this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2024
129 points (97.8% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4620 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
 

Yes, the essay is 2 years old, but its relevancy should overcome that factor.

It is not a coincidence that women’s equality is being rolled back at the same time that authoritarianism is on the rise. Political scientists have long noted that women’s civil rights and democracy go hand in hand, but they have been slower to recognize that the former is a precondition for the latter. Aspiring autocrats and patriarchal authoritarians have good reason to fear women’s political participation: when women participate in mass movements, those movements are both more likely to succeed and more likely to lead to more egalitarian democracy. In other words, fully free, politically active women are a threat to authoritarian and authoritarian-leaning leaders—and so those leaders have a strategic reason to be sexist.

all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

that's why the people pushing "traditional gender role" ideals make it a point to raise girls to be nothing more than subservient man property. i would bet on a group of 50 angry women winning a fight against 100 republican men any day

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

i would bet on a group of 50 angry women winning a fight against 100 republican men any day

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. They'd be fighting for their lives. And, they're definitely going to be better organized.

Increase the number of male republicans for a better payout on the bet.

[–] Rayspekt@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Is this basically a gendered flavour of "divide and rule"?

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

See also "boomers vs millennials", "your favourite skin colour vs the other skin colours", "blue collar vs white collar", and IDK what the fuck else

[–] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

They'll do anything to keep us from understanding that it's fiscal class that unites nearly all of us.

[–] ironsoap@lemmy.one 2 points 1 month ago