It’s called “Calendargate,” and it’s raising the question of what — and whom — the right-wing war on “wokeness” is really for.

While most people were enjoying the holidays, extremely online conservatives were fighting about a pinup calendar.

Last month, Ultra Right Beer — a company founded as a conservative alternative to allegedly woke Bud Light — released a 2024 calendar titled “Conservative Dad’s Real Women of America 2024 Calendar.” The calendar contains photos of “the most beautiful conservative women in America” in various sexy poses. Some, like anti-trans swimmer Riley Gaines and writer Ashley St. Clair, are wearing revealing outfits; others, like former House candidate Kim Klacik, are fully clothed. No one is naked.

But this mild sexiness was just a bit too much for some prominent social conservatives, who started decrying the calendar in late December as (among other things) “demonic.” The basic complaint is that the calendar is pandering to married men’s sinful lust, debasing conservative women, and making conservatives seem like hypocrites when they complain about leftist immorality.

  • frickineh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    189
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’m really enjoying all the right wing women getting offended by this. Like, no shit these men don’t respect women, they never did. You’re not different or special just because you’re a giant pick-me, and conservative men only put you on a pedestal when they can use it to insult liberal women. Cry more about the situation you put yourself in.

    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Yep.

      Andrea Dworkin:

      “Right-wing women have surveyed the world: they find it a dangerous place. … They see that traditional marriage means selling to one man, not hundreds: the better deal. … Right-wing women see that within the system in which they live they cannot make their bodies their own, but they can agree to privatized male ownership: keep it one-on-one, as it were. They know that they are valued for their sex— their sex organs and their reproductive capacity—and so they try to up their value: through cooperation, manipulation, conformity; through displays of affection or attempts at friendship; through submission and obedience; and especially through the use of euphemism—“femininity, ” “total woman, ” “good, ” “maternal instinct, ” “motherly love. ” Their desperation is quiet; they hide their bruises of body and heart; they dress carefully and have good manners; they suffer, they love God, they follow the rules. They see that intelligence displayed in a woman is a flaw, that intelligence realized in a woman is a crime. They see the world they live in and they are not wrong. They use sex and babies to stay valuable because they need a home, food, clothing. … Male violence acts directly on the girl through her father or brother or uncle or any number of male professionals or strangers, as it did and does on her mother, and she too is forced to learn to conform in order to survive. A girl may, as she enters adulthood, repudiate the particular set of males with whom her mother is allied, run with a different pack as it were, but she will replicate her mother’s patterns in acquiescing to male authority within her own chosen set. Using both force and threat, men in all camps demand that women accept abuse in silence and shame, tie themselves to hearth and home with rope made of self-blame, unspoken rage, grief, and resentment.”

      See also: right-wing women who are obsessed about trans women being rapists, drag queens and bathrooms. Obviously trans women raping women is incredibly rare. But they’re a ‘safe’ and acceptable target for victimised and often traumatised women. Women who are too weak to criticise or attack the men who actually hurt them. Eg. JK Rowling is a victim of sexual and domestic abuse. The perpetrator was her husband. Instead of attacking straight men, she spends all day going on about trans women.

      You see this kind of psychology in most (quasi-)fascists. It’s sadomasochistic. Kiss the boot of those who opress you, hold those you hold to be below you in contempt and treat them accordingly. Of course, in reality right wing women have common cause with all the people they hate. Just like most right wing men have more in common with a poor black trans sex worker, than a billionaire.

      As you say, it’s hard to feel sorry for them. They’re sabotaging themselves, their gender and their class. They’re actively hurting those who could be their allies. It’s partly self-preservation, but it’s also vanity. They lie to themselves that they’re not (fellow) victims.

      TLDR: humans are weird.

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah I would feel sorry for them, but as a trans woman I stood up for women as a whole. I’ve demanded equality my whole life. Conservative women respond by acting offended I consider myself their equal, ignoring that I consider them their husband’s equals

        • winterayars
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          There’s the “sad world theory” here: Some people don’t care how good or bad their life is, they only care whether others have it worse. There are enough of those people that they’re an actual social problem.

