Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Passionate about modern feminist issues? Want to learn more about how today's political, academic, and cultural leaders strive for a future of universal equality and justice?
Join NOW in a podcast dedicated to intersectional feminist discussions in American society with leaders in entertainment, sports, politics, and science. From conversations on constitutional equality, to economic justice and reproductive rights, listeners will find new ways to learn, engage, and get empowered.
Listen for new episodes released every other Wednesday.
Annie Wright (00:01)
We have been conditioned into these roles for a very, very long time. And only in the last few generations have we been able to enter the workforce again and earn financial security, professional security, develop psychological confidence, et cetera. At the same time, the dissolution of the role that we've existed in within the last 10,000 years hasn't fully dissipated. So when a woman intellectually knows that she should not be doing this and yet grew up in a home that conditioned her to do this, that's a legacy of patriarchal influence, right?
And we're only a few generations into being able to have robust confidence and self-esteem, professional security, financial security, but the roles have not dissipated yet. So it's a real conflict. It's a real cognitive dissonance. It's a real role dissonance for many of the women I work with. Now, I do hope this is changing. I've changed it in my own household, but it is certainly a personal issue informed by patriarchal forces.
Kim Villanueva (01:07)
Hello and welcome to Feminism Now. I'm Kim Villanueva, the president of the National Organization for Women. I'm here with National Vice President Rose Brunache.
Rose Brunache (01:15)
Hi, everyone.
Kim Villanueva (01:16)
So, Rose, before we get started, I want to know. What has made you mad as hell today?
Rose Brunache (01:22)
Well, it's hard to pick just one. There's always something every day. I just read a story from Mother Jones about why Pete Hegseth, our defense secretary, is purging women from command. And it's because of his mentor, Doug Wilson. I don't know if you've heard about him. He was on CNN, and it was very scary.
Kim Villanueva (01:40)
Yeah.
Rose Brunache (01:41)
And I think a woman asked him, you know, about women. He says women are people who give birth or something. It was really weird. And so he's his mentor. And it's very scary because Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, I think is third in line or fourth in line to be president. And he's being mentored by this man who doesn't believe in the 19th Amendment. So what about you? What's making you mad as hell?
Kim Villanueva (02:08)
You know, what's making me mad as hell is I've been reading about AOC, you know, who is making the conscious choice to talk about her reproductive choices, to freeze her eggs. And people are making fun of her or saying she shouldn't do it, you know, or asking her why she's not in a relationship. Why is she daring to do this? You know, so they're questioning her choices as a woman, you know, as a potential mother, and just as a person. So they're taking her autonomy away from her. And that just ticks me off.
Rose Brunache (02:35)
It's like there's always something. When you want to have children, you're planning for it, and they get upset about that.
Kim Villanueva (02:38)
That's right. Well, it does get into the idea of only certain women should have children. You know, the dog whistle that it should be limited to only certain types of women or a certain race of women. So, yeah.
Rose Brunache (02:50)
Yeah, it just ties to the whole idea of the role of women and the role of patriarchy and holding women down.
Kim Villanueva (02:56)
Okay, well, you know, talking about this makes me tired, to think about all the work we have to do at NOW and as feminists. But that also makes me excited to think about today's guest, who talks about how we can take back some of our power by recognizing what happens in our households and in the workplace. And we're going to be speaking with Annie Wright.
Rose Brunache (03:15)
Right. And she's talking about something I always see on social media, which is weaponized incompetence. It's all over TikTok and Instagram and YouTube. And so I think it's so important because it's an example of feminism in our personal life, or patriarchy in our personal life, which is what Annie Wright talks about. And I think when you have those discussions about your personal life, it helps you understand the larger picture of what we're fighting for.
Kim Villanueva (03:39)
Well, you know, the personal is political. I think that was what Gloria Steinem said.
Rose Brunache (03:43)
Yeah.
Kim Villanueva (03:43)
So I can't wait to hear what Annie has to share with us. But before we get to that, I want to remind our listeners that you can even get your voice on our show. And we really do want to hear from you. So we want to hear what's gotten you mad as hell, and we'll try to play it on the show. So call NOW at the number in our show notes and leave a voice message. And you can also email us a voice note from your phone to feminismnow at now dot org. So now let's talk with Annie.
Rose Brunache (04:17)
I'm so pleased today to have Annie Wright with us. Annie is a licensed therapist, speaker, and writer. And she's even putting out a book in 2027 called The Everything Years. Annie, thank you so much for talking to us.
