Western media is starting to take notice of the fact that a number of western women are joining the “ranks” of ISIS. One such article from the New York Post can be found here. A few snippets:
But why would “straight-A” students from London seek out ISIS, whose brutal MO includes savage beheadings and burning their captives alive?
Some are coerced — but not all, says law professor Jayne Huckerby, head of Duke University’s International Human Rights Clinic.
“Why do they go? In many cases it’s the same reason as men,” Huckerby told The Post.
In case your curious, Jayne is a woman. I wasn’t sure at first, as that name can be used by both men and women. I checked for reasons that will be clear later. But to continue, what are some of those reasons?
Some are alienated by harassment or discrimination against Muslims at home, and want to join what they see as a pro-Muslim movement. Some, according to the ISD, enjoy the shocking violence.
and then there is this:
Others find “a sense of camaraderie and sisterhood . . . in ISIS-controlled territory, in contrast to the fake and surface-level relationships they have in the West,” according to the study.
All very interesting, especially that second snippet. There might even be some truth there. Of course, I have my own theories. As I’m sure do my readers. I very much doubt that most of the reasons these women have are the same as the men. However, they might well be related.
My principle theory is this: these women are seeking out what they perceive to be “real” men. Not the tame men around them, but wild, uncontrolled, unrestrained, authentic men. Perhaps Jayne is too caught up in her Leftist mindset to figure this out. When I first suspected it was a man speaking I thought it was merely blue-pill thought. But nope. Probably ideology getting in the way. Or maybe she doesn’t want to express the truth, assuming she can even understand it. Setting that aside, I think that these women are searching for something they feel they cannot get at home in the West.
However, the “study” does get kinda close to the truth when it talks about “fake and surface-level relationships .” This is something we have forgotten in the West, to our great detriment. No matter how much we indoctrinate women, or men, some things will never change. One thing about female nature that cannot be changed is that women want real men- masculine men. Even when women don’t understand what they want, they will know they want it. And if they cannot find it, they will seek it out.
Of course, if any of my readers disagree, they are free to voice that disagreement below. But I’m not quite done. You see, I have another theory/idea I would like to bounce off folks.
What I wonder is if Christian women would act in a similar manner if Christian men went off to fight ISIS. Suppose that a Christian militia of overseas fighters was formed, almost like a new version of the Knights Templar or Hospitallar, dedicate to fighting ISIS. Further suppose that Christian men in the West joined it to go fight in the Middle East against ISIS and its allies. Would there be that same level of draw amongst Christian women as there is presently among Islamic women?
Feel free to chime in and let me know what you think.
Donal Graeme 
Perhaps it would be a draw for Christian women, but it is not the brutal methods that the Mohammedans are using that attracts women. Look at the military men that have fought in the Middle East, and the divorce rates of same. The mindset is important. A Knight Templar could go and win great victories against the Caliphate, but if he were still a pedestalizing tradcon with women, the attraction would be gone.
Maybe the kind of man that drops everything to go fight the Mohammedans is less likely to have that kind of mindset, but then he was already halfway there. Without the proper attitude towards women, a thousand Mohammedans dead by his hands are not enough to make him the man he needs to be. Killing a thousand men is going to toughen him up, sure. If he controls the curse of Adam and takes the lead, that is what will make him attractive, not his body count.
The Shadowed Knight
No, for reasons theshadowedknight described. Whether a new Crusade is formed or not is irrelevant to the whole matter. It’s the traditionalist/feminist attitude towards women.
The shadow knight and ballista are over simplifying it. The draw is one of culltural respect for masculinity and a set place for femininity, not the mindset of the individual man (who they don’t know before joining). In addition, the women drawn are appealed to on a level of temptation that appeals to something that is broken within them. Natural, yes, but definitely broken and perverse side of natural to desire that.
So, one would have to change cultural outlook of how we view those that fight for us. We would then have to have men so committed to a faith to fight, kill the cultural norms of it being ok to sleep around while troops are deployed (for her cash and prizes), and appeal to the natural desire to have masculine leaders by having leaders that lead towards God, and not one that pervert the desire for masculine headship.
