What do you think?
Rate this book
Pink-pilled: Women and the far right
A daring investigation into how women are recruited by the far right online.
As the far right has gained popularity and acceptance around the world, its ranks have swelled with an unlikely category of women.
Women play significant roles in far-right movements, acting as propagandists, prizes to be won and mother-warriors of the nation. But up to now their activities have been largely overlooked. In Pink-pilled, journalist Lois Shearing interviews leading experts and infiltrates communities of tradwives and femtrolls to provide a cutting-edge account of how the far right uses the internet to recruit women. Shining a light on women’s experiences within these movements, Shearing reveals horrifying examples of misogyny and violence.
Understanding how and why women join movements that explicitly aim to restrict their autonomy is essential if we want to fight back. Pink-pilled offers key insights for countering women’s radicalisation and building communities resistant to far-right thought.
As the far right has gained popularity and acceptance around the world, its ranks have swelled with an unlikely category of women.
Women play significant roles in far-right movements, acting as propagandists, prizes to be won and mother-warriors of the nation. But up to now their activities have been largely overlooked. In Pink-pilled, journalist Lois Shearing interviews leading experts and infiltrates communities of tradwives and femtrolls to provide a cutting-edge account of how the far right uses the internet to recruit women. Shining a light on women’s experiences within these movements, Shearing reveals horrifying examples of misogyny and violence.
Understanding how and why women join movements that explicitly aim to restrict their autonomy is essential if we want to fight back. Pink-pilled offers key insights for countering women’s radicalisation and building communities resistant to far-right thought.
285 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 18, 2025
100 people are currently reading
3184 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
August 25, 2025
Nothing groundbreaking. Good discussion with lesbian feminist book club though as always!
May 30, 2025
a summary of women in the far-right, how women are recruited, the reasons they join these movements, the slippery slope of tradwife influencers reinforcing gender binaries, the issues of choice feminism, and briefly why women leave these movements and how we can counter this radicalisation.
it’s a fascinating read if, like me, you’re left dumbfounded at the women in these movements, wondering why they’d be part of something that is actively stripping them of their rights and causing harm. as made clear by shearing in this book, there’s not a simple answer, there are a whole range of reasons why women join these movements - whether that be for community, monetary gain, or the realisation that their white identity (specifically a white supremacist ideology) offers more power than their identity as a woman. one of the most important things to take note of here is shearing’s reminder that women are capable of being both victims and aggressors, that they can be oppressed while also being the oppressor. while women in these groups may not be the mass shooters or on the frontlines of the violence, they play a pivotal role in organising and upholding it, and they should be held accountable for that.
the analysis wasn’t as in-depth as i was expecting, it was more of an overview rather than a look into the psychology of why these women join the alt-right/far-right. i just wanted it to be a bit meatier. but it’s a good introductory non-fiction for people who maybe don’t spend as much time online and haven’t seen these movements play out in real time (like i have, sadly).
thank you manchester university press for the gifted copy!
3.5
it’s a fascinating read if, like me, you’re left dumbfounded at the women in these movements, wondering why they’d be part of something that is actively stripping them of their rights and causing harm. as made clear by shearing in this book, there’s not a simple answer, there are a whole range of reasons why women join these movements - whether that be for community, monetary gain, or the realisation that their white identity (specifically a white supremacist ideology) offers more power than their identity as a woman. one of the most important things to take note of here is shearing’s reminder that women are capable of being both victims and aggressors, that they can be oppressed while also being the oppressor. while women in these groups may not be the mass shooters or on the frontlines of the violence, they play a pivotal role in organising and upholding it, and they should be held accountable for that.
the analysis wasn’t as in-depth as i was expecting, it was more of an overview rather than a look into the psychology of why these women join the alt-right/far-right. i just wanted it to be a bit meatier. but it’s a good introductory non-fiction for people who maybe don’t spend as much time online and haven’t seen these movements play out in real time (like i have, sadly).
thank you manchester university press for the gifted copy!
3.5
April 25, 2025
"If you give a man the power to feed you, he also has the power to starve you."
