this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
355 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19121 readers
2705 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] frickineh@lemmy.world 174 points 10 months ago (11 children)

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.

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 12 points 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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] MisterMcBolt@lemmy.world 111 points 10 months ago (7 children)

“Grab-em-by-the-pussy” Conservatives vs. Puritan Conservatives is pretty funny to watch. However, I presume that both sides will vote for Trump because they have no sense of hypocrisy or irony.

[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 38 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There's a reason "woke" became the rallying cry over the past few years. It's the only common thread holding the political coalition together. Everything else in each camp is nearly antithetical to one another. They vote together because they have the same enemy, not because they have the same interests or values.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They willingly ignore those things and embrace that discordant feeling, calling that sensation of unease "loyalty".

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 86 points 10 months ago (17 children)

LOL, let them fight. Also, the right wing's weird obsession with trans women is just soooo revealing. I think they have some real inner demons they are wrestling with. I truly think some of them are deathly afraid they'll be "fooled" by a trans woman and one of their buddies will find out and tease them mercilessly and their inner proclivities will be revealed...

I think people that are on the more hetero end of the sexuality scale don't really think about this kind of thing at all (other than - "hey, that's not really my jam, but live and let live"). But it seems to consume a certain kind of man, I've noticed.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

The left should absolutely fan the flames with questions about who is actually in charge: the people making decisions or the people shutting down those decisions?

Is a calendar that celebrates women a bad thing if it embraces feminity?

Does a man have the right to his own decisions or does he have an obligation to lead and, by extension, be a moral leader?

How can a man enjoy being moral and enjoy women?

This is how the left breaks the right: the small minded man vs the moral minded man.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 54 points 10 months ago (4 children)

the calendar is pandering to married men’s sinful lust

I've been looking porn since I was a teenager. Which would be 30 years now. I've been married for 23 years. Figure it out, Christians. You don't have to fuck everything you look at, even if what you're looking at is naked.

[–] Raziid@lemmy.world 46 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Many Christians believe that lust is just as sinful as actually doing the deed. It’s based on one saying of Jesus where he says if you look upon another woman with lust, you have already committed adultery in your heart.

This interpretation is foundational to a lot of Christian sexual thought and explains why they have failed to have a healthy relationship with sex.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I mean, at that rate the only viable solution is to nudify everything to the point it becomes completely desensitized. Then they won’t feel lust every time some girl shows her ankles.

But game theory isn’t religion’s strong point.

[–] Raziid@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

I think one of the main issues with the interpretation is the meaning of lust.

Is it attraction? Is it masturbation with a woman in mind? Is it flirting?

In the time these things were written, women were widely viewed as property and desire was not a huge part of marriage. Who knows what specific sort of cultural thing he might have been referring to?

Personally I think lust is the debasement of a person for your own enjoyment. People consensually engaging in sexual exhibition and other feelings of attraction or sexual fantasy are probably not what Jesus had in mind and aren’t really harmful to healthy adults.

[–] danl@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

This is what I find most hilarious about it. The whole point of that teaching is to remove the lust - if you actually love your wife, you won’t lust after others. But simpletons’ answer is to not look at stuff. It’s bizarre.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I like to ask this question. If men's lust is uncontrollable, why aren't there more assaults in go-go bars? The answer is always the same; there's a big bouncer at any club to defend the girls. Controlling lust is easy if you know there will be consequences.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I don't even think a bouncer is necessary for a lot of men. I'm not into strip clubs myself, but if I was, I'd still be able to keep it in my pants because there's the whole consent thing. I realize a lot of Republicans don't give a shit about consent, but most of the rest of us do and I'm guessing that the majority of men who visit strip clubs would never think of sexually assaulting a stripper.

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have a bouncer, because there are some men who can't control themselves, I'm just saying plenty of men are perfectly able to see strippers and not attack them.

I realize a lot of Republicans don’t give a shit about consent, but most of the rest of us do

I'm pretty sure the core goal of right wingers in their respective domains is preventing us from gaining the ability to consent to more stuff - or in their more extreme, for taking away our ability to consent to things - so yeah you're right about that. Democracy is a system of consent, and our progress towards that was being challenged during the Enlightenment. Today, for example, many right wing economists are against democratically elected managers/bosses, unions, democratic government owned enterprises, government welfare safety nets for the vulnerable, housing cooperatives as a solution to the housing crisis, the list goes on. The pattern being that all of those increase the average person's ability to consent to more stuff by leveling power asymmetries.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

"You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." - Jesus

And oh yeah I discovered porn at age 8 or 9. He knows he's setting an impossible standard which was his point, but the people arguing about a sexy calendar don't understand.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 6 points 10 months ago

You don't have to fuck everything you look at, even if what you're looking at is naked.

I mean, they're a bunch of ascetics, so they're wound up tighter than shibari ropes.

[–] charonn0@startrek.website 43 points 10 months ago

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.

Oh, sweetie... it's not the calendar.

[–] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 41 points 10 months ago (3 children)
[–] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 69 points 10 months ago (1 children)

They couldn't even get 12 women to pose.