Annie Wright (04:31)
Oh, it's my honor. I'm so excited to be here with you. And this is a fantastic topic to cover. So thank you.
Rose Brunache (04:37)
I want to start by asking: we know what incompetence is. We've all seen it. What is weaponized incompetence? It's something that I see all over social media, and I think some people might not know what it means.
Annie Wright (04:48)
Great question. So, the way I define it is this: weaponized incompetence is a covert manipulation strategy where someone deliberately performs tasks poorly or claims total inability so the more capable partner takes over and carries the burden instead. Now, whether it's conscious or unconscious, the effect is the same. The more capable person carries labor that isn't theirs alone to carry.
Now, here's the thing: genuine inability is global, but weaponized incompetence is strategic. The same partner who can't figure out the pediatrician's phone number can manage a fantasy football league to the minute. So that's how I often define it and the illustration I give.
Kim Villanueva (05:35)
So, you know, something that you mentioned in your writing is how this is also related to emotional labor.
Annie Wright (05:39)
Absolutely.
Kim Villanueva (05:40)
What's emotional labor, and why is it so tiring for people?
Annie Wright (05:45)
So, emotional labor, in Arlie Hochschild's terms, is the cognitive and emotional work of managing relationships, anticipating needs, tracking obligations, keeping the domestic infrastructure running. In plain terms, it's not just doing the tasks, it's knowing the tasks need to be done in the first place. And that mental map is the labor.
Rose Brunache (06:08)
Yeah, what's interesting to me about this is that when someone admits they can't do something, that could actually be a good thing. It could be vulnerable for a lot of people, especially men, to admit that they can't do something. When is admitting incompetence good, and when is it weaponized?
Annie Wright (06:24)
It has everything to do with the intent, because while the impact can be the same, it creates more labor on the person receiving the statement. We have to be curious: was that said with the humility and vulnerability of saying, "Hey, hon, I don't know how to do this. Will you please help me?" Because alongside that, there might be a willingness to actually learn and improve. Versus the intent of, "I'd like to get off the hook for this one, I don't know how to do it." Or, you know, screwing it up intentionally, right?
Kim Villanueva (06:52)
You know, I see some parallels with the idea of learned helplessness.
Annie Wright (06:55)
Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, it's almost parallel, I would say. Because again, we have to think about: well, what is the intent? And the intent is to get out of doing something, or to avoid the responsibility, or to avoid the labor, or to avoid the strain. Right. And so I would say the genesis, the roots of both of those terms are very often the same.
Rose Brunache (07:20)
One of the things you mentioned in your work is that weaponized incompetence can hit driven, ambitious women, even feminist women. Why is that?
Annie Wright (07:28)
Oh my goodness. Absolutely. A woman can know intellectually that domestic labor should be equitable. She can believe in feminism as a matter of principle, vote her values, and still find herself carrying three quarters of the mental load and feeling guilty about resenting it. So the gap between what she believes and what she lives is where the pain lives.
For particularly driven, ambitious women, the overfunctioning didn't start in the marriage. It started in childhood. They were very often parentified, the mini adult in the family, managing a parent's emotions, running the household logistics, holding everything and everyone together. Very often, these women learned early that their value in relationships was tied to their usefulness, that being needed was the price of being loved.
So when they meet a partner who performs incompetence, it doesn't necessarily register as a red flag. It registers as familiar. It feels like love because it activates the exact neural template they were built on. The old belief or beliefs can kick in: "Well, if I manage everything perfectly, I'll finally earn safety or belonging or rest or love." But there is no amount of managing that will purchase those things. So this isn't a productivity problem. It isn't a boundary problem. It's a nervous system that learned competence was the only safety. You can be a committed feminist and still be caught in this.
Kim Villanueva (08:52)
When you explain it, it seems so obvious. So why has it taken so long for people to recognize this and to, you know, admit that it's an issue that we need to address?
Annie Wright (09:01)
I do think we have recently given form and name to this concept, but I think it is something that we've been collectively noticing and talking about and struggling with for a very long time. I do attribute a lot more mental health literacy and clinical terminology literacy to our post-pandemic lives and the rise of Gen Z and their embracing of these kinds of definitions. But I don't think it's necessarily a new phenomenon, not at all.