- Bella Greenlee, stay at home girlfriend
Firstly, I'm grateful to every researcher immersing themselves in hate groups to better understand and fight them. There were a few times reading this book where I felt myself slipping into a misanthropic mood, so I can't imagine what it's like to be surrounded by white supremacists 24/7, who describe women as holes and explicitly push for the genocide of queer, disabled, and coloured peoples.
Unfortunately, I didn't learn much from this book. I've been reading about fascism since the 2019 mosque terror shooting in Christchurch, which took place a few hours drive from my city. I've consciously noticed the increased use of terms like pilled, tradwife, and femcel since then. And what I expected from this book was a deep dive into the histories of these concepts. But this was more like a fascism 101 guide. A description of contemporary pipelines into fascism, from TikTok to Mumsnet. Gender realists/terfs, tradwives and tradcaths, pro-life advocates, anti-woke gamers, Jewish conspiracists, anti-immigration reactionaries, fascist fitness instructors.
To give a brief summary of Shearing's definition: fascists are white supremacists and male supremacists, who weaponise their perceived loss of privilege into a collective victimhood. Because they seem themselves as superior, there must therefore be something pulling them down, whether it be Jews, Muslims, liberals, communists, anarchists, feminists, queers, blacks, or migrants (this list is ever expanding), propped up by state and corporate initiatives like diversity quotas and minority representations in media. Fascists are simultaneously strong and weak, and posit that their strength will return with the destruction of the other, who is the source of bodily and cultural degeneration. This is why they congregate at fitness centres, obsess over nutrition, and descend into pseudoscientific biological essentialisms.
Specifically, Shearing is trying to explain why women join such movements. Movements that treat women as property, slaves, and breeders of the nation. Movements that actively harass women into suicide. Movements that harbour known rapists, pedophiles, and groomers, but present themselves through a discourse of purity and protection.
If you guessed white supremacy, you'd be right. See, fascists are clever. They tap into real grievances. With the advent of neoliberalism in the 1980s, the utopian horizon of feminism, which pushed for collective care work, wages for housework, women's shelters, and more, collapsed and was co-opted by capitalism. Instead of socialism, we got girl power. The Spice Girls actively promoting Margaret Thatcher, a girlboss imperialist who attacked unions and intensified individualism as the site of success. Shearing doesn't go into this history, but she identifies the betrayal women feel in contemporary society, a betrayal that contemporary fascists place on feminism, rather than capitalism. They argue that feminists are what brought us to this place, where even if you place your career first, you still have to go home to do all your chores, look after your children, and so on. And whose to say you won't be replaced by a Muslim woman through diversity incentives? Wouldn't it be better if you just stayed in and didn't have to worry so much? Wouldn't it be better to be supported and protected by a man? Against the migrant hordes of disposable labour—the white family, the picket fence, the burning cross.
I wish Shearing explored these elements more, because when they come, they're like fire. I love the little snippets where she connects the lived experiences of (predominantly middle-class) white women to reactionary ideologies. One of my friends once said that if incels actually approached feminism and decolonisation with good faith (an impossibility in such ironypilled communities), they'd see how many of their grievances are affirmed by these movements. Chads and Staceys are the heteronormative imperative of patriarchy, and your humanity is restored by getting out of that system, not wishing you were a part of it. But just like how incels can't let go of their male privilege, tradwives can't let go of their white privilege. Those that leave, due to the abuse they receive from men in these movements, remain ardent racists.
These reactionary movements are usually described as radical, but Shearing makes the astute point that "Extremist circles, instead of being at odds with dominant culture . . . are magnifying glasses of it." Incels are failed Chads. Femcels are failed Staceys. Nazis are failed imperialists. Terfs are failed Christians (because their children were corrupted by the 'woke agenda'). These are movements of resentment, rather than transformation. Of failed influence and a desire for revenge. The queers have taken over my community, my school, my child. The Muslims have taken over my city, my neighbourhood, my socials. They're one move from cucking me of my job, my home, my wife! I satirised this in my shitpost on Julius Evola, the pre-eminent Nazi mystic, but this is legit what they believe, or at least deploy to pull in other dispossessed whites. And such arguments distract from the very real violence, rape, and child abuse that occurs in such movements.
