Why aren't there more women in nationalist/socialist movements?

Nationalist and even Socialist movements tend to be dominated by men, even looking at our own forum (which probably has around 2 women) or revleft/stormfront will make one see the gender imbalance.

Why is this the case? Perhaps the percieved misogyny and rabid anti-feminism of (some) nationalists?

It's a good thing that there aren't more women. I have experience. Most of the women who post on forums don't add value.

Sternn wrote:Nationalist and even Socialist movements tend to be dominated by men, even looking at our own forum (which probably has around 2 women) or revleft/stormfront will make one see the gender imbalance.

Why is this the case? Perhaps the percieved misogyny and rabid anti-feminism of (some) nationalists?

Maybe you may have a point as per SF but RL is about as out to lunch with the feminism as it is with the rabid human equality nonsense. So NO maybe it is just that most girls are apolitical and have not the faintest clue, nor concern what is being discussed here or on most political message boards.....reality ie nature is NOT an equalitarian. Any assertion to the contrary is pure dogma.

Actually I asked myself the same question once, I guess women tend to stay away from the politics

There have been few women in nationalism in the UK because of its very reactionary and violent image. It would be great to have more women involved.

Well, speaking as a somewhat atypical woman, I can say that most women don't have personalities geared towards the intensive study of something like politics. This is completely natural, and I won't hold it against them. However, many women today are far too concerned with themselves and their own existence, and we all know where to place the blame for that. If there was less focus on the self, and a greater focus on the collective, we would probably find more ladies in the movement, as I notice vanity is most prevalent among women.

I don't really care if there are more females, though I suppose it would be interesting. If anything, I hope that the men here find someone of the female persuasion (who agrees with our cause, and will fight for it) to make a life with.

seagull wrote:There have been few women in nationalism in the UK because of its very reactionary and violent image. It would be great to have more women involved.

I agree. The movements themselves are largely at fault for their own lack of female participation/support.

I would say that problem inherent to (reactionary) nationalist movements is their own tendency to embrace views that are either blatantly sexist or simply marginalize issues that are of importance to women. As such, they cannot possibly expect to attract much female support.

The problem with Communist movements is the fact that they are so insulated that many assume the character of a subculture. (In analyzing most Western subcultures, one generally encounters disproportionate male participation.) Communism is also so socially stigmatized that it surely alienates many people — women included.

There is also the fact that our cultures are such that engagement in politics is often perceived as a predominately male pursuit. This effectively encourages women to remain aloof from most political matters.

This all serves to effect the level of female membership in this forum. The fact that much of our membership has thus far come from 'nationalist' sources accounts for much of this. The rest can easily be attributed to the other factors I mentioned.

Admin wrote:I agree. The movements themselves are largely at fault for their own lack of female participation/support.

I would say that problem inherent to (reactionary) nationalist movements is their own tendency to embrace views that are either blatantly sexist or simply marginalize issues that are of importance to women. As such, they cannot possibly expect to attract much female support.

The problem with Communist movements is the fact that they are so insulated that many assume the character of a subculture. (In analyzing most Western subcultures, one generally encounters disproportionate male participation.) Communism is also so socially stigmatized that it surely alienates many people — women included.

There is also the fact that our cultures are such that engagement in politics is often perceived as a predominately male pursuit. This effectively encourages women to remain aloof from most political matters.

This all serves to effect the level of female membership in this forum. The fact that much of our membership has thus far come from 'nationalist' sources accounts for much of this. The rest can easily be attributed to the other factors I mentioned.

Right. And due to the fact they are considered "sexist", many women will immediately write it off, as most have not been taught to think logically and pursue knowledge. Like you said, it is widely considered to be a male pursuit.

It's very much a female problem because of how we function, as well. It has both natural aspects and aspects influenced by our society. The natural being inherent disposition (which is to Feel rather than Think, to Sense rather than use Intuition, etc.) Like I said, I am an atypical woman, so I am not bound by these biological factors as heavily as many other women, due to my personality.

It truly is a shame, but it is expected.

Sternn wrote:Why is this the case? Perhaps the percieved misogyny and rabid anti-feminism of (some) nationalists?

The rampant sexism found within the nationalist movement is a significant factor in why there are fewer women contributing in nationalist organizations, messages boards, etc. I remember getting into countless debates on Stormfront with men who basically blamed women for every societal ill imaginable (e.g., multiculturalism, miscegenation, immigration, etc.) and staunchly believed that women should be forcibly relegated to "kinder, küche, kirche" ("children, kitchen, and church").

