Julie V. Gottlieb
Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain’s Fascist Movement, 1923-1945
New York: I.B. Tauris, 2003.

“Feminine fascism” is a phrase that Julie V. Gottlieb uses to describe the forward-thinking, yet traditionally influenced, ideology embraced by Britain’s fascists. Their objective was not a return to the past, to a time when women were solely mothers and homemakers. Instead, the fascists in England combined traditional roles with the advances made in women’s suffrage and the workplace, and added a fascist bent of discipline and integrity.

Feminine Fascism: Women in Britain’s Fascist Movement is a chronological account of fascism in Britain, starting in 1923 with the country’s first fascist group, the British Fascisti, founded by Rotha Lintorn-Orman, a woman. The BF remained the predominant fascist organization until Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists (BU) was established in 1932. Feminine Fascism discusses the role of women in these two groups, details the unique form of feminism embraced by members, and ends with an account of the internment and trials of women fascists during World War II. The last quarter of the book provides brief biographies of the many women in fascist Britain.

Gottlieb, a senior lecturer in history at the University of Sheffield, has trouble wrapping her head around what attracted so many women to fascism, especially those who had campaigned for women’s suffrage. How could women embrace such seemingly different ideologies: women’s rights, on the one hand, and anti-democracy on the other? The answer is that fascism offered women the best of both worlds.

Britain’s fascists encouraged women to be traditional in many areas. Motherhood was valued and respected, as was homemaking. In fact, the Corporate State would include a Home Corporation, in which homemakers would have representation just like any other trade. An article in The Blackshirt explained, “only when women represent women will womankind attain its rightful influence.”

A primary goal of the fascist platform was allowing women to once again be homemakers, but they used forward-thinking methods to advance their ideology. Many British women were essentially forced into the workplace due to wage variances between the sexes. Employers preferred less costly female employees, which pushed many men out of jobs. All too many families experienced the trials of having a working mother, with the father at home tending the house and children, unable to secure a decent wage. The fascists knew that in the modern world, a platform that appeared to regress women’s rights would hold no sway. Thus, they supported equal wages for women, since equal pay would mean that more men could return to the workforce. As explained by Fascist Week:

Under Fascism women will not be compelled to resign, but encouraged to do so by the fact that, under Corporate State and the scientific methods of raising real wages, men will be able to afford to marry women—and women will not be compelled to earn their own living as they are at present. (125)

However, the fascists never insisted that career-minded women remain at home, recognizing that there were not only occupations suited to women, but also situations in which women would desire a career and need equal pay. Rosalind Raby, for example, claimed that fascism would allow the unmarried mother “to earn an honest living for herself and her child.”

But the biggest innovation in British fascism was its emphasis on character. Men were encouraged to have values of courage, strength, honour, and integrity. The aristocracy of money and class would be replaced in the Corporate State with a meritocracy. Likewise, British fascism presented an alternate form of femininity: one that included strength, courage, and fearlessness. During marches, women were not permitted to wear lipstick or wave at friends as if in a beauty pageant. These feminine fascists were described as healthy, attractive, charming, intelligent, and of strong character. They were motherly, but as wary of sentimentality as Julius Evola. A male writer described the women Blackshirts:

Nothing silly or soft about these women. They are nothing if not practical . . . and the happy carefree way in which they made themselves at home, was so refreshing after one has had their fill of the simpering little brats that democracy and Jewish films have produced. (95)

The combination of traditional and modern was seen in the BU women’s uniform of: a black blouse, grey skirt, and black beret. It was against regulations for women to wear trousers while on active duty.

Integrating Fascism into Everyday Life

British fascists grew in numbers, in part because they didn’t relegate their philosophy to just the political sphere, but participated in almost every aspect of members’ lives. Weddings included fascist regalia, and at some funerals a fascist flag was draped over the coffin. The Fascist Week printed the names of wedding guests just like the society pages of The Times.