Rose Brunache (09:31)
I guess I have a larger question about the patriarchy, if I could use that word, or male supremacy, and how men benefit from perpetuating the stereotype that they just don't know what they're doing. Because I remember when I was a kid in the '90s, there was a lot of discourse about TV commercials and how dads were depicted as bumbling idiots and things like that. But what I thought was funny is, even as a kid, I said, well, first of all, all these companies are run by men. So men are depicting themselves this way. And it benefits men in a larger scheme of shifting all these chores and responsibilities to women.
Annie Wright (10:09)
Yes, without a doubt. Without a doubt. I'm like, how long do we have to talk about this? I mean, there's tremendous benefit to that. It's normal and natural human nature, right? We want to avoid pain. We want to avoid discomfort. That's in our nature. So let's just break it down. What do they actually get? What does weaponized incompetence get?
Well, one, they get labor avoidance, right? The concrete tasks get done by someone else. That's the surface layer. Then there's two, discomfort avoidance, right? They don't have to sit in the discomfort of doing something imperfectly, of learning. Performing incompetence is a way to opt out of the vulnerability and labor of trying.
And then three, there's the emotional labor avoidance. And I think this is the bigger one. They don't have to carry the mental map. They don't have to be the one to know the tasks need to be done in the first place. Someone else holds the whole domestic operating system in her head, and they just get kind of pinged when needed, upward managed, if you will. I mean, that's an enormous cognitive offload.
And then there's this piece I always think about, which is preserved self-image. And I think this is the piece that also gets missed a lot. If you say "I can't," you get to keep an identity as a good, well-intentioned partner who tried. If you say "I won't," you'd have to look at yourself as someone who's choosing not to carry your share. So the benefit isn't just that he doesn't fold the laundry. The benefit is that he doesn't fold the laundry, he doesn't have to feel bad about it, he doesn't have to carry the load of remembering it needs folding, and he still gets to see himself as a good guy. I mean, did I list four or five rewards for performance? That's a lot.
Rose Brunache (11:50)
That's a lot. And we use the word gaslighting a lot, and sometimes inaccurately, in pop culture. But this is gaslighting, right? Where someone who is competent in most areas of life is saying, "I don't know how to do this."
Annie Wright (12:02)
Really good point. I do want to be careful here, right? Because gaslighting is a specific term, again, that gets used pretty loosely. And I think precision matters. So let me draw the line as far as I define it. Gaslighting, clinically, is when someone deliberately distorts your perception of reality so that you doubt your own memory, your own judgment, your own sanity, right? It's telling you the thing you saw didn't happen. It insists you're overreacting when you're having a completely reasonable reaction. It's kind of like rewriting shared history in real time.
Weaponized incompetence on its own, I always think of as a labor transfer strategy. It's about avoiding work. And those can be two very different things. But here's where it can overlap. I think, personally and professionally, that weaponized incompetence often creates the conditions for gaslighting. And in some relationships, it, quite frankly, comes packaged with it.
So, what do I mean by that? I think when the more capable partner finally names the pattern, "I've scheduled every pediatrician appointment for three years, and I'm carrying the whole mental load. This isn't equitable," something like that, right? The gaslighting is often what can show up next. It sounds like, "Oh, I do plenty around here, you just don't notice." "Well, you're the one who wanted it done a certain way." Or, "Well, I would have done it if you'd just asked. Why are you making such a big deal?" Now, see, that's the gaslighting piece. That's the distortion of her perception of a reality she's been living in and tracking and carrying.
So, I guess I'd put it this way: weaponized incompetence is the strategy, and gaslighting is often the defense mechanism when the strategy gets called out. They're related, and they travel together in a lot of relationships, but they're not necessarily the same thing.
Rose Brunache (13:42)
Well, I hate to stop right now, but we have to take a break to learn more about some of our chapters and their projects.
Adrienne Daring (13:53)
My name is Adrienne Daring, and I am the president of Morgantown, West Virginia NOW. West Virginia was the only state in the United States to have every single county elect Donald Trump as president in the 2024 election. In addition to having a huge Trump following, West Virginia is also notorious because only 14% of young voters voted in the last midterm election, making it the lowest youth voter turnout in the entire country. So we decided to raise the money ourselves to fund teams at West Virginia's largest colleges, Marshall and WVU.
So part of our strategy is peer-to-peer interaction between students. We put up big tables full of pink and bright signage, and we play feminist music, and we sometimes have bubble machines. We make it a celebration. We make every tabling event exciting. And I also breed dogs, and if I have puppies, I bring my puppies along to our tabling events. So we call them Puppies at the Polls. They're Puppies for Politics. And that's another fun thing to engage students and bring them over to find out what's happening.
