There is a presumption from conservative/fascist women that they occupy a position of hierarchy over non-fascist/non-conservative women. That by virtue of supporting fascism and patriarchy that fascist men will afford them personhood. They don't believe in any of the assertions of feminism. They instead believe that women who suffer at the hands of men simply deserve it. That all women are judged in some kind of meritocracy, where belief in fascism and support of fascists itself is a determining factor of merit.

This may be true for some women, maybe in the "tradwife" and white supremacist circles. But if, as you say, it's critical to understand what these women think, you have to understand that they are not a monolith. There are other motivations to consider.

I was raised in a fundamentalist, evangelical church. Within that community, there was no presumption of a hierarchical position over other women. There was only our god-given position to be subservient to our fathers, and later, our husbands. We could either obey the divine plan to someday reach heaven or disobey it and be resigned to hell. There was no in-between.

Now, a reasonable person would see this as patently ridiculous. But the problem is that reason has no place in this worldview. You doggedly follow a literal interpretation of the King James Bible, or you go to hell.

Many years ago, when I was 16, I had asked for a particular privilege. And my mother agreed to grant it if I would listen to some audio tapes that she had of a series of sermons from a woman. Now, that was unusual in itself, because women are not allowed to teach men within fundamentalist churches (Because The Bible Says So™). So this was definitely a teaching that was only meant for women. What I heard was horrifying.

The entire point of this sermon series was to teach women how to be good, submissive Christian wives. The lesson of one tape was literally that if your husband commanded you to commit murder, you would have to do it, because God put him in charge of you and your duty to God was simply to follow orders from your husband.

A woman would not be judged for breaking a commandment if she followed the direction of her husband. The husband would be punished for causing someone to break God's commandments, but the wife would be spared because she was simply doing her duty as a wife to follow what her husband said.

Women's agency is completely removed in this scenario. Which sounds exactly like what the men described in the article want.

Again, the problem here is that reason has no purchase in this worldview. No amount of evidence or argument is going to change their minds or magically give them a sense of agency.

The wondrous simultaneity of having free will while being a product of the universe that created you.

When push comes to shove though, what do we do, remove a person's agency and look at the environment, or allow them their agency and make them responsible for their choices?

I feel like answering this paradox is akin to reconciling quantum mechanics with general relativity.