Members of the BF organized Fascist Children’s Clubs, in which children were taught history, songs, patriotism, and given awards for homework. Other women had brooches designed with the BU lightning symbol, and made dolls dressed in the blackshirt for children. There also was a BU Women’s Choir. According to Gottlieb:

By celebrating each phase of life within a fascist framework, the BF in fact appropriated the functions once carried out by the Church and this substantiated their claim . . . that fascism was akin to a religion. (28)

In addition to the accolades given to real women, there were fascist heroines as well. The most notable was Queen Elizabeth, for her command of the nation and exemplary oratory skills. Another heroine was Lady Hester Stanhope, who worked as a housekeeper before traveling through the Middle East. E. D. Hart wrote:

Those women who, whether from choice or, as in the case of Lady Hester, from necessity, explore other walks of life, will find both assistance and encouragement. When, like her, they display the Fascist virtues of courage, self-reliance, and tenacity of purpose, we ascribe to them the honour which is their due. (97)

Blackshirts also banded together to disparage several less attractive types of women. One was the feminist with mannish, short hair, called the “bleating Bloomsbury.” Another was the “Mayfair Parasite,” who usurped the nation’s wealth and vitality by sleeping late and devoting her life to superficial pleasures. Being fit and healthy was considered a moral duty, for as one writer put it: “Far too many women consider it their privilege to be ill . . . just ill enough to pamper themselves and evade their share of the family work.” Communists often were referred to as “submen” and “subwomen.” Titled women did not escape criticism either. Those who earned money by advertising products were publicly chastised by BU members for degrading both themselves and their class.

Women’s Duties in Fascist Organizations

Women were involved in almost every area of Britain’s fascist groups, and made up about 25 percent of the membership. The Women’s Section of the BU was established in March 1933, under the leadership of Lady Maud Mosley. She said, “When my son married Lady Cynthia [Mosley’s first wife], she took her place by his side. Now she is dead and there must be someone to help him in this work and I am going to do my best to fill the gap” (52).

Mosley’s second wife, Diana, and her sister Unity Valkyrie Mitford became two of the best-known female fascists, but Feminine Fascism only lightly touches on their stories. Their aristocratic parents were extremely Right-wing and anti-Semitic, but when the 2nd Baron Redesdale supported England during the war, he and his Nazi-sympathizing wife permanently separated.

Diana was married to Bryan Guinness when she met Mosley, and soon became his mistress. Mosley’s wife died suddenly of peritonitis in 1933 (though he was plagued the rest of his life that infidelities and political stress might have been the cause). Mosley and Diana were married at the home of Joseph Goebbels in 1936, with Hitler as guest of honor.

Unity debuted the same year her older sister became Mosley’s mistress. The next year, Diana and Unity went to the 1933 Nuremberg Rally as part of the BU delegation, and saw Hitler for the first time. Unity returned to Germany the following year, eating at the same restaurant as the Führer for 10 months, until he finally asked her over. Unity wrote to her father of their meeting: “I am so happy that I wouldn’t mind a bit, dying. I'd suppose I am the luckiest girl in the world. For me he is the greatest man of all time.” Hitler, in turn, described Unity as “a perfect specimen of Aryan womanhood.” Their affections might have escalated, if not for a suicide attempt by Hitler’s mistress, Eva Braun. Though in love with Hitler, Unity devoted herself to making speeches, writing letters, distributing propaganda, and being one of Hitler’s intimate confidantes. On September 3, 1939, the day Britain declared war on Germany, Unity took a pearl-handled pistol (a gift from Hitler for protection) and shot herself in the head, unable to bear the thought of the two countries she loved at war. She survived and was eventually able to walk again, but never recovered her full mental capabilities.

While Unity was helping the cause on the continent, women Blackshirts in England spoke at meetings, organized children’s groups, sold newspapers, and participated in marches and canvassing. Study groups about fascism were established for women speakers, and women participated in public debates. But women did not forsake their traditional duties either: One woman reported that it was the fair sex who kept the BU headquarters clean and brewed tea for the men. Members who did not give five nights a week to the movement were denied the privilege of wearing the coveted blackshirt.

A relatively large number of women participated in local elections. In 1936, the BU ran 10 women candidates (10 percent of their parliamentary candidates), from a variety of backgrounds. (Six were unmarried, five were professionals, three were in their 20s, and two were from gentry families.) The various women received between 15 and 23 percent of the votes in their respective districts.

Women’s most valuable talents were said to be in public speaking, and numerous BU women were praised for their excellent oration and ability to move crowds. Other women were lauded for their ability to use personal stories in their speeches, which proved more powerful than simple recitations of facts. During a 1936–37 campaign, women decided to censor their speeches for tactical advantage. No speaker was allowed to use the word “Jew.” Instead, plain-clothed members were scattered throughout the audience to use the word instead, as the message was thought to be more rousing if coming from the public.