As for the gender imbalance in the socialist movement, it's not nearly as extreme as it is in nationalism. RevLeft really isn't a fair representation of the gender ratio in contemporary leftism. Honestly, I think a good argument could be made that there is more male participation in online forums in general (regardless of the topic), but that's a separate issue.

AlbertCurtis wrote:So NO maybe it is just that most girls are apolitical and have not the faintest clue, nor concern what is being discussed here or on most political message boards.....reality ie nature is NOT an equalitarian. Any assertion to the contrary is pure dogma.

No one is suggesting that 'nature is egalitarian.' However, many of the behavioral differences between the sexes are culturally induced. First of all, the aptitude for intelligence between men and women is basically the same—some studies suggest that the gender IQ difference is largest at the high extreme of intelligence, but that's of little consequence for the vast majority of people. Secondly, studies have shown that as infants, males and females are equally interested in objects and make the same inferences about object motion, and at the same time in development. They also learn the same things about object mechanics at the same time. Sex differences in interests and general behavior do emerge later in life, but it's very difficult to separate their biological and social sources by that point. None of this is to say biological sex differences don't exist, they obviously do, but there are pervasive and important differences in the ways by which males and females are perceived and evaluated in society—which undoubtedly have important (and unjust) consequences for females.

So I disagree with the view that women are 'naturally' disinterested in political matters. The enormous role women played in the syndicalist revolution in Barcelona alone disproves such a nation.

Celtiberian wrote:The rampant sexism found within the nationalist movement is a significant factor in why there are fewer women contributing in nationalist organizations, messages boards, etc. I remember getting into countless debates on Stormfront with men who basically blamed women for every societal ill imaginable (e.g., multiculturalism, miscegenation, immigration, etc.) and staunchly believed that women should be forcibly relegated to "kinder, küche, kirche" ("children, kitchen, and church").

As for the gender imbalance in the socialist movement, it's not nearly as extreme as it is in nationalism. RevLeft really isn't fair a representation of the gender ratio in contemporary leftism. Honestly, I think a good argument could be made that there is more male participation in online forums in general (regardless of the topic). But that's a separate issue.

That always irked me about Stormfront, when I was a member there. Sorry folks..call me selfish, but I can't see "children, kitchen, church" being the only thing in my future. Sure, if I do have children, I'll care for them and love them unfailingly. I love to cook, but that's not all I'm good for. And as for church, I'm an atheist, so good luck with that one. Perhaps if you drag my dead body..

edelweiss wrote:That always irked me about Stormfront, when I was a member there. Sorry folks..call me selfish, but I can't see "children, kitchen, church" being the only thing in my future. Sure, if I do have children, I'll care for them and love them unfailingly. I love to cook, but that's not all I'm good for. And as for church, I'm an atheist, so good luck with that one. Perhaps if you drag my dead body..

I don't think it's "selfish" for anyone to want to cultivate their potentials beyond reproduction and parental life. Denying women equal rights as men is fundamentally unjust and something I would definitely fight against, should female rights ever come to be threatened.

Celtiberian wrote:The rampant sexism found within the nationalist movement is a significant factor in why there are fewer women contributing in nationalist organizations, messages boards, etc. I remember getting into countless debates on Stormfront with men who basically blamed women for every societal ill imaginable (e.g., multiculturalism, miscegenation, immigration, etc.) and staunchly believed that women should be forcibly relegated to "kinder, küche, kirche" ("children, kitchen, and church").

Statistically speaking, White women are a lot more inclined towards miscegenation than White men are.

just sayin...

Celtiberian wrote:I don't think it's "selfish" for anyone to want to cultivate their potentials beyond reproduction and parental life. Denying women equal rights as men is fundamentally unjust and something I would definitely fight against, should female rights ever come to be threatened.

I completely agree, and I was mostly being sarcastic when I said "call me selfish." Hehe.

Romanticist wrote:Statistically speaking, White women are a lot more inclined towards miscegenation than White men are.

just sayin...

What statistics would those be?

I know Wikipedia is not particularly reliable, but the following was sourced:

More

Let's also recall that most of the miscegenation throughout Western history occurred between White men and non-White women. As such, I really don't see how you can arrive at these sorts of conclusions.