Unfortunately, Shearing spends most of her time documenting these movements, as they are now, rather than providing a genealogy of their arguments. I wanted to know more about the roots of white supremacy, white genocide, and conspirituality (a portmanteau of conspiracy and spirituality). Shearing mentions colonialism in every chapter, but never explains its origins, as an ideology and a political economy. We don't learn about the construction of whiteness, scientific racism, or eugenics. Similarly, we don't learn about how cheap migrant labour is driven by capitalism's profit incentive, and how working conditions have historically been improved through class solidarity, not isolationism and xenophobia. In other words, we don't learn about how fascism actively undermines its own self-stated goals by deepening capitalist exploitation. These feel like vital arguments to present to someone falling into the fascist rabbithole. To show them that we take their grievances more seriously than fascists do.
But hey, we still have Enemy Feminisms: TERFs, Policewomen, and Girlbosses Against Liberation, which does go into all this.
- Bella Greenlee, stay at home girlfriend
Firstly, I'm grateful to every researcher immersing themselves in hate groups to better understand and fight them. There were a few times reading this book where I felt myself slipping into a misanthropic mood, so I can't imagine what it's like to be surrounded by white supremacists 24/7, who describe women as holes and explicitly push for the genocide of queer, disabled, and coloured peoples.
Unfortunately, I didn't learn much from this book. I've been reading about fascism since the 2019 mosque terror shooting in Christchurch, which took place a few hours drive from my city. I've consciously noticed the increased use of terms like pilled, tradwife, and femcel since then. And what I expected from this book was a deep dive into the histories of these concepts. But this was more like a fascism 101 guide. A description of contemporary pipelines into fascism, from TikTok to Mumsnet. Gender realists/terfs, tradwives and tradcaths, pro-life advocates, anti-woke gamers, Jewish conspiracists, anti-immigration reactionaries, fascist fitness instructors.
To give a brief summary of Shearing's definition: fascists are white supremacists and male supremacists, who weaponise their perceived loss of privilege into a collective victimhood. Because they seem themselves as superior, there must therefore be something pulling them down, whether it be Jews, Muslims, liberals, communists, anarchists, feminists, queers, blacks, or migrants (this list is ever expanding), propped up by state and corporate initiatives like diversity quotas and minority representations in media. Fascists are simultaneously strong and weak, and posit that their strength will return with the destruction of the other, who is the source of bodily and cultural degeneration. This is why they congregate at fitness centres, obsess over nutrition, and descend into pseudoscientific biological essentialisms.
Specifically, Shearing is trying to explain why women join such movements. Movements that treat women as property, slaves, and breeders of the nation. Movements that actively harass women into suicide. Movements that harbour known rapists, pedophiles, and groomers, but present themselves through a discourse of purity and protection.
If you guessed white supremacy, you'd be right. See, fascists are clever. They tap into real grievances. With the advent of neoliberalism in the 1980s, the utopian horizon of feminism, which pushed for collective care work, wages for housework, women's shelters, and more, collapsed and was co-opted by capitalism. Instead of socialism, we got girl power. The Spice Girls actively promoting Margaret Thatcher, a girlboss imperialist who attacked unions and intensified individualism as the site of success. Shearing doesn't go into this history, but she identifies the betrayal women feel in contemporary society, a betrayal that contemporary fascists place on feminism, rather than capitalism. They argue that feminists are what brought us to this place, where even if you place your career first, you still have to go home to do all your chores, look after your children, and so on. And whose to say you won't be replaced by a Muslim woman through diversity incentives? Wouldn't it be better if you just stayed in and didn't have to worry so much? Wouldn't it be better to be supported and protected by a man? Against the migrant hordes of disposable labour—the white family, the picket fence, the burning cross.
I wish Shearing explored these elements more, because when they come, they're like fire. I love the little snippets where she connects the lived experiences of (predominantly middle-class) white women to reactionary ideologies. One of my friends once said that if incels actually approached feminism and decolonisation with good faith (an impossibility in such ironypilled communities), they'd see how many of their grievances are affirmed by these movements. Chads and Staceys are the heteronormative imperative of patriarchy, and your humanity is restored by getting out of that system, not wishing you were a part of it. But just like how incels can't let go of their male privilege, tradwives can't let go of their white privilege. Those that leave, due to the abuse they receive from men in these movements, remain ardent racists.