Women had roles to play in security and self-defense as well. Female members of several organizations were trained in ju-jitsu, for as Fascist Week reported, “no male member of the BU is permitted to use force upon any woman, and women Reds often form a highly noisy and razor-carrying section at fascist meetings. Thus we counter women with women” (66).

The Fallout During the War

As early as 1938, a division of MI5 was formed to place agents in subversive organizations. Three women agents provocateurs successfully infiltrated the popular fascist group, Captain Ramsay’s Right Club. After Britain entered WWII, the country started to resemble a totalitarian dystopia for fascist sympathizers. In October 1939, Anne Brock Griggs was charged with “insulting words and disturbing the peace” for saying in a speech: “If Germans don’t like Hitler they can get rid of him themselves. We do not need to send our sons to fight them. If ever a country wants a revolution now it is Great Britain” (236). She quit her BU post, but was still interned during the war.

Defense Regulation 18B(1A) went into effect in September 1939, and it allowed the Home Secretary to detain anyone suspected of being a threat to national security. That category included anyone who was a leader or member in a group that might be under foreign influence. Under 18B, 1,826 people were interned, including 747 BU members (96 of them women).

Sir Oswald Mosley was arrested in May 1940, the day after the Defense Regulations were passed. The BU was outlawed in June, and his second wife, Diana, was interned shortly after. She was denounced by both her sister Nancy (later a famous novelist and biographer) and her former father-in-law, and had to leave without her 11-week-old, still-nursing baby boy. Although the English public called for Unity Mitford to be interned as a traitor, she was allowed to return to the family home with her mother, since she was weak from her suicide attempt.

Interned women were given no special treatment in prison. When Miss L. M. Reeve was arrested, a group of armed guards came to take her from her home. One officer asked if he could have her dog, since she was “probably about to be shot.” One woman’s infant died while staying with her in prison, and another woman’s infant was pulled from her arms and placed in an institution. Part of the evidence against another woman was a photograph of her on vacation in Germany in 1939, seated at a table with bottles of German wine.

Fascists on the outside, though their organizations were banned, were still able to help their comrades via a registered charity founded specifically to help those interned under 18B. The charity helped pay for legal and medical services, provided assistance to detainees’ families, provided post-release counseling, and helped people find employment. Trials could only be held for those who could be charged with a tangible offense, so many men and women fascists were imprisoned for years.

The Impact of Feminine Fascism

The much-anticipated Corporate State never became a reality, and its philosophies and ideas were forced to the margins of history. Yet the lessons that can be learned from the events detailed in Feminine Fascism remain relevant to the leaders of future generations.

Eighty years ago, the fascists recognized that it would be impossible to shed the gains made in women’s rights. Rather than fighting against women’s “emancipation,” with which they ideologically disagreed, the fascists used it to their advantage. The result was a philosophy for women that honored the traditional, yet considered the needs of modern women. Fascists didn’t need to force women into the home or sell them on an ideology that contradicted the propaganda of the modern world; they realized that the moment women didn’t have to work the majority of mothers would return gladly to full-time homemaking. And given the precarious nature of homemaking as a profession, they planned ways for women to have representation and security in the Corporate State. The result was a platform that united women of various political persuasions, ages, and classes. Because it details the fascists’ unique outlook and strategy, Feminine Fascism makes a relevant handbook for those looking to learn from the successes and failures of history.

Richard T. Ford's new article, Rights Gone Wrong, laments the Alinskyite strategy increasingly deployed by White males of forcing the Civil Rights hustle to live up to its own rhetoric. He drips with contempt for his fellow males, appealing to his warped notion of "common sense". For him, common sense boils down to the unspoken premise of the Civil Rights Movement: It's a weapon to bludgeon White males. It's inappropriate and nonsensical to apply the statutes as written, because the intention is the opposite of what's written. It's a fig leaf of universal rhetoric over the giant throbbing obscenity of anti-White and anti-male zero-sum identity politics.

Ford's leopard-print thong is in a bunch because a man alleged sexual discrimination in a Mother's Day contest. Of course he was sexually discriminated against for being a man, it was a Mother's Day contest. Ford echoes the popular sentiment which is that the man should shut up and "man-up". In a sane world, I would concur. However, there's only one way to fight a social and legal system which is half-retarded and throws the retarded half in your lap: go full retard. There's nothing wrong with ladies' nights and Congressional Black Caucuses, but when the system sanctions fairness for thee and retardation for me, I have a moral obligation to support what this gentleman had the foresight and courage to do.