Romanticist wrote:Statistically speaking, White women are a lot more inclined towards miscegenation than White men are.

just sayin...

Nonsense.

"[In 2010] 2.1% of married White women and 2.3% of married White men had a non-White spouse."
Source

According to a study conducted at the University of California-Irvine:

"Cynthia Feliciano and Belinda Robnett collected data from Yahoo personals between September 2004 and May 2005, randomly selecting profiles of people ages 18-50 in the Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Atlanta metropolitan regions. While white men were more open to dating outside their race than white women, both had specific racial preferences. White men preferred Asian and Latino dating partners to African Americans; white women were more likely to exclude Asian men."

More significant was a study conducted by Gerald Mendelsohn, et al. at the University of California-Berkley, which analyzed the racial preferences and online activity of one million profiles of American singles using a major Internet dating service from 2009 to 2010. The results found:

"Whites more than blacks, women more than men and old more than young participants stated a preference for a partner of the same race.

More than 80 percent of the whites contacted whites and fewer than 5 percent contacted blacks."

These results conform well with the findings of another study conducted by the employees of the large dating service, OkCupid, which found:

"White women prefer white men to the exclusion of everyone else—and Asian and Hispanic women prefer them even more exclusively. These three types of women only respond well to white men. More significantly, these groups’ reply rates to non-whites is terrible."

Metal Gear wrote:It's a good thing that there aren't more women. I have experience. Most of the women who post on forums don't add value.

I don't understand why this post was devalued. Women do not add any significant contribution that merits special consideration on our part. Why is it a suggested "imperative" for us to somehow accommodate more females?

I, for one, do not care to draw distinctions amongst comrades based upon sex. If one wishes to discuss potential gender roles within a post-capitalist society, then input from females would certainly be welcomed, but regarding the movement itself, I do not foresee such a need ever arising.

Rev Scare wrote:I don't understand why this post was devalued. Women do not add any significant contribution that merits special consideration on our part. Why is it a suggested "imperative" for us to somehow accommodate more females?

I, for one, do not care to draw distinctions amongst comrades based upon sex. If one wishes to discuss potential gender roles within a post-capitalist society, then input from females would certainly be welcomed, but regarding the movement itself, I do not foresee such a need ever arising.

The reason it was devalued was because Metal Gear had stated that it's beneficial for there to be fewer females on the forum, since "most women who post on forums don't add value." This statement is highly generalized, as it's positively ridiculous to claim women (as a collective entity) don't contribute to forums in valuable ways—it obviously depends on the individual woman in question, just as it does with men, does it not?

As for the contributions women can make to the movement, they can assist in garnering female support for revolutionary socialism. If women view revolutionary politics as an exclusively "boys' game," then we'll be alienating, and potentially losing, the support of a significant portion of the proletariat. I'm not suggesting that we make special concession for female comrades, only that we don't allow explicitly sexist sentiments to undermine our appeal to women.

Celtiberian wrote:The reason it was devalued is because Metal Gear had stated that it's beneficial for there to be fewer females on the forum, since "most women who post of forums don't add value." This statement is highly generalized, as it's positively ridiculous to claim women (as a collective entity) don't contribute to forums in valuable ways—it obviously depends on the individual woman in question, just as it does with men, does it not?

As for the contributions women can make to the movement, they can assist in garnering female support for revolutionary socialism. If women view revolutionary politics as an exclusively "boys game," then we'll be potentially losing the support of a significant portion of the proletariat. I'm not suggesting that we make special concession for female comrades, only that we don't allow explicitly sexist sentiments to undermine our appeal to women.

Well, group averages are group averages. Whether or not his statement is generally "correct" depends largely upon context and unattainable statistics. Furthermore, his statement was rather obscure and certainly not absolute. Perhaps his personal experience has shown his assertion to be valid. In either case, nobody here can "verify" such a claim, and simply generalizing does not ipso facto discredit it.

Nonetheless, my focus was more upon the queries typically associated with these threads, which seem to imply that there is a pressing need to expand our female "base," and I find this sentiment disagreeable. There is no such need. It is profoundly naive to assume that women do not participate in the numbers that we subjectively perceive as necessary because they feel alienated. I agree with your statement regarding individual contributions: let each male and female prove their own merit.

Romanticist wrote:Statistically speaking, White women are a lot more inclined towards miscegenation than White men are.

just sayin...

