This was originally intended to be a comment in the comments section of Fenek Solere’s recent article on this site, entitled ‘Matriarchs In The Mannerbunde’.
If you have not read Fenek’s article I would encourage you to do so.
It concludes with the lines:
It is time for Occidental men and women to hold hands in unity, and raise their voices, just like the Baltic singing revolutions that swept through the streets of Riga, Tallin and Vilnius at the collapse of the Soviet Union.
We must cast aside the false gender divide, stand shoulder to shoulder, arms interlocked to fight side by side in the shield wall stretching from Texas to Tomsk.
For as Plutarch notes when the Spartan Queen Gorgo was challenged ‘Why are you Spartan women the only ones who can rule men?’ she sardonically replied: ‘Because we are also the only ones who give birth to men’.
In response to Fenek’s article, Shadowman wrote:
I think we would do well to observe what our Muslim opponents do. Their women mostly take little part in the direct fight. They do the “traditional stuff” at home and give verbal support to the men – that’s about all.
Now, since I am only referencing a few lines of the article and the comment, I should note that I don’t think Fenek was arguing that women should actually be in combat or fight in any similar capacity, but his article does raise interesting questions about gender roles and the Preservation of the West, and I do think there’s a range of thoughts from Fenek on the one side to other individuals (like perhaps Shadowman) on the other, and I wanted to add my two cents 🙂
While the aforementioned range of opinion is small (I think we are all in 90% agreement), it is a fascinating subject for discussion, I wanted to interject my way of looking at it.
Here are my thoughts:
Women And Reconquest
Unlike the Regressive left, I believe that there are fundamental, inherent, biological, evolutionary differences between the sexes.
Its not black and white- certainly there is overlap ( as an example there are SOME women that are stronger than SOME men, but 95% of men are stronger and bigger than 95% of women, etc), but overall the two sexes have different and COMPLIMENTARY roles, just like in countless other animal species.
As a result, I think the question of gender roles in metapolitcal warfare/politics/etc can be figured out best by looking at those roles and inherit differences.
Men are defined by the tactical masculine virtues of strength, courage, honor, and mastery. I absolutely think The Way of Men nailed that, I think JD was 110% correct.
As he argues, those aren’t the things that make a man a ‘good’ man in the moral sense, but they are the defining characteristics that define someone who is ‘good at being a man’, and are what connects men and the question of masculinity across all cultures and civilizations.
In the case of women I think there are also such ‘tactical feminine virtues’.
I have not thought about this in depth, but I believe one might say they are:
1. Nurturing/Nesting – a woman must have males around to protect her (at least in 99% of human history), therefore she is incentivized to create a positive environment for her male mate, nurture her relationship with him, as well as nurture their children, to keep him and the male children around and predisposed to protect her.
2. Nursing– A women’s primary role throughout human history has been having children and nursing them to adulthood. Similarly she must be able to nurse any injuries of her husband, children, etc.
This is why the actual profession of ‘nursing’ is so interlinked with women, and where we often think of them ‘doing the greatest good’, just as we think of men doing the same in more martial roles (contemporarily- policeman, army, firefighter, etc- those are very MALE jobs)
3. Interpersonal/relationships– women are known for constantly talking about their interpersonal relationships with other women, with their mates, their families, etc.
This is an evolutionary adaptation I would argue since it behooves women to be hyperfocused on such things, lest they lose the protection of the family and the tribe (whereas a man is not in as much danger of death should be lose the support of the family or tribe, since he is bigger/stronger/more self-sufficient evolutionarily).
Because their survival and the survival of their offspring is not something they alone can ensure, it is natural that their brains are more hardwired to be focused on interpersonal relationships and the status of those relationships at any given time.
4. Forebearance – this could almost be called ‘chastity’ but that word isn’t quite right. The fact is though that women are at their most vulnerable when pregnant, and are basically unable to care for themself during that time. Therefore evolutionarily it is crucial that women only get pregnant from the right mate, and the kind of mate that is ABLE and WILLING to protect them.
This is why women today are not sexually attracted to nerdy little weak men with glasses, even if those men are rich/successful/etc. They are evolutionarily predisposed to still be attracted to the tough, large alpha males, who would have been able to protect them back in such ‘law of the jungle’ times.