Keep in mind, it is again a cultural thing of which the fighting is an action indicating the values loudly enough to be seen world wide. Make such cultural values as to be attractive to women, and act in a way that is not fighting but is still seen by them, and it would do the same thing.
As with any absurd fad that surfaces, my response is always “there are seven billion people in the world and many of them are very, very stupid.”
Perhaps, but there’s also the “exotic” element to it all which is undoubtedly exciting — far more exciting than being the wife of a western soldier on deployment.
In case I wasn’t clear enough, what I was driving at was whether the “fad” of Western Islamic women joining ISIS was an action unique to Muslim culture , or whether it was an action that was driven by female nature and it is only manifesting in Muslim women at the moment. As evidence of the latter, I would point out the common theme in these parts of “Good Christian Girls” who seek out “badboys.” I posit that there is a link to them.
I think that women are inclined to search for authentic masculinity. Whether they stay with such men is irrelevant. In that sense TSK’s point doesn’t matter. We all know of female flightiness. It is the search itself which matters to me, at least with this post.
More on this later.
What came to mind when I read this is how a lot of women these days argue for the “right” of women to be able to join the military, even to the point of being able to fight in combat on the front lines (which, from my understanding, isn’t/wasn’t allowed, even though women have been allowed to be in the military for a long time doing more docile tasks by comparison). If it’s currently just Western Muslim women joining ISIS, that could mean that this is their particular manifestation of the woman’s-right-to-fight thing. Just a theory.
Ahhh, Donal, I was assuming that when you said Christian girls, you meant observant. Yes, I am sure that crusaders would be able to attract Churchians, but I think that Christian girls who are faithful would also come.
My point was that the role of women in Islam is a large part of the draw. The ennui of the Western cultural wasteland is no competition for a defined feminine place and role in Islamic culture. If the Christian Crusaders provided something similar, then they would see women gather underneath the Cross.
Chad, one man has one opinion, but it shapes the larger culture. Most men have flawed and dangerous attitudes towards women. The culture that they would create would not be as attractive to Christian or Churchian women as the Caliphate is to Mohammedan women. You do not need to change cultural attitudes towards violence to attract women, you need to change them in regards to the place of women. Make women take their place and stop usurping that of the men, and they will fall in line.
I disagree that the women are broken in wanting to serve their men. They may be on the wrong side of the Lord, but that does not make the impulse any less noble. It is not perverse to support your culture and your people, and to aid them.
The Shadowed Knight
@Chad
If there’s a draw to the Caliphate it’s more out of Islamic doctrine than anything to do with gender roles.
@donalgraeme
I was responding to the bulk of your post and things such as this as an indication of what you were trying to say:
If there’s a response, it’s the Muslim culture and not anything to do with the men themselves. The men themselves are more “preferable”, relationship-wise because they don’t have the typical traditionalist feminist hangups as I described before. In a traditionalist feminist environment, women are the ones that send their men to the point of even publicly shaming and ridiculing men for not bending knee to the women – for instance the White Feather Campaigns. Women will never go themselves and are exempted from going (this is part of traditionalist feminism), which has been demonstrated repeatedly. To that end, the answer to the question is still no.
@theshadowedknight
Thumbs up on this to be sure! The main point that should be coming out of this is that there is no correlation between cultural attitudes regarding violence and proper gender roles.
I should add though that most of the literature that studies feminism (the modern kind) from a sociological and global standpoint indicates that the general acceptance of feminism in a specific culture is directly correlated to that culture’s acceptance of Roman Catholic doctrine and values (hey I’m just the messenger), and cultures that are resistant to modern feminism have a influential degree of Islam in that culture. I haven’t read anything about others such as Hinduism, Buddhism and the like, but given the saturation that feminism seems to have in India (and I don’t know the influence that Catholicism has had there), I’d have to think that they’re inconsequential.
Of course, why this is, and why religion is pointed to in these texts as the determining factor can be left as a general exercise for the reader to think and expound upon.
Amongst the girls who have gone to Syria have been converts from normal Western Christian families. I think this is evidence for your thesis, Donal.
“Amongst the girls who have gone to Syria have been converts from normal Western Christian families.”
For many women, getting sex from a manly, masculine man is more important than God and faith.