Our goal is to tackle the two largest universities in the state of West Virginia. And it is our sincere hope that if we can prove that we can engage young voters and make that number go higher, that other progressive organizations that are like-minded will decide that West Virginia is worth their investment and will come alongside of us and do the work alongside of us and with us. The best place to find us is on Facebook at Morgantown NOW. And we're also on Instagram at Morgantown NOW.
Rose Brunache (15:53)
So we are back with therapist Annie Wright. Annie, hearing the ways that weaponized incompetence shows up, it seems like an excuse for people to get out of stuff. Do people do this on purpose? Or are they conscious of it, or is it more subconscious manipulation?
Annie Wright (16:13)
No, it's a really great question. I would say most of the time, honestly, it is actually unconscious. I think people using weaponized incompetence are not necessarily sitting down and consciously plotting an avoidance strategy. What's actually happening is they learned somewhere, often in childhood, that performing helplessness got them off the hook. And it worked. So they kept doing it. And over years and decades, they stopped developing the muscles they never had to build, whether that's tolerance for discomfort, or the willingness to fail, follow through, you know, the sustained pain of having to do more when you're already completely spent, right? Or the ability to sit in the awkwardness of learning something new.
By the time they're an adult in partnership, they're not necessarily thinking, "I'm going to pretend I don't know how to run a dishwasher so my partner takes over." They genuinely feel a kind of overwhelm or aversion when the task comes up. And then their partner steps in, and the fog conveniently clears, right? That's not conscious plotting. That's, I think, a deeply grooved pattern operating on autopilot.
Now, here's where I want to be nuanced, because I do think there's kind of a middle ground, a middle band, where it's semi-conscious, where on some level, they know they could figure it out, but they've noticed that if they wait long enough or if they do it badly enough, someone will take over. And they let that happen. They're not actively strategizing, but they're also not unknowing. That's a kind of learned passivity that's very common.
But again, if this all exists on a spectrum, there is the deliberate end. Okay, there's the deliberate end of the spectrum. And this is the one where I want to speak even more carefully. In some relationships, particularly ones with emotionally immature partners or partners with narcissistic traits, or in relationships where there are underlying dynamics of power and control, weaponized incompetence is being used strategically. It's a bid for control, because if the more capable partner stays exhausted, she stays more dependent on the dynamic continuing exactly as it is. Her exhaustion in some ways becomes a kind of leash.
Now, in those relationships, and I'm not saying that's every relationship, but in those kinds of relationships, when you try to renegotiate labor, when you try to hand a task over cleanly, you don't necessarily get a good-faith attempt. In fact, you rarely do. You get sabotage, you get rage, you get punishment. And I mean that in a variety of ways. You get the task done so badly on purpose that you feel forced to take it back. So that's not unconscious. That is strategy.
The behavior looks similar on the outside. A task doesn't get done. Someone else picks it up. But the intent underneath can range from completely unconscious to fully deliberate, and the way you tell the difference is what happens when you try to renegotiate.
Kim Villanueva (19:05)
Interesting. So what you're saying is that weaponized incompetence can also be a form of control, or even emotional abuse.
Annie Wright (19:13)
Absolutely. Absolutely. This can be a form of emotional abuse. Yes. So I think that how a partner responds to being asked to carry their share is often more diagnostic than the incompetence itself. The behavior is data, but their response to being called on the behavior is the deeper data. And if their response to being asked to participate more fully, to engage in a partnership versus a dictatorship, is rage or coercive control of the finances, of the climate of the household, if their response creates conditions that undermine the comfort and security of the household, that's emotional abuse.
Kim Villanueva (19:58)
Yeah, clearly. Financial control is abuse.
Annie Wright (20:01)
Oh, without a doubt. There's many, many forms of abuse in relationship: financial, emotional, psychological, obviously physical, as we know. But again, right? The behavior is data. The response to being asked or challenged on that behavior is the real diagnostic, at least for me as a clinician.
Rose Brunache (20:21)
So we talk about weaponized incompetence a lot in the home. Does it show up at work?
Annie Wright (20:26)
Ooh, good question. I think absolutely it shows up at work all the time. And I think it's under-discussed because we tend to code it as a domestic issue. But once you know the pattern, you can see it everywhere, and especially in professional environments.
So, for instance, I always think of it like this, right? The classic workplace version is the colleague, and I'll say this plainly: in mixed-gender workplaces, it very often runs along gender lines. It looks like the colleague who can't seem to figure out the shared calendar, or who can't master the expense system, or who can't remember to format the report or take notes in the meeting, or, you know, organize the team birthday party, right? So who does it? Very often the woman on the team, usually the most competent, most organized, most conscientious woman on the team, because it's faster to just do it than to keep asking.
Right. And this is where I want to be mindful of the thinkers who came before me and who are outside my sector. It is really the same pattern Gemma Hartley described in domestic partnerships. You know, if you do assign the tasks, they'll do it badly or late or in a way that requires so much cleanup that the next time you just handle it yourself. So the training data is roughly the same. Performing incompetence at work is rewarded. Someone competent will always fill the gap.
You know, and I think there are very specific workplace categories where this shows up the most: administrative offload, meeting notes, right? Ordering lunch for the team, remembering people's birthdays. There's also the emotional labor of the team, right? Who's noticing that a colleague seems off, right? Who's smoothing over conflict or mentoring the junior person nobody has time for, right? And then I also think very often there's cognitive offload in meetings. The person who says, "Wait, did we decide about X?" And they look to the woman, the competent woman in the room, to remember, right? The person who never reads the pre-read and asks her to summarize, right?
So here's why I think the workplace version is particularly costly. In a marriage or a domestic partnership, at least the domestic labor is inside your own life, right? At work, though, this labor is often invisible to the promotion process, invisible to the compensation structure, invisible to the performance review, right? So to me, because again, I work with these women clinically, what I've seen is that the woman who's doing this is being penalized twice: once by carrying it, and again by watching the people she carried often get promoted past her.
Rose Brunache (23:04)
Oh, no.
Annie Wright (23:05)
So, there were researchers at the University of Pittsburgh who did really important research on what they called non-promotable tasks, the work that keeps the organization running but doesn't build careers, which is highly analogous to the work of caregiving, right? That is under-acknowledged, unpaid, et cetera. So, I think there's a lot of literature around the way weaponized incompetence plays out in the workplace.
Kim Villanueva (23:31)
So, getting back to weaponized incompetence in personal relationships, what can you do if you're in that type of situation?
Annie Wright (23:41)
Okay, wide range of answers. And again, I'll try and speak with clinical nuance. It's a great question, and I want to give you a real answer here, not a platitude. So I'm going to walk through what I actually see in my work in general with women in this position. Not clinical advice for any specific listener, but the pattern of what tends to move the needle. And I'll start by saying this: I think the road forward begins not with a confrontation, but with a decision. A decision to stop arranging your life around someone else's performed incapability. Everything else follows from that decision.
From there, you know, I think step one is to name the pattern specifically, right? Name what's happening, but name it specifically, not generally. "You never help" is not workable or helpful. So specific looks like this, right: "You've scheduled zero of the last 12 well-child appointments for our daughter." Or, you know, "I've been the one to plan every birthday party for our kids for eight years." So specificity does two things: it makes the pattern ungaslightable, and it forces the conversation to be about the actual distribution of labor, not about feelings, not about who's a good person.
And then the next piece that I tend to see move the needle is to transfer clear ownership, not help. So the second move, and this is where a lot of the women I work with get stuck: you transfer clear ownership. It sounds like, "Well, starting this month, her pediatrician appointments are yours. That means you have to know when they're due. You call, you schedule, you put it on the family calendar, you take her, you follow up on any referrals in the portal. I'm not going to track it, remind you, or ask you about it. It's yours." So that's not a request, that's a handoff.
And then three, and this can be the hardest part for the women I work with: stop rescuing. You actually have to let go, which means that when the task doesn't get done or gets done badly, you have to not step in. You let the appointment get missed. You let the form be late. You let the birthday party be less elaborate than you would have made it, right? You let the natural consequences unfold.
Remember the data about their response. That's a really big one. You have to read the response as data, because once you do all this, you have to watch what happens. Because, again, the partner's response is more diagnostic than the incompetence itself. If your partner, once the ownership transfer is clear, actually tries, very clumsily and imperfectly, right? If they try, that's a good sign. That's a partner who is maybe unconsciously performing incompetence, and you can grow. But if your partner escalates with rage, contempt, sabotage, with a campaign to convince you that you're the problem for even asking, well, that's different information entirely.
