The kind that looks at your statement through a historical lens.

You're making the point that your sisters in law are so powerful through their femininity because they control their households. Okay.

So did my grandmother. She still couldn't have her own bank account until right before I came along. What did that "power" of control mean for her in the broader landscape of her life?

Not much. Not enough to be able to build her own financial wealth or have financial independence for most of her life. But yeah, no one was confused about who "ran" the house.

So did Leah, Jacob's Leah from the Bible. The Bible is very clear that it was Leah's dedication to and control of the economics of the household that made Jacob so wealthy. His household increased under her hand. What did that mean for her in the broader landscape of her life?

Not much. Her husband still preferred her sister. Rachel got a nose ring for being pretty. Leah got a bangle in thanks. Leah's children were shown less affection than Rachel's son. But yeah, she was the first wife so she had "control" of the household and so "power" over her sister's and other women of the tribe. She didn't have the freedom to get out of that marriage, she had to accept a polygamous situation and the xo.oetitiom that comes with it. Against her own sister. It also didn't give her a choice in who she married. Her father dictated that she marry Jacob through trickery.

I could cite historical example after historical example all weekend.

But hopefully, you get my drift by now.

Real power is the power to control one's own choices in life, not control over the laundry. So when you make a statement like "femininity is really powerful because you get to get so much control. I know this because a woman in my family RUNS her household with total CONTROL," the rest of us are obliged to ask... "on behalf of whom?" Because if it's not on behalf of herself, or if she has to do so under terms that prevent her from exercising free will or autonomy, then where is the real power or benefit? How is she autonomous when she's more of a servant than an individual?

I'm not trying to diss your sisters in law or your family. Your brothers are probably great and their families may be very happy. And today, your sisters in law can divorce if their situations don't suit them.

I'm just saying that control does not automatically equate to power and that that definition of "femininity" is by it's very essence subservient and a loss of freedom. You can't "nurture" without being bound to someone who needs nurturing, etc.
Femininity can also be described as wildness growth, tempestuous, wanton, etc.

Why don't those descriptors ever make the list in a positive light?

Because they're not subservient in nature. These are the ones where the real power of femininity lie. So they're the ones that must be controlled and stamped out.