‹ Back

Presenting: A Future for Modern Women on the Right

 

One thing everyone seems to agree on is that modern women are unhappy. 100 years after the success of the suffragette movement, women have all the legal autonomy offered to men - yet it hasn’t brought them happiness. Opponents of feminism and its role in female emancipation (or gender equality, depending on who you ask) suggest this is because women wanted the freedom of autonomy without the responsibility, and the weight of being held wholly responsible for their own decisions is too heavy. As more and more unfavourable outcomes for women are deemed to be feminist causes due to their allegedly being underpinned by misogyny - the fact that 93% of single parents in the UK are women, the mothers, for example - instead of simply being viewed as a product of the (apparently bad) decisions individual women have chosen to make, it becomes hard to disprove this assertion.

 

Why are negative outcomes for women misogyny, but negative outcomes for men are not misandry? If women are as free as men, then they must also be treated as responsible for their own actions. 

 

An increasing number of women - concentrated in younger Millennials and Gen Z - are coming to the conclusion that actually, for them, the freedom is not worth the responsibility. They have realised that sexual liberation has made dating and sex an awful experience, not to mention the evermore visible effects of taking the necessary HBC; that university is expensive, hard work, and too often pointless, leading to careers that don’t fulfil them; and that financial autonomy has led to a cycle of excessive spending and debt that many simply never get out of. Speaking of debt, researching this essay turned up an interesting article that demonstrates the exact point I am making: https://www.financielle.co.uk/why-women-are-more-likely-to-be-in-debt/. It states that women comprise 55% of indebted people in the country and are 14% more likely to declare bankruptcy than men. (Despite this, men are actually about twice as likely to be in significant debt of over £5000.) However, instead of exploring any substantial reasons for why women are getting into debt they clearly are unable to manage, the article blames the ‘gender pay gap’. Because women, they claim, are more likely to be in low-paid work and in general are paid around 15% less for the work they do, this somehow absolves them of personal responsibility for irresponsible borrowing - something they then allude to further by mentioning how women are disproportionately “targeted” for consumer spending and BNPL schemes. Apparently it is now consumer goods businesses and credit providers, instead of menfolk, who are meant to take responsibility for women’s finances; either way, women being made to take responsibility for themselves, or even suggesting limits are introduced specifically for women, is firmly set under the banner of misogynist rhetoric. As such, there is no reasonable solution to this problem.

 

Except for some women, there is. It’s a world where their behaviour is once again guided by the standards of men - #NotAllMen, but the ones who live by the kind of values that women can objectively see are beneficial to them. These are men with steady jobs (or at least the potential for it); who don’t partake in partying, hook-up culture, or porn; and whose outlook is one of wanting to build a healthy and productive partnership, ie a marriage. Women who want these things recognise that the values of feminism were simply not designed to deliver or raise this type of man, and consequently they’re looking for a new ideological home - preferably one in which they can raise kids, decorate and cook delicious meals, take care of their physical appearance and mental health, pursue a side hustle they’re genuinely interested in, and generally live a nice happy life.

 

Feminists naturally demonise these women as being naive, stupid, lacking ambition, or as pick-me traitors, and for many the condemnation from their peers is enough to dissuade them from seeking what they truly desire - especially as too often the ‘other side’ provide good evidence that the feminists are right. So is it possible for the right to formulate a vision for modern women looking to abandon the prog-lib path, that appeals to them without selling itself out? 

 

Here’s my take on it: 

 

1.    The pivotal issue, as referenced in the opening paragraph of this essay, is the vote. Many (primarily men) claim that it was here the fault occurred, with feminism placing women in a role they had no business being in. This is frankly a non-starter with modern women, and any hope of rewinding the last century to a time where women were happy with or indifferent to not having an electoral presence should be abandoned. If women choose not to vote, that’s fine, but in a strong nation-state all adult citizens of sound mental capacity (ie, not detained under a mental health order) should have a right to vote. Instead the right should aim to build a society where women are as invested in the outcome of policy decisions as men. 

2.    Men often talk about feeling obligated to accept women with extensive sexual pasts, including women who’ve worked in the sex industry, as romantic partners, particularly as it becomes more common amongst younger women. My position is: if you don’t want to, don’t! In fact, men should disengage with these industries and the women in them as much as possible. The worst thing that could happen to both is that the benefits - male money and attention - simply dry up and disappear. (The flip side is that pursuing multiple virginal or inexperienced women is fetishisation, it’s weird and women do not like it at all. Find your lady, take her V, and stay committed.) 

3.    The right has to embody the values it claims to hold. If you’re anti-degeneracy then prove it by not being a degenerate. Don’t partake in hook-ups, don’t be a partier, don’t watch porn or follow OF girls on social media, don’t be sleazy or a slob - you get the gist. No woman is ever going to trust this movement if every man in it appears to be a complete hypocrite. (See the number of American ‘conservative Christian’ politicians caught having drug-fuelled gay sex with male prostitutes. It makes a mockery of their entire value system.) Similarly, the higher the standards of men on the right, the higher the standards women have to reach to be taken seriously. It’s a win-win situation. 

4.    Having the 1950s as a blueprint for the ideal woman is counter-productive in many ways, and this is amply demonstrated by how the concept has become a battleground between feminists and incels/MGTOW/manosphere figures. The 1950s woman requires a 1950s man and a 1950s society, something that simply cannot be achieved in the present day, and demands that it somehow is causes division and places undue pressure on both sexes. For example, my grandad in the 1960s was keeping a wife and 4 children in a house he owned, in a job that today would earn him a measly £39k pa; in the present, the average house price is £290k, and any woman who explicitly states she’s looking for a guy who can pay for that as well as two adults and four kids would be labelled a ‘gold digger’. TLDR: if you want a 1950s woman in today’s society, be prepared to be a 1950s man in the same one. 

5.    Don’t expect women to want to be 2D. Women are socially determined creatures and naturally seek community - if the right can foster communities that satisfy that primal female trait as well as serve the needs of the movement, they’ll be onto a winner. Take universities as a demonstrative example: along with a general reform that makes them harder to access regardless, improving the quality and subsequent marketability of graduates, there’s potential to divert the majority of women into colleges that offer 2-year degrees in subjects women tend to be interested in. That way they still get freedom, experience, a qualification, and the community, without acting as an organic pressure group for universities to drop their standards and spread their resources over many socio-economically unproductive courses. Provide a framework in which women can still be people and the right will be a far more attractive prospect. 

6.    Finally: stop treating women with suspicion. Even the most far-right leaning ones will see the world through the eyes of a woman, and it’s not subversive for her to do this. Take the opinions as seriously (or not) as you wish, but being condescending, hostile, or outright vicious towards any woman who ventures away from prog-lib values is a sure-fire way to scare most straight back where they came from, often with renewed commitment to squashing the right. Sometimes it seems the right have been infected by a need to be dissident, and it causes them to sabotage any potential for success. Paradoxically, this could be perceived as subversive in itself: after all, a traitor is a bigger weakness than an enemy.

 

Of course, I can’t map out an entire strategy for expanding the reach of right-wing politics with women in one essay, and won’t address every aspect of how solutions to legitimate female concerns can be productively integrated into a functioning ideology. But I believe the above suggestions would be an effective starting point, capitalising on the anti-proglib zeitgeist growing amongst our youngest generation of adults. If women are finally ready to admit that the cost of freedom has been too high, then we must strike now.

 

By Lauren Brookes

 

Also found on Telegram

 

Image courtesy of it's respective owner