He was defeated, of course...

Jaenelle instigated an epic firestorm with her recent article, "Where are All the Women?" Whether her position is correct or incorrect, she deserves credit for stepping up and starting the discussion. She's correct that the overt hostility toward women in some circles is an impediment to progress and she's also correct that women are generally less inclined—both by nature and nurture - to be a bit less politically vocal and comfortable with the concomitant competitiveness and hostility that comes with it.

Unfortunately, she leaves one with the impression that Women,  the identity group, are boycotting the good fight for our people and our future until a list of conditions are met. If a cause is both righteous and existential, then those who are awakened to the necessity of that cause have a moral obligation to fight for it regardless of what challenges they face from either their enemies or their "allies". To take up dissident political work is to be goaded into arena by spectators who are content to clap and cheer as the lion chases you in circles. It's not easy, but matter how off-putting some creeper bellowing about how you ought to shut up and make babies can be, it's not that guy's fault if women fail to do their part.

One might conclude if one didn't know better that Jaenelle is liable to run off and whimper on Morris Dees' gaudy red velvet sofa if we men didn't "shape up".

Her own actions contradict that interpretation. Jaenelle has been at the forefront of public advocacy, tirelessly working to organize and mobilize real world White Advocacy. As a co-founder of Hoosier Nation, she's played a pivotal role in building one of the most active and effective activist workshops in America from scratch. As the sole proprietor of Lighthouse Literature, she's doing as much as anybody to help spread the ideas behind our movement. She's faced down the illegal immigrant protesters and "antifa" thugs on the statehouse steps, choked on pepper spray, been kicked out of venues after bricks were thrown through the plate-glass windows,  had credible threats on both herself and her loved ones, and paid for much of that experience out of her own purse.

The real question is the very opposite of Jaenelle's. Men are the ones more or less absent from the struggle to preserve our White American heritage and way of life. Sure, there are relatively few women involved in the so-called "movement". But this struggle shouldn't be defined in terms of the "stuckment", but in on who is out in the real world struggling for White American interests and goals. By that standard, most hobbyists (and women are generally not hobbyists) who call themselves pro-White would barely qualify at all, and the vast army of moms, wives, and sisters keeping America segregated one neighborhood at a time would qualify.

Our enemies are quick to confirm that "racism" in America has taken on a softer, more subtle, more insidious tone. In other words, it's become more feminine. America's women are the ones putting their kids in "good schools", bothering the Homeowner's Association about all the cars parked next door until the Mexicans are forced out of the neighborhood, lobbying for zoning policies that prohibit lime green houses with purple shutters, championing the fascist zero-tolerance and anti-drug policies that make excellent proxies for race, and smirking warmly when their real estate clients propose to move into "that" neighborhood.

Had White America's women faltered to the extent that we men have in the past century, there would be nothing left for us to preserve. Where are all the men at? Had our women not found hundreds of millions of clever little ways to resist the federal government's tyrannical social engineering campaign, America would be a Brazilian circus by now. Had they contented themselves with bestowing grandiose titles upon themselves in the humid confines of their parents' basements and calling it "pro-White", we would all be hosed.

Steve Sailer has demonstrated that the phenomenon of "White Flight"—the first thing our opponents point to when attempting to name examples of Whites acting in their group interests - is driven almost exclusively by women of child-bearing age. Even the most confidently pro-White men find themselves going for the cheaper apartments that are closer to the office. Even the most liberal soccer moms find themselves going  for the lily-white subdivision. If, as Jaenelle suggested and many commenters put in more blunt terms, the men's work is overt political struggle and the women's work is practical local and familial toiling, then there's no contest.

Our birth rate is hovering below replacement-rate, now. Feminists are a big part of the problem. Heidi Beirich is still stomping around college campuses in search of "racism". There's much more that women can do to help, and I hope Jaenelle fleshes out her proposal for more female-friendly outreach and advocacy options. As a society, both sexes are failing to measure up to the legacy we inherited from our forefathers and pioneer mothers. If we're to earn the rich inheritance we've been entrusted with, both men and women must stop playing by the enemy's rules and thinking of our separate genders as competing identity groups. We must start thinking of ourselves as complementary halves of a singular tribe joined in a united front against the globalists and their third world minions.

