Of women and their place – Or why your submissive slave wife fantasy is not Aryan

More below.

Perhaps one of the most divisive and argued points in right wing circles is the role of women in society. Unsurprisingly the majority of conclusions that are reached are not only uneducated and uninformed, but also downright detrimental to one's tribe.

There is a general consensus that the ideal wife is simpleminded, unassuming, sheltered, submissive in all things, and fully subservient to her husband. How much of this ideal is born out of fetishistic RETVRN memes, and how much of it is real?

One of the biggest misconceptions people have regarding the ancient PIE steppe pastoralists is the idea that they were androcratic with women relegated to a secondary status. Often I see people proclaim that any system that isn't androcratic isn't Aryan.

These same people would then proceed to describe women as something wicked and antithetical to the proper and smooth working of society. Promoting views in which women are reduced to a nearly slave-like position and calling this just and good.

There is much academic twisting of Aryan tradition namely by the anthropologist Marija Gimbutas. She presented a theory were the peoples of Neolithic old Europe were gynocentric and the PIE were androcratic.

According to her interpretations, gynocentric societies were peaceful, honored women, and espoused economic equality. The androcratic PIE on the other hand, invaded Europe and imposed upon its natives the hierarchical rule of male warriors.

Her main evidence of this was the plethora of goddess and fertility cults among the grain-eating agriculturalists of Old Europe, contrasted against the PIE's *Dyḗus ph₂tḗr (sky-father) and the fact that they subjugated and changed Old Europe.

The reality of ancient Aryan society however could be nowhere further from such beliefs. The truth is that steppe pastoralists were a very egalitarian society in which women had equal opportunities as men in work, organization, military, and religious matters.

Women could and did participate in the fateful decisions of their people, held high office in all facets of tribal nomadic pastoral society, and took an active role in all level of said society. We have much evidence of this, both modern and contemporary.

The organizational structure of steppe nomads has remained largely unchanged for thousands of years, ironic considering the mutable and dynamic nature of oral tradition. This has been the main source of evidence for everything I will discuss.

Before we proceed let's establish a few things -
1. Women are Yin – Men are Yang.
2. Androgyny does not mean that there is no sexual dimorphism.
3. Masculinity is expressed in degrees of emotional tyranny.
4. Femininity is expressed in degrees of emotional anarchy.

What do I mean by points 3 and 4? Emotionally and psychologically men seek to control and impose a certain order whether rational or not, establishing rules and structures. Women, on the other hand, seek to promote harmony regardless of rules or structures.

When taken to the extreme you get a rigid, regimented, tyrannical environment ruled by the iron fist of uncompromising justice. Or a lax, chaotic, and disorganized anarchy loosely driven by an often contradictory spirit of mercy and compromise.

This comes from the deep biologically-driven gender roles of the guiding/teaching father and nurturing/supporting mother. Discipline and comforting. Our animal instincts given new, yet familiar forms through the lens of human consciousness.

The gender expression of the lowborn is one of extremes, one of near parody - The gorilla macho man and the dumb matron. Whereas the gender expression of the highborn is androgynous – a toe dipped in the other gender's world.

This contrast comes from biological and biopsychological adaptations involved in the different strategies between agrarian settled living and pastoral nomadic living. Adapting environment to man vs adapting man to environment.

In the case of the nomad – adaptability was key. Both in a macro and micro sense. As such it was impossible to relegate half of your tribe to a static position when the dynamic reality of nomadic living might call for one to perform the tasks of the other.

Among agrarians – A deeper specialization of labour led to a deeper specialization of gender. Static sedentary life began to exhibit more extreme gender expressions as a compensating side effect of a highly specialized society

Factionary in-group disputes, or rather the way they were handled played a massive role in shaping the way in which these two distinct groups influenced their breeding patterns and by this established their respective breeds of man.

As a nomad on the steppe, it was very easy for a faction to take their livelihood and dwellings and move away to another area. The material loss in such a situation was non-existent and one's ability to survive was not in jeopardy.