[–] books@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Right, I went looking for the images to see about the hubub, and they had one woman twice.

In fairness, when I googled the term calendargate, the only thing that popped up with this article, so I don't know if this is actually somethign that people are talking about or just five people on twitter are in a huff about, and as we all know, twitter ain't fucking a source.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 13 points 10 months ago

Was about as tame as the post made me think. What a ridiculous fight

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago

Good article, because it really could have just been this line:

On one level, this is all very stupid.

[–] neptune@dmv.social 38 points 10 months ago

This was always the bargain of the patriarchy for the men in power, right? Barstool conservativism in private (ie "locker room talk", strip clubs, paid for mistresses) but then a religious culture that enforced their public power (ie family, chastity for at least women, bans on people gossiping about their private Bartool Empire).

They are at odds, but not really. What's the point in religiously subjugating women if you can't ogle them and cheat on your wife? This hypocrisy IS patriarchy. At least as I understand it.

[–] Skanky@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This is about the dumbest thing I've seen all day. Every time I think maga can't get any more stupid they keep proving me wrong.

[–] Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There's an entire wing within the MAGA movement that has spent the last 50 years fighting to send women back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, who can no longer fill their days extoling the horrors of medical abortion...so they've moved on to next issue...which apparently is women's ability to dress themselves. Once they've perfected whatever the Christian version of a hijab will be (I'm imagining something similar to what Mennonite women and girls wear), they can start kicking them out of workplaces and higher education. I remember back when Obama got elected, and they all started talking about how Sharia was coming to America... I always assumed it was just anti-muslim ranting. Guess it was a policy proposal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 30 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The No True Scotsmaning cycle of othering and auto-cannibalization continues unabated, I see.

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

You might be a bigot but there is always someone more bigot than you. It reminds me of this anti-secularist protest walk in Turkey. Some participants were playing music during the protest and some other guys came and started arguing with them saying it was not very Muslim like to play that kind of music so loudly out in the open. It is just so delicious when this happens.

[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

It's good to see that this problem can affect the right as much as the left for a change. Let them pick each other apart.

[–] generic@iusearchlinux.fyi 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

Am I the only one who hates "-gate" used to call something a "scandal?"

Watergate was the name of the hotel, it wasn't a scandal involving water!

[–] prime_number_314159@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

This is easily resolved. Just start referring to the scandal involving the Watergate hotel as "Watergategate". Then the contradiction is resolved with only one change.

[–] silverbax@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago

Yes, I am with you! I have always hated it, it's such an American thing to do, not understand our own fucking language.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What shocking information to come out! Not even two weeks into 2024, and we've already started Gategate

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BeefPiano@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

“This is the problem with conservatives who think they can act just like the secular world,” writes Jenna Ellis, one of Donald Trump’s attorneys during the 2020 election fight. “If conservatives aren’t morally grounded Christians, what are we even ‘conserving’?”

Such a good slam by the writer that probably went over Ellis’s head.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 18 points 10 months ago

I know it won't happen but could you imagine if this was the event that fractured the republican party instead of all the previous BS

[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

...and making conservatives seem like hypocrites when they complain about leftist immorality.

Everyone knows they are hypocrite. They fool no one but themselves. And even that is done poorly.

[–] CaptainSpaceman@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Good...good

Let the dumbasserry flow thru your whole party

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

letThemFight.gif

Side note: what a bizarre thing for them to be squabbling over. All the pressing problems in the world, and this is what they are prioritizing. Even funnier that the reason they after picking isn't "should women be treated like objects?", but "should men be responsible for controlling their sexual urges?"

[–] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

“It’s the devil Bobby!”

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 8 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Calendargate raises the question of what the war on “wokeness” is for: freeing conservatives to have raunchy fun without fear of left-wing censorship, or imposing a new vision of right-wing virtue in place of the reining liberal cultural ethos?

From evangelical film studios to right-wing literary imprints to borderline scammy survival kits, there’s a long and storied history of products being marketed specifically to conservatives as counterweight to what they see as the unacceptably liberal mainstream.

So while both Barstool and social conservatives groups might be comfortable voting for Trump and his fellow Republicans to fight against “wokeness,” they have wildly different views of what an ideal society might look like — including the kinds of cultural products they want to consume.

In a 2023 column, the New York Times’s Jane Coaston traced it back to a debate between William F. Buckley, the patron saint of movement conservatism, and Hugh Hefner, the founder of Playboy magazine.

In 1966, Hefner appeared on Buckley’s television show Firing Line to defend a political doctrine he defined as “anti-puritanism” — the idea that “man’s morality, like his religion, is a personal affair best left to his own conscience.”

“The narrow ideological frame that the right operates in permits only a long, unending line of ‘conservative alternatives to [X],’ reproducing the values and animating assumptions of the dominant culture with a thin coat of right-wing policy priorities painted on top,” he argues.


The original article contains 1,764 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 87%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Let them fight with each other.

load more comments
view more: next ›