It’s a question one cannot avoid asking or avoid hearing in this movement: Where are all the women? Females are noticeably absent, save for the wives who get dragged along to events by their husbands. Being female myself, people often ask me why I think this is or what can be done to change it. I don’t consider myself an expert on the subject, but since I have been asked about it frequently, it is a question to which I have devoted some thought.

The main factors that I believe result in a lack of female participation are a generally hostile atmosphere in the movement, minimal or non-existent social acceptability, and an excessively political orientation.

The overall hostility towards women is, in my view, probably the biggest factor. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not a bra-burning feminist nor do I hate men. In fact, some of my best friends are men (all of them are, actually except for two) and I don’t approve of the way modern society tends to build up women at the expense of men.

But there are a LOT of bitter men in this movement. I’m sure you know the type: The ones who blame women for all of society’s problems, as well as for their own personal problems; the ones who view women as little more than baby-making machines and are resentful of women who do anything besides raise children; and the ones who think women are inferior to men (intellectually or otherwise) and therefore have nothing useful to contribute.

I can’t say if these people are in the majority or not, but it doesn’t matter. They are so vocal that one cannot avoid hearing them and any woman who encounters this, particularly one who is on the fence, is likely to be put off by it, if not driven off completely. No one wants to participate in an activity where they are being put down, denigrated, and criticised at every turn. Most people’s participation in anything is contingent upon feeling valued by other members of the group. This kind of anti-female language that is so prevalent does not make women feel as though their contributions toward activism will be valued, nor does it give the impression that this movement has something better to offer the average woman than does modern society.

But it’s not just men! I’ve encountered some pretty hostile language from other women, too, who believe that any woman who isn’t having a million babies and keeping house for her husband is a radical feminist. That is also extremely off-putting and sends the message that any woman who wants to be involved in this movement is expected to give up her own dreams and aspirations and focus only on having a family. However, having children is not activism. It is important and necessary, but it is not activism. Most women were born with a uterus and a brain and we are capable of using them both. Currently the face of this movement is entirely male and until there is a noticeable female presence, it will fail to mainstream.

That leads me to the next factor, the lack of social acceptability. Contrary to popular belief, women are not all that left-wing. In fact, women tend to become more conservative as they get older and have families. There are a lot of right-leaning women out there. And they are not participating in our movement. Why?

Most people do not seek out ostracism. Participating in this movement, especially openly, means having all sorts of unpleasant labels attached to one by default. Guilty by association. Many of our men may not have a problem with that and feel that they can “go it alone”, if they must, but women aren’t hard-wired that way.

To date, very little has been done to mainstream the movement. It has remained on the fringes, primarily attracting fringe individuals who cannot find social acceptance in other circles. This is starting to change, slowly. When women can join this movement without fear of ostracism and loss of their entire support network of friends and family, they will flock to it. It’s not that women don’t care. It’s just that there is not much in this movement as a movement (as opposed to a set of personal beliefs) that is worth potentially placing in jeopardy one’s reputation, livelihood, or physical safety.

This goes back to what I said about offering women something better than does modern society. Promising a woman that her only reward for participation will be becoming outcast in regular society is not particularly enticing (especially if it comes with a rigid enforcement of gender roles). But if and when the movement mainstreams, it will be in a better position to offer something more attractive and beneficial to women. Men can afford to hold to impractical ideological principles like multiculturalism and diversity, but women will almost always break ranks when it is in their or their children’s best interests.

Lastly, current means of activism offer very little that is of interest to the average woman. Most activism is centered on political activism. Conference, rallies, blogging, etc. are not activities that appeal to women, on the whole. Women generally are more inclined towards social causes.

Political causes are largely a man’s game. Politics requires a level of confrontation and competition with which many women are not comfortable, either because of their own gentler nature or because they have been socialised not to be aggressive in that manner. I get the impression sometimes that men expect women to be as enthusiastic about political causes as they are, not realising that by offering no other options for participation, they get either half-hearted efforts from the women who do participate or they attract Sarah Palin types who think they are honourary men and are generally an embarrassment to the movement. The remainder of the women just sit on the sidelines, not knowing how they can help and feeling generally useless and left out.