These reactionary movements are usually described as radical, but Shearing makes the astute point that "Extremist circles, instead of being at odds with dominant culture . . . are magnifying glasses of it." Incels are failed Chads. Femcels are failed Staceys. Nazis are failed imperialists. Terfs are failed Christians (because their children were corrupted by the 'woke agenda'). These are movements of resentment, rather than transformation. Of failed influence and a desire for revenge. The queers have taken over my community, my school, my child. The Muslims have taken over my city, my neighbourhood, my socials. They're one move from cucking me of my job, my home, my wife! I satirised this in my shitpost on Julius Evola, the pre-eminent Nazi mystic, but this is legit what they believe, or at least deploy to pull in other dispossessed whites. And such arguments distract from the very real violence, rape, and child abuse that occurs in such movements.
Unfortunately, Shearing spends most of her time documenting these movements, as they are now, rather than providing a genealogy of their arguments. I wanted to know more about the roots of white supremacy, white genocide, and conspirituality (a portmanteau of conspiracy and spirituality). Shearing mentions colonialism in every chapter, but never explains its origins, as an ideology and a political economy. We don't learn about the construction of whiteness, scientific racism, or eugenics. Similarly, we don't learn about how cheap migrant labour is driven by capitalism's profit incentive, and how working conditions have historically been improved through class solidarity, not isolationism and xenophobia. In other words, we don't learn about how fascism actively undermines its own self-stated goals by deepening capitalist exploitation. These feel like vital arguments to present to someone falling into the fascist rabbithole. To show them that we take their grievances more seriously than fascists do.
But hey, we still have Enemy Feminisms: TERFs, Policewomen, and Girlbosses Against Liberation, which does go into all this.
April 6, 2025
Absolutely brilliant book and I will be thinking aboht it for a long time. I was lucky enough to see the author discuss the book in Oxford and it really enhanced my reading of it. I know a lot about the far-right and their movements being quite politically active on the left, but it was fascinating to read about the role of women in the far-right, how they are radicalised and how they are ‘softening’ the image of the far right.
Shearing looks at trends such as the tradwives of Instagram and the ‘new age’ spirituality movement which all reaffirm rigid gender binaries of man and woman, and can easily become a slippery slope into TERF territory and the alt right. It was scary to read about how some women have upheld fascism in history and how a lot of women at the moment are heavily promoting white feminism through the alt right in the idea that conservatism will protect them.
I think everyone needs to read this book - it was so eye opening and shocking but along with Laura Bates’s ‘Men Who Hate Women’ it is a necessary read.
Shearing looks at trends such as the tradwives of Instagram and the ‘new age’ spirituality movement which all reaffirm rigid gender binaries of man and woman, and can easily become a slippery slope into TERF territory and the alt right. It was scary to read about how some women have upheld fascism in history and how a lot of women at the moment are heavily promoting white feminism through the alt right in the idea that conservatism will protect them.
I think everyone needs to read this book - it was so eye opening and shocking but along with Laura Bates’s ‘Men Who Hate Women’ it is a necessary read.
December 23, 2024
*Thank you to Manchester University Press for an early copy of this!*
Wowee this book was utterly fascinating, while simultaneously being quite terrifying. I’ve already recommended it to about three people I know, and I think I’ll continue to do so. If you read and enjoyed Men Who Hate Women by Laura Bates, this is a great book to accompany that.
I really loved how plainly this book was written. It presented all of the facts, while dishing out information in simple and easy to digest language. It really opened my eyes and was super informative and well researched, I managed to follow along easily. The chapters all seemed to flow into one another, and I think the overall structure of the book was great. Some of it did feel a little bit repetitive at times because a lot of chapters cross reference, but that may just be a me problem because I devoured the book so quickly. I was so morbidly fascinated I couldn’t pull myself away. I do think it perhaps needed a glossary (maybe the final version of the book will have this!) to refer to as some of the terminology is very unfamiliar, even for someone who spends a lot of time online.