@ shadow knight
I didn’t say women are broken that want to serve their man. I said that the cultural draw of ISIS is one that draws only broken women by appealing to temptation. I then went on to say how a healthy society could appeal to the same desire, in a healthy way that does not pervert the nature of how God made us, but rather fulfills the natural desire to nurture and serve in a beautiful way to serve man and God at once.
Soldier: BB
Rebel: AF
1950 tradcon: BB
2010 tradcon: AF
Translation: women always seek the edge, what’s different, what’s Alpha.
Genetically men are expendable. Cultures with White Feather campaigns and strong female restrictions (dresses, veils) tend to encroach on those that don’t. The rest is the dustbin of history.
Men display, women choose. Women are programmed to select men, who, like the peacock, risk their own life for the female imperative.
A feminist is somebody who denies the necessity and goodness of the female role (to have and raise children) to their genetic and cultural demise. What do we then call men who deny the necessity and goodness of the male role (to sacrifice for women, children, and tribe) to their genetic and cultural demise? Do we have such a name? MGTOW? If this thread is any indication, we need one.
Extinction is normal; it happens to every culture eventually. It’s happening to the West today, and this fools people into thinking disordered things are normal. But always know that somebody is doing it right. Just look for the highest three generation TFR culture.
@ TSK
Yes, I think you have something there. ISIS and its culture represents something quite different from the West in terms of the place of women. Even the Islamic West. Perhaps women are not simply seeking authentic masculinity, but they are also seeking authentic femininity.
@ FBNF
I don’t think its as you describe. The female fighters are on the side opposing ISIS. I don’t see this as some weird Islamic feminist thing. These women aren’t joining to fight. They are joining to help the men in the fight.
Chad, they are not broken. A similar call by Christian men would draw Christian women like their Mohammedan sisters are drawn to their men. The call is not one of pleasure and license, but of submission and obedience.
Not all of the women joining the Caliphate are broken. They worship a false god, but they are otherwise normal. These are women who take their proper place, deferring to men.
The Shadowed Knight
Its simple these women are looking for a cause and a challenge ,they think ISIS can provide that. Its less to do with men and more to do with idealism and being a part of something they believe to be worthwhile.
DJ, women are hardly idealistic. They are opportunistic, whereas men are the idealists. The fact that women are joining the Caliphate should be a sign to the Christian West. As Donal said, they are seeking authentic femininity, and finding it in the arms and purposes of those who are the most authentically masculine their culture has to offer.
Claiming that these women are somehow broken is a way the tradcon mind defends the sacrilegious deification of feminine idols. Women want to be feminine in the arms of masculine men. That means that men must command and lead, and women must submit and follow. The tradcon rejects this because the sacred feminine would be profaned by the masculine depravity.
In short, if the sex renowned for opportunism to the point of folly goes into hardship and danger to follow men, look at those men and consider learning from what they are doing.
The Shadowed Knight
@Shadowedknight
Opportunism and idealism are not mutually exculsive, both can exist quite well in a single mind, I know many women to be both idealistic and opportunistic, many men as well.
Do you talk and listen to women ? (The wording is clumsy, but the question is sincere)
Do you consider opportunism to be a negative characteristic?
Perhaps opportunism is the wrong word, because I am using it as the opposite of idealism. Thinking of it as spectrum, women are clustered on the opportunistic end and men on the idealistic end. Both opportunism and idealism simply are, without a moral component until given one.
Yes, I interact with women. I know how they think, which helps.
The Shadowed Knight
@ Donal
The female fighters are on the side opposing ISIS.
Oh. I thought they had joined ISIS; I misunderstood. This post is the first I’ve heard of this, so I’m not sure what’s going on, apart from what you’ve said. My theory was a total shot in the dark.
@ TSK
Women want to be feminine in the arms of masculine men. That means that men must command and lead, and women must submit and follow.
Very well said. Props.
Thinking of it as spectrum, women are clustered on the opportunistic end and men on the idealistic end.
I might be misunderstanding what you mean by that, but it seems backwards to me. It seems like, based on the ways people around here talk about the sexual strategies of men and women, that generally speaking, men would be the opportunistic ones, and women the idealistic ones. Like how most men will be more practical and choose based in part on the opportunities they have available to them, whereas most women are so idealistic that they aren’t willing to see things realistically. Just another theory; I could be wrong.