There is no organisation in this movement that focuses on the social problems of our people and no one coordinating efforts to solve those problems. It’s not that we don’t think political causes are important. We know they are, but they don’t engage our sensibilities. We derive a lot more satisfaction out of helping someone in need than in writing letters to our senators and the results of social activism are usually more immediate. I engage in political activism because it is essential, but I much prefer opportunities to help our people directly and in a tangible way.

Social causes are something women are historically very good at taking charge of and turning into a success. Our movement could benefit a lot from organisations whose focus is on helping people and the existence of such organisations would attract more women by offering them activism options that are interesting to them and give them a chance to utilise the talents they have. Women tend to be community builders and would excel at providing a framework in which we can offer services and support to our people.

Additionally, having groups whose purpose is to help others can put a more positive spin on the movement, helping to debunk the myth that we are all just haters. Any serious political movement should have an arm whose purpose it is to improve the community and the lives of the people in it.

So how do we put this into action and start attracting more women?

First, negative attitudes about women have to change. Make the movement more welcoming to women. Get rid of the He-Man Woman Haters Club- it is toxic to our movement and serves only to feed the stereotype that we are made up entirely of older, reactionary men who are living in the past.

Second, get those new women (and the older ones, too) involved in social activism for our people that engages their sensibilities and makes use of the talents that come naturally to women. Put them to work as the new face of the movement and they will not only attract more women, but also more men, increasing our overall numbers and the amount of talent available to us.

Once these things have been achieved, mainstreaming this movement will come much more easily, but until then, we will continue to have very little political power and our influence will remain limited. Women are essential to the success of this movement. Anyone who is serious about the future of our people should be making it a priority to reach out to women and make them feel welcome.

The Daily Mail reported the other day that British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is studying the possibility of imposing compulsory quotas for women in company boardrooms—a demand previously made by Labour’s Harriet Harman, and previously derided by the Conservatives while in opposition. Apparently, Mr. Cameron is drawing inspiration from Scandinavian countries, where companies are required by law to ensure that at least 40% of board members are women.

No mention has been made of exactly how this will improve operational efficiency, the quality of products and customer service, or profitability.

I have no problem with women in boardrooms if they are there for the right reasons—meaning, they are the most skilled persons for the job not currently employed elsewhere. But I do have a problem with the government, which knows nothing about my company’s needs, telling me whom I must hire and whom I must promote, to what positions, and how soon.

Having long known management consultants whose clients have been either among the industry leaders nationwide or prestigious multinationals (indeed, one of the consultants, now retired, worked for one of the latter), one certainly cannot dismiss the famed glass ceiling for women in management as pure feminist agitprop: although this is less the case nowadays, there has been, and there still is, a tendency among some to take women less seriously in corporate environments, and this has inevitably impacted on promotions. (If executive women are sometimes unpleasant, masculine, and abrasive, it owes as much to the need to be heard and be taken seriously as it owes to feminism. This would be consistent with social identity theory, which predicts that in conflict situations competing groups will grow to resemble each other, even if ingroup members’ perceptions of the outgroup come increasingly to exaggerate ingroup-outgroup differences, real or perceived. In a male-dominated environment, women competing for resources, and equipped with an adversarial group identity by the feminists, will inevitably adopt male tactics and characteristics.)

Having said this, however, and with the caveat that mediocrity and incompetence abound all the way up and down the corporate ladder, irrespective of sex, there are also women who do not deserve to be taken seriously, who are hypersensitive, and / or who, found lacking in efficacy and / or industry, exploit equality legislation to obtain undeserved advantage. And, more importantly, there are also many women who do not dream of being ball-busting executives: indeed, many are content to have economic autonomy, while others would rather be at home looking after their families.

The underlying assumption with quotas is that (a) every person has the same potential to do a job as well as any other given the same opportunities; and (b) when a person who is not a member of a protected category is not successful with a job application it is always unjustified, unless another member of a protected category has been successful instead.

Mr. Cameron’s brand of feminism cannot accept that women may tend to order their priorities differently from men, and that his may have contributed proportionally to different outcomes vis-à-vis the corporate ladder. As usual, inequality of outcome is equated simplistically with inequality of opportunity.

Were it not because the imposition of quotas is a zero sum game, where every person who is favoured by the quota system is another person who is displaced in turn, I would be thinking that this is not about equalising outcomes, but about maximising tax revenues: after all, more women in senior executive positions means more women in the high income tax bracket.

