This post is also available in: Deutsch
This is why it’s wise to keep women out of vanguard roles in a revolutionary movement:
Perhaps the most important lesson here is that women are a weak point in any political movement, especially a dissident movement. There is something uniformly pathological about the ones who jump to the front lines of ideological battle.
I wasn’t aware of that sordid drama involving (Katie?} McHugh, but the theme of it strikes me as all too familiar. Women are poison pills dropped in the chalice of insurgencies fighting against the status quo.
Underneath all the rationalizations, men fight for beautiful, young women. Men don’t fight for land, or honors, or money, except insofar as those things earn them access to beautiful, young women.
Consciously, men will tell themselves otherwise and pen odes to loftier ideals, but the Darwinian primal impulse is the lure of fertile furrow.
As such, women should inspire, not aspire. Women, particularly young cuties in the bloom of their slender hourglass perfection, are inspirations to men to reach for the brass ring. An insurgency seeking to topple a corrupt establishment is best led by men, compelled by an unspoken and often unacknowledged desire to attract young cuties, intuitively grasping that a victory over the corrupt ruling class means more prime poon for those rebel men.
Women who aspire to leading roles in those insurgencies are suspect operatives, for they are purposefully abdicating their natural place in the cosmic order as inspirations to stronger, integrous men. Placing women at the ideological front lines is courting the disaster of gossipy in-fighting and betrayal; women are powerfully drawn to the glitter of social status, and a revolution in which they play a significant face time part puts them in close proximity to the enemy establishment tempting women with penumbras of reflected status. Women can’t resist the siren song of social elevation, attention whoring, and credentialism, however superficial and unearned. Presented with these irresistible offers, women will backstab allies to get at them.
There is also something to be said for distrusting women who have the same passionate drive as men to achieve in the world of men. Women who aspire to greatness in endeavors that are naturally and historically the domain of men are women who are, essentially, at war with their own femaleness. It would be the same distrustful reaction both men and women have to effeminate men who forsake manly pursuits to succeed in the natural domains of women. Identity crises in either sex provoke distrust in others. We are rightfully suspicious of men or women who choose to defy their sex’s norms and temperaments.
Some commenters mentioned that famous quote from 1984 as a counterfactual to the theme of this post.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.
Ingsoc/Big Brother *was* the establishment in 1984. The young women were conformism police for the state apparatus. They weren’t amateur spies for a rebellious insurgency.
That’s the lesson which needs serious learning. Women, as a sex, are easily tempted by trinkets and baubles from the Globohomo establishment, so much so that they pose a risk if they are identifiable emissaries for revolutionary movements. Social status and conforming to the dominant culture are everything for women. Betrayal is baked into the distaff cake.
Commenter Greg mentions the “exception” of women who are loyal to cult leaders like Charles Manson (or, more recently, the Nxivm cult in which the dude running it had women recruiters bring in fresh meat for him). Obviously, cults are not the “establishment”.
But cults do something unique which assures loyalty from the women in the ranks: cult leaders isolate their followers from the larger society, sometimes even from civilization. Women caught up in cults have no access to an establishment which could pull them back; for cult members the cult IS the establishment. The world outside is just a purgatory of benighted fools.
By necessity, revolutions which aim to topple a political and cultural foe must interact with the larger establishment in order to win over followers. This interaction is where journo whores ply their weaselly trade, with promises of STARDOM to the weakest links (women and soyboys).