So, I’ve taken to periodically visiting this site calling itself “chicks on the right”.
From what I can gather, it is what happens when Right-wingers attempt to be “relevant”. I’ve never been able to take the whole “generation gap” thing seriously: bigoted, racist, sexist, would-be-theocrat trash have existed in every “generation” – as have their cognitive and moral betters (those who at least attempt to be less sexist/racist/theocratic, etc.)
so, strictly speaking, it’s not a “generational” thing: there may be a (slightly) different distribution-curve among various “generations”, but ignorance/bigotry itself is entirely possible – even to “millenials”.
Here’s what I find so laughably infuriating about when self-described “Conservatives” try to disguise the fact that they are reactionary idiots:
“Conservatism” isn’t a coherent ideological position. It is merely an attempt to ‘defend” whatever social/political/economic structures happen to have become “traditional” in a given area, at a given point in time.
As such, “Conservatism” can pretend to be about “individualism”, or “personal responsibility” or suchlike buzz-words, but so long as it insists on attempting to defend “traditional” roles/structures, the “individualist” pose will continue to be that – a pose.
It will also always ring hollow to anyone capable of even minimal honesty.
For example: you can’t claim to be for “individualism”, if you attempt to enforce (for example) “gender”-roles on any segment of the population.
I’m going to be blunt here: it might be (comparatively) rare, but it is entirely possible for (say) females to enjoy/be good at stuff outside their “traditional” gender-role. For example: STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics).
So, “Conservative” (read: reactionary/sexist) twaddle attempting to “enforce” women’s traditional role (domestic drudge/breeding machine) is utterly indefensible.
Exceptions CANNOT “prove” a rule – they can merely DISPROVE it.
(Yes, I am fully aware that the “prove a rule” phrase is widely misused. The “original meaning” – where “prove” is essentially synonymous with “to test”, has essentially been lost over time, to the point where in daily parlance, the expressions “means” something exactly opposite to its original “true” meaning.)
At any rate, when bigoted filth resort to psychological pressure (or physical force) to get others to “keep their place” – their antics are utterly indefensible.
Which brings me to “Conservative hipster” bullshit like “chicks on the right”.
Any attempt by “Conservative” women to be anything other than mere domestic drudges/breeding machines, is a tacit repudiation – and DISPROOF – of the “traditional” gender-role Conservatives want to enforce on women.
At any rate, it is amusing when Right-wing women (who self-describe as “chicks”, no less) – are permitted by their husbands/fathers, to deviate from the “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” “gender”-ghetto, to engage in “social” commentary.
In among the typical Right-wing whining about how “Western Civilization” is (purportedly) “collapsing”, you very occasionally find instances which conclusively demonstrate the fact that the vast majority of “Conservatives” are both ignorant and bigoted.
Here are two of the most obvious examples:
(TL;DR: one of the “Chicks” is whining about the fact that police officers somewhere in Flyover country have been ordered to remove decals containing a bible verse from their police vehicles. As per usual, the precious little JesusFlake gets all petulant about this – although she does manage to actually avoid claiming that this is an instance of “persecution” of Christians – which has basically become the “go-to” whine for special little JesusFlakes, since the Supreme Court decision on marriage equality):
Now, the beautiful part is: this whiny little article (and all such “Conservative” whimpering) was neatly “chick”-slapped by the first commenter, as follows:
I know this will bring flack but they are completely correct in having them removed… at least the verse reference. Law enforcement works for the state. Having a bible quote on an official vehicle used by officers of the state implies that the state endorses a religion which in turn implies establishment. The only two remedies are either to remove it or include quotes from every religion which is impractical.
I know Christians don’t like or accept this but what would you say if instead they used “God defends those who are true – The Quran 22:38 (Surah al-Haj)” on their cars? Be careful how you answer.
Another abysmally stupid “article” concerns some guy in England who is currently cohabiting with two women. They consider themselves a “throuple” (three-couple).
Now, predictably, Ignorant hags on the right is utterly apoplectic, because “The Bible” (or was it Leave it to Beaver) tells us that “traditional” marriage involves “one man” and “one woman”.
Anyway, someone in the comments section (correctly) pointed out that polygamy (one man, several wives) is infinitely more “traditional” than the (purportedly) “traditional” marriage the “Chicks” where whining about – even being mentioned repeatedly in what is (supposedly) Right-wingers’ total-fave book, “The” Bible.
predictably, this didn’t go well – because “Conservatives” are genuinely too stupid to actually think through the implications of whatever they happen to be culture-warring about at any given millisecond.
The “Chick”-slap in the Reason article is THIS gem:
America has always been trailblazer of the future, not custodian of the past. So opposing same-sex marriage on grounds of tradition is a chancy proposition.
But this approach has another major flaw: What conservatives regard as traditional marriage is not very traditional at all. It’s radically different from what prevailed a century or two centuries ago. And if you want to talk about “thousands of years,” you’ll find that almost everything about marriage has changed.
The biblical King Solomon, after all, was a dedicated polygamist, with 700 wives. Monogamy has always been the norm in Christianity, but not as part of a marriage of equals.
The 18th-century English jurist William Blackstone explained, “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law; that is, the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything.”
Women generally couldn’t enter into contracts without permission from their husbands. In legal status, they were a notch above sheep and goats. In America, it was not until well into the 19th century that states began to grant married women something resembling full property rights.
Even then, marriage had attributes that traditionalists would like to forget. Husbands who forced themselves on their wives were not guilty of rape, since they were legally entitled to sexual access. Contraception was forbidden in many states. Only in 1965 did the Supreme Court decide that such laws “violate the right of marital privacy.”
The ideal of marriage enshrined in the 1950s reflects a myopic nostalgia for a phase that didn’t last. The 1960s brought no-fault divorce, which allowed wives as well as husbands to dissolve their bonds without proving some terrible transgression by the spouse.
This was an earthquake, causing unprecedented numbers of unions to collapse. A writer for the conservative Family Research Council said that under no-fault divorce laws, marriage became “nothing more than notarized dating.” Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage said their effect was nothing less than “the abolition of marriage.”
In a sense, she’s right. But you don’t see many conservatives trying to repeal no-fault laws in the name of “traditional marriage.” Gallagher misses the more fundamental point: This institution is not something passed down unaltered from generation to generation, like the family silver. It is continually in flux, taking forms that would surprise our forebears.
So, no: “Conservatives” don’t give two liquidy shit about “tradition” OR “Individualism”.
Polygamy is way more “traditional” than either monogamy-in-general or the Leave it To Beaver caricature of monogamy that gets Right-wingers all misty-eyed.
So, no. whatever passes for “Conservatism” at any given point in time is nothing but the (futile) attempt to cobble together an “ideology”, to cover up a mix of distorted “nostalgia” and total ignorance.
The above observation goes a long way toward explaining why the (modern) “Conservative movement” began with folks like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater, and is ending with barely-verbal wreckage like Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Michelle Bachman, Dan Quayle, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, etc.
So, yeah: Chicks on the right is definitely giving Conservatism “a makeover” – making it look even more ignorant and panic-stricken than it already does.