The information in here was so shocking, but when you dig deeper and look at wider reasoning and context, pieces did start falling into place. As a white woman myself, I think this was a really bizarre yet eye opening exploration of the far right from an inside point of view. So endlessly intriguing, and while it does answer a few questions, I feel like I’ve come away from the book with even more. I don’t think it went into detail enough for me on what’s next in regard to addressing the problem or potential solutions, but that would make for a great follow up and further reading.
Overall a really good look into the alt-right pipeline from what feels like to me an overlooked perspective. A great book to read and discuss.
Wowee this book was utterly fascinating, while simultaneously being quite terrifying. I’ve already recommended it to about three people I know, and I think I’ll continue to do so. If you read and enjoyed Men Who Hate Women by Laura Bates, this is a great book to accompany that.
I really loved how plainly this book was written. It presented all of the facts, while dishing out information in simple and easy to digest language. It really opened my eyes and was super informative and well researched, I managed to follow along easily. The chapters all seemed to flow into one another, and I think the overall structure of the book was great. Some of it did feel a little bit repetitive at times because a lot of chapters cross reference, but that may just be a me problem because I devoured the book so quickly. I was so morbidly fascinated I couldn’t pull myself away. I do think it perhaps needed a glossary (maybe the final version of the book will have this!) to refer to as some of the terminology is very unfamiliar, even for someone who spends a lot of time online.
The information in here was so shocking, but when you dig deeper and look at wider reasoning and context, pieces did start falling into place. As a white woman myself, I think this was a really bizarre yet eye opening exploration of the far right from an inside point of view. So endlessly intriguing, and while it does answer a few questions, I feel like I’ve come away from the book with even more. I don’t think it went into detail enough for me on what’s next in regard to addressing the problem or potential solutions, but that would make for a great follow up and further reading.
Overall a really good look into the alt-right pipeline from what feels like to me an overlooked perspective. A great book to read and discuss.
March 17, 2025
This is a fascinating read and perhaps one of the first truly intersectional book I’ve read concerning feminism, the far-right, and the role of the internet in radicalising and perpetuating dangerous narratives. Whilst literature on far-right groups and books such as ‘Men Who Hate Women by Laura Bates’ are informative, this book highlighted the previously invisible role of women: “Women aren’t just passive baby-makers and housewives within these [far-right] groups - they’re also recruitment tools and powerful propagandists.”
Shearing’s commentary on positionality and in particular their recognition that they were “also blinkered to this [white nationalist] form of benevolent sexism by [their] own access to white womanhood, believing women to be more progressive… [as Shearing has] never been on the receiving end of white womens hatred, tendency towards violence or desire for power” was striking. I found the exploration of how as a white woman you can be ‘oppressed’ by the system but equally (and sometimes unknowingly) have access to and perpetuate the systemic power of white womanhood powerful and encouraged me to become more self-critical.
This book also made me question my personal consumption of media and previous naivety that didn’t see the problems behind consuming ‘aesthetic traditional homestead’ videos... increasingly throughout Shearing’s account of research I realised ‘crunchy’ is much closer to nationalist rhetoric that I first thought. I also realised my blindness to the inherently white nature of this content.
Whilst all these points made me realise how far we truly are from an intersectional feminist movement, Pink-Pilled demonstrates how seeing women as people (and with that breaking away from the binaries of aggressor/survivor, etc) offers a step towards critique of systemic structures of power. I think this book should be a must-read for all, in particular young women who have been brought up in (ex-)colonial and majority white countries.
Shearing’s commentary on positionality and in particular their recognition that they were “also blinkered to this [white nationalist] form of benevolent sexism by [their] own access to white womanhood, believing women to be more progressive… [as Shearing has] never been on the receiving end of white womens hatred, tendency towards violence or desire for power” was striking. I found the exploration of how as a white woman you can be ‘oppressed’ by the system but equally (and sometimes unknowingly) have access to and perpetuate the systemic power of white womanhood powerful and encouraged me to become more self-critical.