From both personal experience and the statistics posted, I view this as a highly inaccurate and pernicious contention. Even if it were true, its worth with regard to the movement would be meager. The underlying position associated with this remark serves to undermine the integrity of the movement, as it is nothing more than a vile stigma designed to lure a vital component of society (womanhood) into a false sense of guilt. This is the type of mentality that does indeed serve to alienate women. This is a mentality that I do not find acceptable on this forum and in any future political struggle in which I find myself involved.

Rev Scare wrote:From both personal experience and the statistics posted, I view this as a highly inaccurate and pernicious contention. Even if it were true, its worth with regard to the movement would be meager. The underlying position associated with this remark serves to undermine the integrity of the movement, as it is nothing more than a vile stigma designed to lure a vital component of society (womanhood) into a false sense of guilt. This is the type of mentality that does indeed serve to alienate women. This is a mentality that I do not find acceptable on this forum and in any future political struggle in which I find myself involved.

You may or may not be attacking me..... But I do admit that you have a valid point

Rev Scare wrote:Furthermore, his statement was rather obscure and certainly not absolute. Perhaps his personal experience has shown his assertion to be valid. In either case, nobody here can "verify" such a claim, and simply generalizing does not ipso facto discredit it.

Yes, it's an unfalsifiable claim, possibly based upon Metal Gear's anecdotal experiences dealing with women online. But even if it could somehow be empirically proven that, on average, women's contributions to forums are less valuable—'value' itself obviously requiring of some sort of objective criteria in order to be properly evaluated—than the contributions of men, it still wouldn't follow that it's beneficial to have fewer women on the forum. There would still be plenty of women whose contributions would be equal to- or more valuable than the average male's contribution, and it would therefore be foolish to dissuade female participation on the forum.

Furthermore, I believe women can make distinctive contributions to the forum, as there are certain issues female workers face which their male counterparts do not. For example, there have been no shortage of single mothers who have been taken advantage of (sexually and otherwise) by their male employers due to the uniquely difficult circumstances they face. Then, of course, there is the gender pay gap—the recent class action lawsuit filed by 500,000 female Wal-Mart employees (which was subsequently voted down by the Supreme Court) being a fine example of this phenomenon.

Nonetheless, the queries typically associated with these threads imply that there is a pressing need to expand our female "base," which is something I find disagreeable. There is no such need. It is profoundly naive to assume that women do not participate in the numbers that we subjectively perceive as necessary because they feel alienated.

Alienation is a plausible theory, in my opinion; if you should have a different theory, that's certainly understandable—but we're back at unfalsifiable hypotheses again. And I believe there is a pressing need to expand our base in general, so female participation shouldn't be ridiculed or discouraged.

Romanticist wrote:You may or may not be attacking me..... But I do admit that you have a valid point

I wasn't attacking you, only raising an objection to the content of your post.

Celtiberian wrote:Alienation is a plausible theory, in my opinion; if you should have a different theory, that's certainly understandable—but we're back at unfalsifiable hypotheses again. And I believe there is a pressing need to expand our base in general, so female participation shouldn't be ridiculed or discouraged.

Of course, which was what I was attempting to convey to begin with, albeit in an admittedly roundabout manner.

I always figured it was because woman are inherently inferior to the White Man, who must breed white children and take care of them at the house.

Or, that just seems to be the way society has shaped its people? Believe me, the huge majority of both men and women I have met seem to not care at all for politics or anything of the sort. As for their being more men, probably because men are more inclined towards watching/playing video games/war movies while women are raised in a way that doesn't lean towards conflicts/struggles/politics?

Rev Scare wrote:Nonetheless, my focus was more upon the queries typically associated with these threads, which seem to imply that there is a pressing need to expand our female "base," and I find this sentiment disagreeable. There is no such need. It is profoundly naive to assume that women do not participate in the numbers that we subjectively perceive as necessary because they feel alienated. I agree with your statement regarding individual contributions: let each male and female prove their own merit.

Well, to be clear, I was not suggesting that increased female participation would necessarily produce a more favorable outcome here. (Naturally, I agree that the relative value of such contributions can only be deduced at the individual level.) However, there can be little doubt that alienation does play a role in the overall lack of such participation and support.

In any case, the only matter I personally find to be of particular urgency, insofar as the affairs of the Socialist Phalanx are concerned, is addressing certain outstanding ideological questions. For it seems that our 'nationalism' (without much regard for its left-wing foundation) is attracting more members than our revolutionary socialism.