By David Futrelle
The original Nazis were not exactly what you’d call progressive thinkers on the “female question.” As Adolf Hitler saw it, the “world” of the German woman should be largely confined to “her husband, her family, her children, and her home.”
But, like many traditionalists, Hitler and his fellow Nazis tempered their misogyny — or at least tried to make it seem more palatable — with praise for the supposed purity and womanly honor of Aryan women who fit themselves neatly into their restricted roles.
Today’s neo-Nazis, or at least those who’ve come to Nazism through 4chan and the meme wars of the alt-right, have a much darker view of women, one influenced more by the bitter misogyny of “Red Pill” pickup artists and Men Going Their Own Way than by sentimental fantasies of “Kinder, Küche, Kirche.”
Reading posts and comments about women on The Daily Stormer, probably the most popular online hangout of today’s meme-happy neo-Nazis, it’s hard not to be struck by how thoroughly the discussions are permeated by “Red Pill” lingo. References to “alpha males,” “reproductive strategies” and “gina tingles” abound. (And there isn’t really anyone there to challenge the misogyny: As is the case in many manosphere communities, women are banned from commenting and “manginas” are quickly chased off.)
To see this convergence of the manosphere and the neo-Nazi movement in full effect, one need only to take a look at a recent debate, of sorts, on the Daily Stormer BBS on the question: ‘Are women naturally evil and immoral?”
A fellow calling himself jonholiver gets the discussion rolling by asking whether it’s “female nature” or “our degenerate culture that [makes] women act the way they do.”
Mr. Oliver, for his part, finds it “hard … to believe that women are actually evil by nature.” As he sees it, the
distinction is important because if we take the premise that women aren’t naturally evil and are neutral or virtuous then the patriarchy serves to guide women into having a family and to create an enviroment where men want to do it as well, while if we go from the premise that women are naturally imoral and sluts than the patriarchy as the purpose of opressing or supressing women’s nature and making them submit to men(i’m not saying opressing women is bad).
Of course you’re not, dude. You’re a freaking Nazi.
The most popular answer amongst Mr. Oliver’s peers? It’s a mixture of both.
“Women are shit by nature,” writes a commenter calling himself lordkekofkeking.
they are only good for making kids, cooking and cleaning. In a traditional society, women understood their place because men put them in their place and they would go against popular culture by doing otherwise.
Now, in this Kali Yuga, women are told they can be whores, they get away with it financially and legally and even worse males in their society have been femenized by constant (((brainwashing))).
As BillyRayJenkns sees it,
Women are led into evil and immorality by a lack of strong authority figures, If we stoned and staked them today, this would all end
SilverDawn makes the same repugnant argument in slightly more polite language:
They are a herd animal. If they see the herd walk one way they will follow it doesn’t matter what it is. The desire to be part of the herd out weighs any logical thinking.
Like all good herds they need fences/boundaries. And good stockmanship.
Cmartel offers an argument I’ve run across again and again on the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit.
Females are not evil but they are part of nature which can often be cruel.
A woman is like a dog, a tiger or a tree, neither good or bad. A tiger might kill you but it’s just what tiger’s do, the tiger is not good or evil.
We’re often fooled by women because they can mimic understanding and regurgitate facts without understanding anything.
They themselves are unaware of this it seems, they think they understand but they only feel whatever they feel according to instinct.
If a man seems confident, has social standing, wealth, they feel secure and are drawn to him for reasons they cannot explain. Doesn’t really matter if the man is objectively good or bad.
Women are only here to reward the winners and punish the losers, just like nature.
Masteracist recites a variation of an old evolutionary psych fairy tale that has proven quite popular amongst the manospherians:
The female reproductive strategy evolved prior to civilization, and it is destructive to civilization.
An individual woman, at the instinctual level is attempting to secure the sperm of the most genetically fit man available, and to maximize the resources available to her. In order to accomplish this she will engage in all manner of socially destructive behavior.
Shit testing, instigating conflict between men and other men and men and the state, stealing men from other women, etc. She’ll vote for and encourage the mass importation of third worlders. These behaviors are a subconscious attempt to maximize the genetics available to her, and to create conflict between men in order to determine which men have superior genetics.
Her desire for resources will cause her to manipulate men sexually and emotionally. These men become demoralized, depressed, jaded and scornful of women. This negatively effects their productive output. She will vote for and encourage the theft of productive (white) men’s resources to be guaranteed to the less productive. Her hindbrain has herself and her (potential) children in mind, but in practice this results in the subsidization of brown babies and baby mammas …
She isn’t evil, she’s just ill equipped to make decisions that effect the health of a civilization, and for that reason she should be oppressed, for her own good and ours.
Only the over-the-top racism distinguishes this comment from the evo-psych-influenced explanations of “female nature” one finds everywhere on manosphere blogs and the MGTOW subreddit. (And of course there are evo-psych obsessed manosphere writers who are every bit as racist as Mr. Masterracist, most notably the grandiloquent racist shitbag Heartiste.)
Tompanz offers a vision of human history that leans heavily on the alleged evils of “kikes.”
Women aren’t evil; they aren’t children; and they aren’t immoral. They are women. They are fundamentally different than men and fill different roles. Kikes used a deep knowledge of human psychology and history to start the time bomb that is feminism. Women are eternal followers, and need strong men to guide them. You cannot build society around the tiny minority (if any exist at all) of women who are capable of leading anything but toddlers. …
“[T]he better things get, the more bored women are. Bored women want to play make believe as men, since times are good and men love women they let them. Then women make things go to shit and men keep then locked up until times are better.” Rinse repeat for 12,500 years.
Remove the overt anti-Semitism and you have an “argument” that will be familiar to any longtime student of the manosphere (and/or reader of this blog).
General_Pinochet offers a somewhat more concise explanation of “female nature,” using a familiar cringey catchphrase popular with Red Pillers and MRAs alike, declaring simply that “[w]omen are controlled by ‘gina tingles.”
Amongst all those commenting in the thread, only one seems to feel much real sympathy for women — albeit “sympathy” of a particularly Hitlarian kind. As agoodgoy88 sees it
Women are the victims of Jews and so are men, but it’s our job as men to protect women and children from monsters like Jews instead of blaming them because we won’t fulfill our guardian role. I’m not saying white men should be blamed, but once we start reasserting our role as patriarchs en masse our women will submit almost instantaneously.
Yeah, I don’t think that’s going to be happening any time soon, buddy. But I do think the convergence of the manosphere and the already heavily male alt-right will continue. Both movements are borne of bitterness and aggrieved entitlement, and today’s neo-Nazis seem to be as angry at empowered women as they are at the mythical elders of Zion who supposedly run the world.