This book also made me question my personal consumption of media and previous naivety that didn’t see the problems behind consuming ‘aesthetic traditional homestead’ videos... increasingly throughout Shearing’s account of research I realised ‘crunchy’ is much closer to nationalist rhetoric that I first thought. I also realised my blindness to the inherently white nature of this content.
Whilst all these points made me realise how far we truly are from an intersectional feminist movement, Pink-Pilled demonstrates how seeing women as people (and with that breaking away from the binaries of aggressor/survivor, etc) offers a step towards critique of systemic structures of power. I think this book should be a must-read for all, in particular young women who have been brought up in (ex-)colonial and majority white countries.
April 25, 2025
Such a well written and researched book that deals with extremism from a genuinely intersectional lens. Most important is the way it connects far-right radicalisation with Mumsnet terf indoctrination and takes seriously the gender critical movement as extremists
August 30, 2025
Ostatecznie ta książka niestety nie okazała się wybitna, ale i tak cieszę się, że ją przeczytałam. Szczególnie ciekawe były dla mnie uwagi na temat korelacji kultury fitness i radykalnej prawicy.
August 7, 2025
Pink-pilled is an intriguing book if you're looking for a "first step" into understanding the topic of women's radicalization to the far right. It's simple to read and benefits from bringing a first-person analysis of far-right forums and channels, as the author posed as a fictional extremist for 18 months to gather evidence for the book.
As a pro, it covers a variety of topics, from women's historical contributions to authoritarianism to an understanding of far-right influencers' policies on social media. The author does a good job of connecting various topics, describing the causes and consequences of radicalization, and proposing interpretations for phenomena that have not been extensively studied.
You should read it if you want a quick overview of the far right's view of women, how they oppose feminism, and the tradwife phenomenon. The dedicated chapters (3 and 4) are by far the most well-organized.
Cons: If you've already read some nonfiction on the topics covered (which range from white supremacy to misogynistic depictions of women), you might not find many of the chapters juicy. While the book is well-researched and provides a variety of sources, ranging from academic studies to journalistic inquiries, interviews, and self-reports of far-right influencers, it occasionally feels "bland," as it frequently cites themes that it deliberately does not deepen and builds connections that feel like a "long shot."
It also fails to keep some of its promises. A good example of this is Chapter 5, which is supposed to deepen the definition of "woman" and "wife" but ends up with a drive-along of several short topics, some of which are not that relevant, such as the role of men in climate injustice. In a similar way, Chapter 7 promises to provide some insights into how far-right language is rooted in pop culture, yet it actually expands on suggestions for addressing women's radicalization as a society.
Still, I would definitely recommend this book to anyone, as it is quick to read and full of insights that may encourage you to explore other books on similar topics.
As a pro, it covers a variety of topics, from women's historical contributions to authoritarianism to an understanding of far-right influencers' policies on social media. The author does a good job of connecting various topics, describing the causes and consequences of radicalization, and proposing interpretations for phenomena that have not been extensively studied.
You should read it if you want a quick overview of the far right's view of women, how they oppose feminism, and the tradwife phenomenon. The dedicated chapters (3 and 4) are by far the most well-organized.
Cons: If you've already read some nonfiction on the topics covered (which range from white supremacy to misogynistic depictions of women), you might not find many of the chapters juicy. While the book is well-researched and provides a variety of sources, ranging from academic studies to journalistic inquiries, interviews, and self-reports of far-right influencers, it occasionally feels "bland," as it frequently cites themes that it deliberately does not deepen and builds connections that feel like a "long shot."
It also fails to keep some of its promises. A good example of this is Chapter 5, which is supposed to deepen the definition of "woman" and "wife" but ends up with a drive-along of several short topics, some of which are not that relevant, such as the role of men in climate injustice. In a similar way, Chapter 7 promises to provide some insights into how far-right language is rooted in pop culture, yet it actually expands on suggestions for addressing women's radicalization as a society.
Still, I would definitely recommend this book to anyone, as it is quick to read and full of insights that may encourage you to explore other books on similar topics.
April 20, 2025
Shearling describes the process and propagation of ‘pink pilling’ - how women are being radicalised into far right ideology.