So, the test is this: a healthy relationship can survive a renegotiation of labor. A relationship that depends on one person's exhaustion cannot survive that renegotiation. Either way, you're going to learn something you needed to know.
Rose Brunache (26:36)
You've kind of talked about this, about overfunctioning. Can you talk about how this impacts romantic relationships? Once a woman is in these types of relationships, how it affects the relationship dynamic and things like that?
Annie Wright (26:54)
Yes, yes, yes. So the actual marital romance piece of the relationship, not just the sort of roommates, like household logisticians, because it is like running a company, living together, isn't it?
Rose Brunache (27:02)
Yeah.
Annie Wright (27:04)
I think there's a couple of ways that this plays out. And I think it's an important question, because I think it is often the piece that gets left out of weaponized incompetence conversations. We can talk about the labor and the fairness, the systemic dimension, but there is honestly a really corrosive impact on the romantic and erotic core of the relationship. And that conversation deserves airtime too.
When you're the manager of your partner, when you're tracking their commitments, reminding them, correcting them, following up on their tasks, essentially parenting them through the logistics of adult life, it is also often functionally impossible to also feel romantically and erotically drawn to them. Because the felt sense of a manager to a subordinate, or a mother to a child, is not the felt sense of a lover to a lover. Those are fundamentally different nervous system states, and your body knows the difference even when your mind is trying to override it.
The famed couples counselor Esther Perel has written beautifully about this. She's written about how desire requires distance. It requires the capacity to see your partner as a whole person operating in the world, not just as an extension of your domestic system. Weaponized incompetence collapses that distance in the worst possible way, because you're no longer standing across from a competent adult. You're hovering over a person you have to manage. And that position kills desire. It has to.
Rose Brunache (28:31)
I mean, we talked about it, but you describe weaponized incompetence as patriarchy made personal.
Annie Wright (28:37)
Yes, I do believe that weaponized incompetence is the patriarchy made personal. It's reflective of the fact that we have been conditioned for thousands and thousands of years to take this on, right? This is the role we were conditioned into. It is not the role necessarily biologically we are predisposed to. It is what we were assigned to with the forces that rolled out 10,000 years ago and essentially subjugated women into these roles.
So we have been conditioned into these roles for a very, very long time. And only in the last few generations have we been able to enter the workforce again and earn financial security, professional security, develop psychological confidence, et cetera. At the same time, the dissolution of the role that we've existed in within the last 10,000 years hasn't fully dissipated. When a woman intellectually knows that she should not be doing this and yet grew up in a home that conditioned her to do this, that's a legacy of patriarchal influence, right?
And we're only a few generations into being able to have robust confidence and self-esteem, professional security, financial security, but the roles have not dissipated yet. So it's a real conflict. It's a real cognitive dissonance. It's a real role dissonance for many of the women I work with. Now, I do hope this is changing. I've changed it in my own household, but it is certainly a personal issue informed by patriarchal forces.
Rose Brunache (30:05)
Well, I think we could probably spend another hour talking about this.
Kim Villanueva (30:09)
I know.
Rose Brunache (30:10)
But we want to thank you so much for bringing your extreme competence to our show. So thank you again.
Annie Wright (30:16)
Thank you. I love being able to talk about this, and I hope it helped even one person listening to feel less alone in her experience and slightly more empowered to make a choice and a change. Thank you both so much.
Kim Villanueva (30:34)
Oh my god, Rose, what an amazing conversation with Annie. So, what did you think?
Rose Brunache (30:38)
Um, I mean, it was a lot. It's a subject that I've always been hearing about, so it was good just to kind of have someone who has studied this talk about it.
Kim Villanueva (30:45)
You know, I really didn't know much about the topic. I didn't even really know what it was when I heard "weaponized incompetence," but now I feel like I know so much more, and I can really recognize it when it's happened to me in the past, whether it's at home or in the workplace. And hopefully our listeners will as well.
Rose Brunache (31:02)
I hope everyone listening got as much out of it as we did. I mean, I think that having a word for something gives life to it. You know, I think it's something that so many women experience, but until you put a name on it, you can't really place it.
Kim Villanueva (31:15)
It was such a wonderful conversation. So, for the people who are listening, our fellow feminists, you know, if that conversation resonated with you, we'd love to hear about it. Tell us how it affects you. So give us a call at the number in the show notes, or send us a voice memo at feminismnow at now dot org.
Rose Brunache (31:30)
Thank you all for joining us, and we'll see you next time.