It seems like, based on the ways people around here talk about the sexual strategies of men and women, that generally speaking, men would be the opportunistic ones, and women the idealistic ones.
That is more a risk and reward optimization. Men are already running a high risk strategy, so any reward is taken as it comes. Women will take risks as appropriate, trying to get the best reward.
Sexual strategies aside, women tend towards opportunism and men towards idealism. Men die and women move on, or they trade up, but the theme is opportunism.
To clarify, women are joining the Caliphate, but the women fighting are the ones that were attacked by the Caliphate. Women joining the Caliphate are not going to war, they are going to bed.
The Shadowed Knight
I really haven’t had the time to fully explain what I’ve come to personally in describing these dynamics (basically it’s the AF/BB discussion of two or three posts ago), but generically I would (if I were to use those words, I’d select different ones) say women are opportunistic and men are idealistic. This is because women get to choose how they present themselves, and they make these choices based on their own preferences and opportunities before them.
Men, however, are idealistic in they have more of a “should be” perspective on things in their mind when it comes to a woman. In other words, they have a conception of the kind of woman they want and how she should function with him in a relationship, and he is seeking a woman out to fit that mold. The problem for him that makes this “idealistic” is that women are in full control of how things play out in this regard, so he ultimately must take what he can get. (This is one of the hallmarks of traditional feminism where the man is the helpmeet of the woman. In the Biblical system the woman is the man’s helpmeet.) Taking what he can get instead of his ideal might ultimately be so ideal shattering that he either go MGTOW or capitulate to what he must accept in a woman in order to be married.
“My principle theory is this: these women are seeking out what they perceive to be “real” men…”
Of course they are, but they are broken, too. To not recognize that women can be wounded and broken by crappy examples of manhood here at home is a piece of the puzzle that so few seem to understand. It is so dismissive to declare, “well that is just how women are, hypergamous, unaware, blindly seeking the masculine.” There are women who have grown up with such appalling examples of male leadership that they either reject all authority outright or they seek it in it’s worse forms.
These women are getting too much credit. They’re just sluts panting at the thought of an entire new empire of exotic thugboy warlords with harem vacancies. If they really wanted deep and meaningful relationships with men then they’d obey the religion they claim and learn to respect Betas.
“Would there be that same level of draw amongst Christian women as there is presently among Islamic women?”
No, because Islam is more naturally appealing to female instincts than Christianity. We’re bound by Christ to be honest and respect human life, specifically including enemies, while Islam is about as Dark Triad as a religion can go. Women can be trained to be good Christians, of course, but it never has that natural allure.
Wives backing Christians fighting Islam would be sort of like husbands defending monogamy by shutting down bordellos and burlesque parlors; no matter how much they understand it’s good and noble, they’d be lying if they denied a little sadness at seeing it go. Sin is like that.
bal, …one of the hallmarks of traditional feminism where the man is the helpmeet of the woman. In the Biblical system the woman is the man’s helpmeet.
1) There is no such thing as a “biblical system”. There is merely each person’s view of such (even what books belong in their “system”). If a “biblical system” did in fact exist, we would see a large unified body of unified “bible” believers who agree on all the fundamentals like marriage, divorce, feminism, etc. We don’t see that without a Church that first selects biblical books and then interprets them and then excommunicates those who use their own “biblical system”. Even the US Constitution, a far more simple document than the typical bible, needs a Supreme Court to define what it means.
2) What is “traditional” “feminism”? David’s wife trying to lead Israel? 1920’s flappers? Allowing women to marry for love? Women no longer property? In truth, each culture decides on their own version of “feminism”, making it undefinable. And to the demographic winners go the spoils.
I’m not being argumentative to be argumentative. My point is that individualism – which you exhibit in spades – is the root cause of all types of feminism today. You can’t have your individualism for yourself without women following your lead. How many Amish have feminist leaning, however you define feminist? I just can’t see it. But the Amish men are obedient to their bishops and community leaders, so their women follow their lead. Why would any woman follow your particular “biblical system”? How would she know who to follow, you or the guy who disagrees with you?