(Interestingly there’s also an argument made by Athol Kay that women are evolutionarily predisposed not to go with EXTREME alphas either who are less likely to stick around and help rear the kids, but rather a man that is a mix 90% alpha and 10% (positive) beta qualifies that signify at least some capability for emotional attachment, but that’s a tangent though).
From all this we can extrapolate to the question of metapolitics/politics/contemporary society.
Which brings us back to the question of:
Women And Nationalism
As regards this question…
I would argue that any metapolitical/political/etc roles for women that are an OUTGROWTH of the above feminine virtues are a positive.
Women should be doing what they were designed to do, men should be doing what they were designed to do.
As an example, Les Brigandes create beautiful, moving music that NURTURES the spirit of contemporary European patriots. They create a comfortable, familiar intellectual NEST through which greater deeds will hopefully arise. This is excellent.
‘Based Stick Man’ (I don’t know much about the guy but he’s a great example) fully inhabits a very masculine metapolitical role. He is using STRENGTH, COURAGE, and HONOR in fighting Antifa and in attempting to inspire other men in the same.
Les Brigandes and Based Stickman are both fighting for the Preservation of the West in a manner congruent with their gender roles.
Conversely, as a negative example, imagine if a woman tried to start a ‘Soldiers of Odin’ group. This would obviously seem a bit perverse and ‘wrong’.
Where it gets more complicated is in the middle.
Take writing for instance. If a woman wrote some big book trying to urge men onward metapolitically into the fighting, in pseudo-military way, I would not find that very inspiring, as that is a more masculine type of thing.
On the other hand, if someone like Iben Thranholm or some female writer at CC is writing great stuff that helps us to think/feel/etc in helpful ways about the current situation, that is good.
As an example of this- I think Blonde In The Belly Of The Beast does a great job of creating Youtube videos that are very helpful to our cause, but in a feminine way.
Other than perhaps using curse words sometimes I think her videos are not at all ‘masculine’. They are highly intellectual and intelligent, but they come off as pretty darn feminine to me, and seem to be reflective of the feminine tactical virtues I lay out above.
On the other hand, the footage of Lauren Southern on that ship in the Medditeranean yelling at the guys telling them what to do/where to steer/etc was a bit of a turn off.
Obviously I am glad Southern is doing anything she can to help and is utilizing the large funds she raises to fight back against Europe’s destruction, but I don’t think ‘captaining’ a ship in the ocean trying to stop Soros-backed people smugglers is really the ideal role for a girl/woman (Note: I am just extrapolating from a few seconds of video here I really haven’t looked much into that ship story thing that happened, but it was definitely something that struck me at the time).
For additional positive male examples we have Viktor Orban, the Golden One, William S. Lind, etc.
For positive female examples I think we could probably add Brittany Pettibone, for someone in an ‘active’ role, and for women in a more traditional ‘supporting role’ perhaps Vox Day’s wife, who seems to be capable of talking politics but largely happy to support Mr. Day, and of course Melania Trump as well.
I think all of the above thoughts are pretty logical and reasoned.
The only objection I would foresee might be from a girl/woman who would say ‘well, if there were guys standing up and doing this I wouldn’t have to’, which, I will admit, is a good point.
This probably answers the Le Pen question too. I’d say Le Pen’s role as leader of the FN is probably right in the middle of the masculine/feminine virtues axis. Maybe a tad on the masculine side.
But if we male preservationists believe it is more natural for men to be in leadership roles, then we need to step up and fill them.
The above thoughts are my framework for dealing with the questions Fenek raised. And I think for each of us when we are considering how best we can help the Preservation/Reconquest of the West, these are logical things to ask- in terms of whether the manner in which one is fighting is the best one, or whether they could be more effective coming at it from an angle more congruent with their inherent strengths as a man or woman.
Without stating the obvious, the last problem we have is an overabundance of either men or women willing to fight to preserve Western Civilization.
I believe we eventually will though, and that will be a happy problem to have.
Mentioned and/or related books:
Rising by Fenek Solere
The Strange Death Of Europe
The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam u>