White privilege is a mutation of female privilege

Opposing Feminism is not merely about exposing the intricate web of pseudoscience and hate propaganda that buttress belief in Feminist conspiracy theories. It also means proposing alternatives to spurious Feminist social history. Any factual history of gender relations must take into account how ancient emblems of female privilege were transferred only in the relatively recent past to that scourge of the modern age: white supremacism.

The ideological affinity between Feminism and white supremacism should not require a summary here. The shockingly racist reactions (even for their time) of celebrated suffragists to African-American voting, traditional ties of UK’s “White Feather” suffragists to the British Fascist Party and American suffragists to the Ku Klux Klan, and the creepy racial eugenics of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger are well-documented facts that should be familiar to anyone who wants to participate in an informed and honest discussion of Feminism.

The hate myth that drove racist lynch mobs in the United States, that black men were by nature sexual predators of white women (recently repeated by the bigot who opened fire on a mostly black Bible Study group in Charleston, South Carolina), is today echoed by Feminists who intentionally and systematically misrepresent data to spread rape terror among women and rage toward men, and who also suppress public awareness of the fact that female-on-male rape occurs at “virtually the same rate” as male-on-female rape.

The Feminist “Rape Culture” myth is essentially the same excuse used by the murderers of Emmet Till. And if you think this conflation of Feminist and white supremacist lynch mob logic is unwarranted and offensive, you simply don’t know your history.

But, there is a deeper chord struck by white supremacism, a resonance with the color-coding expression of gynosympathy and traditional female privilege, which helps us understand how, of all the myriad forms of racism dreamed up by human beings over the millennia, white supremacism became so virulent and tenacious.

The House and the Field

In his remarkable anti-Feminist book The Privileged Sex, Martin van Creveld points out that in cultures worldwide, regardless of the color of the people sharing those cultures, women have been depicted in art (and preferred in reality) having lighter skin relative to males. Lighter skin was a symbol of their privileged status as women, not having to labor outside under the harsh rays of the sun to the same extent that men were expected to. A similar work-oriented disparity explains the preference for softer skin in women, particularly the hands. Rough hands are for men, who work hard to protect and provide for women.

Since the Stone Age, the general (although by no means absolute) trend has been for men to labor in the fields, hunt beasts (and invaders) in the wilderness, and defend their communities at the cost of their own blood and lives, to provide women a relatively safe and comfortable living. In exchange, women bore children and maintained the comforts of home afforded by the work of men.

Even after life has became notably easier than the Stone Age, this dynamic of men working so they could protect and provide for women has persisted. Note the opening line of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.” The obvious implication being: “… a wife on whose comfort and defense to spend that good fortune.”

Despite Feminist Dolchstoss mythology, the traditional reason for discouraging women from working for resources wasn’t so that the Global Patriarchal Conspiracy could alienate them from wealth and power. On the contrary, “it was a truth universally acknowledged” that men were expected to give what they earned to women. The real reason for discouraging women from working for resources was to protect women from the dangers of working. This is why the “right” of women to work for pay only becomes an attractive talking point once most work has become as safe as the home, and why men are still vastly overrepresented in those dangerous jobs that most resemble the same rough, field tasks they’ve been expected to do since the Stone Age.

Women are protected and privileged, while men are exposed and obligated, particularly obligated to use the fruits of their presumed “privileges” to benefit women. As van Creveld pointed out, this general, simplistic dichotomy of roles is reflected in human culture by skin tone expectations based on the traditional house-field division. Women were lighter, men darker.

Gender Privilege Finds a New Target

It is important to note that this skin-tone distinction was conceived among prehistoric tribes for whom interaction with other ethnic groups was uncommon, particularly interaction with outsiders distant enough to have significantly different skin tones. There was simply no ethnic element to the light-dark divide when it first took root in human consciousness. It was a gender divide, not a racial divide.

During the intervening centuries, as ethnic migrations brought more and more distant human relatives into contact, the light-dark divide began occasionally (but inconsistently) to be applied to ethnic groups. One particularly illustrative case of this, the histories of Indo-European invasions captured in South Asian scriptures, would later become particularly popular among Aryan supremacists like the Nazis.

But, it was only when racial interaction went intercontinental during the Atlantic Triangle Trade that the skin tone gender distinction, which had been with us since time immemorial, began to amplify the racial distinction between European slavers and their African captives. A color bias that, for the vast majority of human existence, signified only female privilege within each ethnic group was then extended to signify and justify relative privilege between races.

Whereas before, the men worked out “in the field” to provide for women in the house, the Triangle Trade established a culture where the Africans worked, usually literally, “in the field” to provide for Europeans in the house. This field vs. house distinction even divided the slaves themselves by relative privilege and, often, relative skin tone.

Most people are aware of this light-dark, field-house divide as only an issue of racial privilege. But, this naive view is historically myopic and enables more supremacism than it unveils. People genuinely concerned with social justice need to realize that the racist utilization of light-skinned privilege is a very recent adaptation of the original and ancient purpose of light-skinned privilege: to favor women as the caste who lives in the relatively safe community core while relatively dark-skinned men work out in the larger world, exposed to its dangers.

The Scientific Validity of a Theory is its Explanatory Power

The assertion that the ideology of white privilege is derived from the female privilege that drives Feminism might seem a shocking thesis.

But, it is based in historical fact and explains many otherwise confusing links between white supremacism and Feminist theory and practice:

  • The systematic churning out of pseudoscience to justify continued privilege over and action against the hated caste;
  • The rampant spreading of irrational fear and ragebait anecdotes of wrongdoing on the part of the hated caste;
  • The arguments for collective guilt targeting the hated caste, which has been a cornerstone of Feminism since Seneca Falls;
  • The paranoid global conspiracy theories about how the hated caste “controls the world;”
  • The deployment of false history and Dolchstoss myths to justify political, legal, and even violent action against the hated caste.

In one case the “hated caste” is defined by ethnicity, while in the other case the “hated caste” is defined by gender. But, the light-dark divide that informs so much ethnic privilege in the modern world is merely a recent mutation of an ancient bias emblematic of the gender privilege that enables and drives Feminism.

White supremacism is, in fact, merely a rogue species of female supremacism.

-Sam and Jodi, with help from the rest

This entry was posted in News, Research. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. jon
    Posted June 19, 2015 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    Source[s] for pre-while colonization depiction of women with lighter skin, and a preference for this pigmentation would be appreciated.

    • Posted July 14, 2015 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

      Please read the article. We provided a title and author. The author himself included citations in his book.

One Trackback