What is certain is that any quota system will result in less qualified women displacing better qualified men. Definitely not in every case, as there are many very talented women out there and many incumbents who do not deserve to be where they are, but it will definitely happen. And where this happens, the quality of the decision making at boardroom level will be lower, which will impact negatively on the entire organisation, and even the consumer.

Any quota system will also impact negatively on women, as those attaining boardroom positions will fall immediately under suspicion of being there because of the quota system rather than because of professional merit. You can well imagine the rage and frustration of a genuinely deserving woman executive—one who probably had to strain to be taken seriously—in the presence of sceptical male colleagues who will now, in addition, have reason to see her as an affirmative action beneficiary, rather than a fully qualified partner. And, in addition to undermining this women’s authority at the boardroom level, quotas will also undermine their authority among those directly below them, for the better-qualified men who were passed over for promotion will certainly not take their new woman bosses seriously. Some men, demoralised, may engage in passive aggression and reduce their output, possibly going on strike by doing exactly no more and no less than what they are paid to do, interpreting instructions literally and keeping strictly to the 9 to 5 schedule, even, or especially, when there is a crisis. Some may take a page from Hermann Melville’s novella, Bartleby, the Scrivener, and practice outright passive resistance. Other men, infuriated, may work double-time actively to undermine their new woman bosses.

Aware of this, women executives, whether at boardroom level or on their way there, will certainly notice and act accordingly. Quotas are likely to exacerbate an antagonistic climate of competitive nastiness.

This will be far from helpful when organisations are already rife with all manner of intriguers, sycophants, back-stabbers, opportunists, hypocrisy, deception, bruised egos, pettiness, and personal hatreds; and where there are plenty of free-loaders, time-servers, gossips, and blunderers who rise purely because of their adeptness at blame transferring and gluteal osculation.

As usual, feminism, rather than reconciling the sexes in a spirit of teamwork, drives a wedge between them and sets them at war with each other. This is not how the alternative Right would approach matters of sex and gender: over here we view the sexes as complementary, each endowed with their own unique skills and ways of doing and seeing things, but ultimately working in concert. Feminism is all about us-versus-them; it is a force of destruction and revenge, not a constructive effort towards synergistic harmony between the sexes.

And there is also the matter of free association. Supposedly, we enjoy it in our democratic society. In reality, we are often denied it: millions of people we do not want around us are imported or allowed in, with government collusion or sanction, and settled in our communities, making them, the high streets, and the transport system, far more unpleasant than it needs to be. And now, as employers, should Mr. Cameron go ahead with Labour’s idea, and should less-qualified women be promoted over better-qualified men to meet minimum government quotas, we will have to suffer annoying, odious, incompetent partners and directors on the boards of our companies, holding positions of immense responsibility, being paid large sums of money, and causing more headaches than it is worth, rather than the persons we would have chosen on the basis of merit, talent, and personality.

And what next? Previous experience suggests this is to be thin end of a wedge, which will open the way for further, and even more unpleasant, impositions; more quotas, to ensure the full spectrum of colour, creed, gender, age, IQ, disability, HIV status, and sexual orientation is uniformly represented in every area of private and professional life, irrespective of relevance or merit, without the option to choose whom we would rather work or associate with. So much for meritocracy and free association.

Perhaps the response will be greater automation, and the dispensing with of humans whenever possible, for fear of whom one may be forced to work alongside with. Perhaps the response will be emigration: many companies, fed up with the previous Labour government’s predatory tax code, relocated their businesses out of the United Kingdom, in favour of more fiscally amenable pastures. Perhaps the response will be outward compliance, followed by subterfuges and workarounds—subtle psychological warfare to force resignation of affirmative action beneficiaries in hopes that another, better candidate will fill their positions. Or perhaps the response will be a call for more women in coalmines, construction, and oil drills.

Personally, I would prefer a system and a culture based on merit and teamwork, where men and women contribute with their own unique perspectives and approaches to action in the effort solve the different problems in life. Whatever the wrongs of the past, quotas is not the solution.

Well before Labour’s seizure of power in 1997, I knew Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would be trouble. Even my most pessimistic forecasts were eventually exceeded by the dynamic duo. And now, in the six months following 13 years of heavy-handed Labour government, with the nation groaning under the iron heel of that miserable party, it is clear that under David Cameron’s coalition we are in for yet more of the same.

