I think we’ve all observed how women are more groupthink-prone than men, and have an almost universal tendency to adopt ideas on the basis of social consensus as opposed to personal evaluation of merit. Hence why average women are highly susceptible to propaganda, and even “Dissident” women (be they left or right) are typically unserious and treat ideologies as vibes that can change rather than moral frameworks to commit to (e.g., Grimes, Lauren Southern, Red Scare). This is also visible in how, despite the existence of female radicals, very few are willing to die for what they believe in. Hence the lack of foid ERs, suicide bombers, etc.
This aspect of female nature is why, for example, you’ll see many male feminist cucks unironically advocating for the subjugation or extermination of their own sex, while the most “pro-male” women you’ll find are mere tradthots (i.e., NEET aspirants). You’ll never see a woman advocate the replacement of her sex with sexdroids and artificial wombs, or her sex being relegated to the role of breeding cattle, or anything truly against her own interests at all, because women lack the ability to truly internalize a moral framework for what it is. Every adoption or promotion of an idea done by a woman is ultimately a self-optimizing move.
This might leave you asking, “but what about the white women who are anti-white? Or ethnic women who are white supremacist?” And that brings me to the meat and potatoes of this thread: I believe that women’s lack of ability to truly commit to ideologies comes from how tribal conflict actually worked through most of history.
For men, defeat at the hands of an enemy almost certainly meant death, and if not that, slavery – which usually had extremely low, if even existing, social mobility. So, given the high stakes, men needed to learn how to commit and be ready to die – whether it was for a tribe or an idea.
In the case of women, death in wartime was far less likely, with sexual slavery being the most common failure condition. But the difference between this and male slavery was that female sex slaves had a very real path to status through concubinage. Due to this biological safety net of simpery, rather than place full loyalty or faith in one cause, women needed to learn to adapt to the winning team. This also explains why female race loyalty is low, as was seen in historical examples like Central Asian women throwing themselves at Genghis Khan’s descendants, Indio and Filipina women throwing themselves at Iberian conquistadors, etc.
Ultimately I believe ideology is by and large a post-hoc rationalization of human instinct, and male ideology is no exception to this either. This theory of mine merely explains why women are far less likely to truly internalize morals than men are – because male instinct was honed to protect the collective at all costs, whereas female instinct was honed to divert resources to oneself, avoid unattractive males, affirm one’s own place in status hierarchies, and seek greener pastures elsewhere if disadvantaged at home. Women’s natural ideology isn’t libtardism nor eugenicism, it’s solipsism
This aspect of female nature is why, for example, you’ll see many male feminist cucks unironically advocating for the subjugation or extermination of their own sex, while the most “pro-male” women you’ll find are mere tradthots (i.e., NEET aspirants). You’ll never see a woman advocate the replacement of her sex with sexdroids and artificial wombs, or her sex being relegated to the role of breeding cattle, or anything truly against her own interests at all, because women lack the ability to truly internalize a moral framework for what it is. Every adoption or promotion of an idea done by a woman is ultimately a self-optimizing move.
This might leave you asking, “but what about the white women who are anti-white? Or ethnic women who are white supremacist?” And that brings me to the meat and potatoes of this thread: I believe that women’s lack of ability to truly commit to ideologies comes from how tribal conflict actually worked through most of history.
For men, defeat at the hands of an enemy almost certainly meant death, and if not that, slavery – which usually had extremely low, if even existing, social mobility. So, given the high stakes, men needed to learn how to commit and be ready to die – whether it was for a tribe or an idea.
In the case of women, death in wartime was far less likely, with sexual slavery being the most common failure condition. But the difference between this and male slavery was that female sex slaves had a very real path to status through concubinage. Due to this biological safety net of simpery, rather than place full loyalty or faith in one cause, women needed to learn to adapt to the winning team. This also explains why female race loyalty is low, as was seen in historical examples like Central Asian women throwing themselves at Genghis Khan’s descendants, Indio and Filipina women throwing themselves at Iberian conquistadors, etc.
Ultimately I believe ideology is by and large a post-hoc rationalization of human instinct, and male ideology is no exception to this either. This theory of mine merely explains why women are far less likely to truly internalize morals than men are – because male instinct was honed to protect the collective at all costs, whereas female instinct was honed to divert resources to oneself, avoid unattractive males, affirm one’s own place in status hierarchies, and seek greener pastures elsewhere if disadvantaged at home. Women’s natural ideology isn’t libtardism nor eugenicism, it’s solipsism
Last edited:
