe that there is some nice place that good people go when they die, leads people to support the mass murder and immiseration of countless women, children, queer people and BIPOC?
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.
load more comments
(8 replies)
My prediction for a future military incel recruitment poster:
Join the America Russia North Korea (ARNK) alliance in our war against the WOKE DEI Euro Chinese Soros COMMUNIST SCOURGE and you will be guaranteed a VIRGIN wife! ENLIST TODAY!
Shorten it to just ARK and it will be even more on the nose with a biblical reference!
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
For the believers, I think that tmany would be fine with this. It reinforces their preferred structure of a patriarchy in which they have a well-defined place and role (head of the domestic household, subservient to the man). No worries about having to deal with a fickle job market or figuring out what you want to do with your life. Your life path is set (get married, raise kids, take care of family), and, for some, that well-defined role the status that it conveys is really comforting. It provides a sense of security.
It's why, I expect, while there are many who fight it, there are plenty of women in Muslim societies who are fine with things as they are. We emphasize with those women who chafe at that and fight it since we've history valued the individual rights of self-determination and freedom, of course.
Thats a big allure of the American taliban to some folks. It provides structure and defined roles in a chaotic world.
Of course, republican men like it for the power, but more importantly, that women voters mostly vote against them. Stopping women from voting would cement them in power.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Can't wait to see all the videos of right-wing women surprised: "What?!! No one told us he was going to do this! We thought when he said he hated women he was only trolling/owning the libs/joking around!"
Ok so
As a single WASP (ok well, I grew up protestant) male in my 30s, who has the confidence of an abandoned kitten, how exactly does this benefit me?
Like I feel like this is supposed to be about men like me getting more power over women. But I fail to see how that helps me at all.
All I can see is that they start here, remove voting rights next, then they remove the ability for women to be licensed to be doctors, or lawyers, dentists, etc. That's gonna fuck my life up immensely.
Just so women can't have a say? Why?
Conservative views on women are absolutely confusing. I know we have to abandon logic with them, but maybe that's the part I don't understand: how the fuck do I think without logic?
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.
load more comments
(7 replies)
view more: next ›