A few months back, Entertainment Weekly published a feminist screed, 'The Social Network's Woman Problem'. In it, columnist Jennifer Armstrong, reviewing The Social Network, concedes that women generally aren't interested in computer science and that they don't feature prominently in the true-life story that inspired the movie. While she grudgingly admits that it wouldn't be appropriate to lie about events, she sniffs that, "[I]f this were fiction, the snubs would be inexcusable."

How refreshing! Here we have an admission that the female computer gurus are largely fictional, but that writers have a moral obligation to depict an inverted world that corroborates egalitarian gender fantasies. It would be inexcusable for gender egalitarians to suggest that males are the primary drivers of technological innovation.

Ironically, Larry Summers, the same former Harvard President who shooed the Winklevoss twins out his office in the movie would probably shoo Armstrong out as well. Back in 2005 he ignited a firestorm of feminist outrage with his frank attribution of the “underrepresentation” of women in science and engineering to “upbringing, genetics and time spent on child-rearing.”

And how did the Ivy League audience respond to the suggestion that gender differences in academic and professional outcomes owed to something other than victimization and systemic White male bigotry?

"I felt I was going to be sick," said Nancy Hopkins, a biology professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who listened to part of Summers's speech Friday at a session on the progress of women in academia organized by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass. She walked out in what she described as a physical sense of disgust.

"My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow," she said. "I was extremely upset." 

One lady in attendance angrily declared that, "That's the kind of insidious, destructive, un-thought-through attitude that causes a lot of harm. It's one thing for an ordinary person to shoot his mouth off like that, but quite another for a top educational leader."

Note the parallel with Armstrong’s position: that there's an empirical world of ordinary people who accept gender realities, and an intellectual one that must uphold a standard of reality denial.

Summers' remarks were correct: While there are always exceptions, women are on the whole less naturally gifted than men in science and technology. This is not to say that on the whole they are inferior to men; they simply tend to excel in different areas. The paradox underlying contemporary feminism is that feminists esteem traditional male roles more than traditional female ones, eager to achieve female equality at wage slavery, computer programming, and athleticism, while contemptuous of their natural areas of excellence, such as sociability, multitasking, organising, and holding a family together in times of crisis. Are the latter not important too?

We only need to watch the role that women play in this movie, how they are treated, to see what feminism has accomplished in the last 50 years. Zuckerberg and pals publicly humiliate them, liken them to farm animals, and use them as disposable sex toys. Armstrong describes these depictions of women as "50s-level sexist", but women in the 50s didn't act like the women in The Social Network, and neither were they treated like the women in that film. Their behavior and treatment in the movie is fully contemporary.

She and countless other feminists prefer to reside in fiction. The current degree to which women are "empowered" is unsustainable. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that their pensions and 401k plans will be raided or devalued in the coming decades, leaving them at the mercy of the families and community networks their careers left them too busy to create.

 The illusions they cling to are comfortable, while reality is anything but: They're not sexually liberating themselves—they're forfeiting the leverage nature gave them in the battle of the sexes to a subset of slick pick-up artists. Their barren wombs are not about "family planning", they're about not planning to have a family. Their careers are not making them independent, dependence is simply being transferred from husbands and fathers to Big Brother. That's well and good for their personal interests as long as the economy is strong, the government is solvent, and the pensions are well-funded. But are those safe bets?

Women around the world already envied their Western counterparts’ unusual freedom and autonomy well before feminism screamed for more. The greater freedom and autonomy traditionally enjoyed by Western women makes our society very attractive, but the current social model isn't sustainable. Like the mythical Icarus, feminists have been tempted to push the limits to breaking point and are setting all women up for a devastating fall. Feminists aren't the only ones in the West casting aside tradition in favor of illusory short-term gains, but of all the groups doing so, they have the most to lose in the long run. The continuing population replacement in the West by non-White Third World immigrants suggest that the White and Western cultural context that feminism depends on will give way to a Third Worldish social model that will rob women of their freedom... among much else.

Tradition isn’t regression and it doesn't mean a repetition of past excesses and injustices. It means working toward balancing the need for individual expression with the need to play a role in something greater than the self: in the family, the community, and the nation. It means having the humility to know your weaknesses and the wisdom to play on your strengths. We don't need fantasies about women developing virtual social network applications. We need women developing real-world families and community networks. That's the real social network problem.