          So in this case, the theory is that they’d rather be slaves to their husbands as long as they can look down on trans people. That’s preferable to being equal to their husbands and also to trans people.

    • DessertStorms@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      10 months ago

      conservative men only put you on a pedestal when they can use it to insult liberal women.

      Also when they want to keep “known predators of white women” (anyone who isn’t a white Christian) out/away. Though statistically they have no reason to fear the “competition”, they are already the biggest predators themselves…

    • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is it. Every conservative imagines that they’re at the center of the in-group. In reality, they’re usually closer to the edge.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yes. In believe so in many different forms. I don’t think extremely toned shirtless guys on magazine covers are disrespectful. It is just puritanical thought process that pushes the rhetoric that it is bad. Is employing women disrespectful? Not at all. There can be completely clothed women, completely nude women, a mixture of everyday people… which surprise, women who are found attractive do exist in. If someone doesn’t like something, they can not purchase it for their home. Note that when you looked at the not so covered man sexily draped across a poster/calendar/movie/book cover you don’t look down on all men because of it. They aren’t being disrespected. If someone thinks it is to revealing they think, that guy shouldn’t have done that. They are shunning the individual, not the whole gender/sex. So why would it be different for women?

      • frickineh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        I think so. If you recognize that women aren’t just neatly categorized as either a Madonna or a whore and they can want to look hot while also still being a full human being worthy of respect, then sure.

        • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’d go so far as to say that being a whore and being a human being deserving of respect are not mutually exclusive. Being a whore doesn’t inherently have to be a bad thing.

          • frickineh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I meant more the proverbial whore than a literal one. Of course you can be a literal whore and be worthy of respect.

    • FishFace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Did you read the article? The point here is that there is a division in conservative circles, so talking about conservative men as a single group is missing the point.

      The same division, presumably, exists among conservative women (albeit bearing in mind that in the USA men are more conservative than women) so there will be an alliance between pearl-clutching Christian women who decry the debauchery, and women who are feminist but for whom feminism culminated with the third wave, for whom objectification exemplified in a mildly raunchy calendar is something to, at worst, roll ones eyes at.

      So by all means enjoy the division in conservative ranks, and hope that it splits their base and ruins their chances of victory, but at least understand what is going on properly. What you think of as “respecting women” is probably not what conservative women think of as respecting women; you’re judging and understanding their beliefs through your own lens, in a way that makes you misunderstand quite badly.

      • frickineh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Do you have to practice being that condescending or is it a natural ability? First, there’s no such thing as a conservative man who actually respects women, so this “division” is really just a disagreement about how they want to be disrespectful - via mildly titillating pictures, or via religious control.

        Second, I spend huge amounts of time in ex-fundie communities, and both religious and secular conservatism are basically the topic of conversation. I know what conservative women consider to be “respect,” and was applying their standards to this subject. Even by their absolute bottom of the barrel expectations, men are letting them down in this case. The only men on “their side” still view women as property and are only really upset because they think women should only be showing their bits to the man who owns her.

        • FishFace@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I know what conservative women consider to be “respect,” and was applying their standards to this subject. Even by their absolute bottom of the barrel expectations, men are letting them down in this case.

          Do you think the conservative women who appeared in the calendar agree with you? I would guess they don’t. So it seems to me your understanding of the spectrum of opinion is clearly missing something.

          Maybe your views on this are out of whack because of spending “huge amounts of time” in a community with a view of conservatism skewed by their unique experiences? That’s not a knock against doing so or against those people, just that fundies have particularly extreme experiences of politics and religion which is bound to mean you hear a lot of outliers.

          so this “division” is really just a disagreement about how they want to be disrespectful - via mildly titillating pictures, or via religious control.

          I am not conservative but I don’t think looking at mildly titillating pictures of women is disrespectful, and I think that’s an opinion which is pretty common across the political spectrum in the West.

          • frickineh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Well since my original comment was exclusively addressing the women who were offended by the calendar, I thought it was pretty obvious that I wasn’t talking about the women who participated, but please, feel free to write a few more paragraphs showing me that you either didn’t read or didn’t understand what I wrote.