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

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
    167·
    6 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
      46·
      6 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
        13·
        6 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@sh.itjust.works
          4·
          6 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
      21·
      6 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
      7·
      6 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
        6·
        6 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
        3·
        6 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.socialEnglish
          1·
          6 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
            1·
            6 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.