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

Admin wrote: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.

As is mine. It is something that needs to be addressed, rather than ingnored.

Admin wrote: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.

I suspect that this is the case due to our presence being most widely distributed on SF and other nationalist sites. The majority of nationalists who have joined have arrived through some association with SF, whereas the relatively small influx of socialists has joined while witnessing our material through a more neutral medium. Quite simply, if we wish to attract more socialists, then we should disseminate our message through media catering specifically to revolutionary socialist tendencies.

Not enough handsome, intelligent men like me.

If we make the site more appealing to a woman (no clue what that entails) we'd probably get more women. (Yes that really is the best I can think of)

Admin wrote: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.

But isn't the progressive nationalism of this site just as equally important as the revolutionary socialism?

Well as far as this brand of progressive nationalism, it seems a bit rare.

I don't talk to people on Stormfront about this particular style of it, but I would imagine they liken it more to Revleft type stuff even though you guys are against Revleft. How often does this site grow in numbers and how many does Stormfront lose to here? My guess is very little.

As far as women in the movement goes, there doesn't seem to be many, but the ones that are there I'll tell you are quite hot and quite nice.

MeltinGiovanni wrote:As far as women in the movement goes, there doesn't seem to be many, but the ones that are there I'll tell you are quite hot and quite nice.

Yeah, we decided socialist women were much hotter some time ago.

Godfaesten wrote:Yeah, we decided socialist women were much hotter some time ago.

Socialist women have more class. Har har.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Socialist women have more class. Har har.

Well done. Rep points for you.

MeltinGiovanni wrote:Well as far as this brand of progressive nationalism, it seems a bit rare.

I don't talk to people on Stormfront about this particular style of it, but I would imagine they liken it more to Revleft type stuff even though you guys are against Revleft. How often does this site grow in numbers and how many does Stormfront lose to here? My guess is very little.

Left-wing nationalism appears rare because explicitly nationalist organizations since World War II have been overwhelmingly reactionary, and most socialist organizations have disavowed nationalism in recent decades (primarily due to its affiliation with fascism in the 20th century). Fortunately for us, however, most people already are left-wing nationalists without realizing it—in other words, it's a fairly natural instinct people possess.

Stormfront associates anything even vaguely resembling socialism with RevLeft, just as RevLeft associates anything related to nationalism with fascism.

As for our forum's growth, bear in mind that it's only about four months old now, so our current rate of growth isn't unreasonable at all.

There aren't many women interested in politics anyway, in time of consumption they are only interested about money and having 'things'.

flatowkorps wrote:There aren't many women interested in politics anyway, in time of consumption they are only interested about money and having 'things'.

I agree, though so are most of the men today. We can't just say it is all women. I think though, that historically women have not been interested in much revolutionary politics. I think it is just a biological difference.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:I agree, though so are most of the men today. We can't just say it is all women. I think though, that historically women have not been interested in much revolutionary politics. I think it is just a biological difference.

If we're speaking in historical terms, then it would be ridiculous to overlook the innumerable cultural factors which not only prohibited women from participating in politics in most countries, but also served to dissuade them from even thinking about anything beyond their home lives.

I seriously doubt there is some innate genetic factor which renders most women incapable of finding interest in revolutionary politics.

Celtiberian wrote:I seriously doubt there is some innate genetic factor which renders most women incapable of finding interest in revolutionary politics.

Well, cultural factors spring from genetic factors (a lot of the times, anyway). Women ARE biologically different from men. In body and mind. I think it is the fact that the family has always been patriarchal and the man of the family was expected to look out for the family, nation, tribe etc etc. If that is what you mean by cultural factors.

SSocialistStateSS wrote:Well, cultural factors spring from genetic factors (a lot of the times, anyway). Women ARE biologically different from men. In body and mind. I think it is the fact that the family has always been patriarchal and the man of the family was expected to look out for the family, nation, tribe etc etc. If that is what you mean by cultural factors.

Women are undoubtedly physiologically different from men, and this obviously contributes to several of the observable differences between males and females—i.e., men (on average) innately possess more upper-body strength than women, therefore women don't engage in some of the physical activities men do. When it comes to psychological attributes, however, it's exceedingly difficult to determine which are culturally or genetically influenced. To claim the differences between males and females can all be attributed to genetic factors is absurd.

Physiological and environmental factors probably made strictly delineated gender roles a necessity during the Paleolithic, but to think we are hardwired to have patriarchal families as a result of that, for instance, is to entertain the controversial science of evolutionary psychology. (I've discussed my position on evolutionary psychology elsewhere and don't find its arguments particularly credible with respect to many aspects of gender roles.)

Anyway, I discussed this thread several weeks ago with my fellow moderators and we feel this subject is unnecessary and potentially divisive, so it will be closed.