As an agrarian, one was not afforded the luxury of easily moving their faction away, as they would have to abandon their homes, most of their belongings, and the cultivated land that allowed one to survive. Leaving was an enormous material loss.

Thus such disputes were handled violently with one faction annihilating the other.
To put it simply they created a man made selection pressure. Since one was not likely to move, they had to not upset the village dynamic and peace.

Since the chaotically inclined troublemakers would often find themselves dead, the men that would breed were of an increasingly tyrannical character. Preserving the cohesiveness of the tribe was their role, and they did it through emotional tyranny.

Women too were heavily affected by this state of affairs. The ones deemed too unruly for settled society were excluded or broken with a mating preference for subservient females and such traits were then promoted as a paragon for girls to follow.

Women's natural adaptability and ability to embrace (yin) men's yang facilitated this transition, as they would find ways to adapt to this new situation and change the shape of their spiritual vessel to better be filled by their men.

As such the two genders began to double down on their biological gender expressions, contributing to the growing drift between men and women in agrarian societies. Long story short : Men began to dominate more and women submit more.

The adaptability of a child of the steppe was in relation to natural environmental selection pressures, keeping the human as close to nature as possible, while the child of the grain would adapt to man-made selection pressures, pushing him further into a human system.

The child of the grain's society became more and more male dominated in an increasingly unhealthy way because every aspect of agrarian society required cohesion through control. Control of men, women, and of environment (housing and farming)

The idea that agrarian societies were gynocentric is obscene as it would contradict our most basic biopsychological imperatives. It is further contradicted by the fact that women were pushed into mercantile marriages of necessity.

How then, do I explain the goddess/fertility cults among the settled peoples? Would that not be the exalted worship of the divine feminine?

The idea that fertility cults are a worship of women/divine feminine is wishful thinking. They were fertility cults driven by the grain-eater's reduction of women to essentially one role – breeding/pleasure.
Specialization of labour turning fetishistic.

So the insane theory Old Europe being a feminine paradise is not only false, but probably the exact opposite of what was actually happening. The PIE arrival resulted in the end of cults that had and unhealthy fetishism of fertility and sex.

This interaction is seen time and time again. The settled grain-eaters turning tyrannical, treating women as property, and simultaneously worshiping a fetishized version of them. Something we actually can observe in the modern world – the ultimate agrarian society.

The emotional tyranny imposed by the lowborn agrarians bent the flesh in favour of the system, as opposed to bending the system in favour of the flesh. This is one of the reasons we have so many gender-confused people.

Something that would be unheard of among nomads, as every member of the tribe would find a role for themselves that would benefit the tribe. Regardless of how divergent they would be in relation to the expectations placed on their gender.

This is something best expressed in the Scythian attitude to the role of women in war. Steppe nomad kurgans have had 1/3 of the buried warriors identified as women. This is a concept that traumatized the ancient Greeks so much that they turned it into legend.

The legendary Amazons being a female only society that despised and did not allow men was a Greek cope because they could not wrap their minds around the concept of Scythian men not treating their women like property or cattle.

In true grainoid coomer fashion they then fetishized the amazons in their epics. Making them love interests, or putting them in a scenario where a strong Greek male would “tame” them into a more subservient feminine form.

Adaptability is perhaps the most Aryan virtue there is, both in gender expression and in a eugenic selection pressure setting. As such an Aryan should be more interested in a eugenic, adaptable, and healthy wife. One that isn't weak and traumatized.

So too should the Aryan be able to to adapt and take on more feminine duties if the time calls for it and expect his wife to do the same in regards to more masculine duties. This is the essence of androgyny, not the hypersexual parody of it we see now.

Cognitive ability / factor g / intelligence is a phenotypic gene expression inherited through mtDNA (the mother) as such would you ever want a dumb slave wife to be the mother of your children? This will set you up for decline in later generations.

All of this to say that treating your women like cattle, pets, servants, or some sort of commodity, and lowering their value is an extremely unaryan trait.