I find this concept extremely interesting, especially with its feet planted in social media and the rise of ‘tradwife’ content. I think Shearling makes some great points and holds a thought provoking discussion around feminism being weaponised and distorted to make oppression appear as a choice. I also think it’s worth mentioning how she draws attention to the racial element of this type of radicalisation - that it is predominantly ‘nice white women’ who are allowed to occupy this space of female tradwife influencer, rarely black or ethnic minority individuals. Furthermore, I enjoyed her exploration of the female body ideal - thinness, or a slim ‘fit’ aesthetic - being tied to fascism and, as it becomes docile and easily controlled in its deprived state. This is in contrast to the male body ideal - strong, powerful - becoming ‘righteously’ dominant, both in physicality and sociality. I see parallels of these body trends in similar political circumstances throughout history, reinforcing the idea that this is no coincidence. Women being controlled again, and internalising this rhetoric - sigh.
However, I personally feel like the book was missing something more ‘meaty’, but given that I can’t place what that actually is, maybe I should just sit down.
Overall, I would recommend, but I feel, respectfully, that this could have been condensed into a lengthy essay.
I find this concept extremely interesting, especially with its feet planted in social media and the rise of ‘tradwife’ content. I think Shearling makes some great points and holds a thought provoking discussion around feminism being weaponised and distorted to make oppression appear as a choice. I also think it’s worth mentioning how she draws attention to the racial element of this type of radicalisation - that it is predominantly ‘nice white women’ who are allowed to occupy this space of female tradwife influencer, rarely black or ethnic minority individuals. Furthermore, I enjoyed her exploration of the female body ideal - thinness, or a slim ‘fit’ aesthetic - being tied to fascism and, as it becomes docile and easily controlled in its deprived state. This is in contrast to the male body ideal - strong, powerful - becoming ‘righteously’ dominant, both in physicality and sociality. I see parallels of these body trends in similar political circumstances throughout history, reinforcing the idea that this is no coincidence. Women being controlled again, and internalising this rhetoric - sigh.
However, I personally feel like the book was missing something more ‘meaty’, but given that I can’t place what that actually is, maybe I should just sit down.
Overall, I would recommend, but I feel, respectfully, that this could have been condensed into a lengthy essay.
October 29, 2025
I was really captivated by the point that Shearing makes about tradwifery and the far right’s vision for women offering a respite from the trauma of being a wage labourer in this current economic system. We must be vigilant of those offering us easy answers, easy, individualistic escapes from the struggle of capitalism - blame the feminists, blame the migrants, blame the queer people. This book made me so mad and I think that was the point.
April 17, 2025
3.5*
Tbh I expected more! It felt a bit repetitive at times and just A Lot Of Facts And Information, lacking more thought-provoking analysis.
Having quite recently read Dworkin's Right wing women + Laura Bates' Men who hate women, this just didn't really provide a lot of new insights for me. AND ALSO there were way too many abbreviations/initialisms to keep track of
Tbh I expected more! It felt a bit repetitive at times and just A Lot Of Facts And Information, lacking more thought-provoking analysis.
Having quite recently read Dworkin's Right wing women + Laura Bates' Men who hate women, this just didn't really provide a lot of new insights for me. AND ALSO there were way too many abbreviations/initialisms to keep track of
July 28, 2025
Amazing book, everyone should read this. Such a detailed account of how women get involved with the far right. Scary to know that this is happening on such a large scale and is growing in popularity every day.
I love how the end of the book suggests ways in which we can fight back against this to try and stop the cycle. I am going to suggest this to everyone. Fantastic author, I will definitely be reading more of their work.
I love how the end of the book suggests ways in which we can fight back against this to try and stop the cycle. I am going to suggest this to everyone. Fantastic author, I will definitely be reading more of their work.
February 24, 2025
Pink-pilled is a truly in-depth look at why women turn to the far right, and what red-pilling looks like for people who are inherently disenfranchised in their affinity group. In some places, the references and theory development seemed to double-back and forward, a bit like a candy lace, but I'm unsure whether this is due to over-repetition within the book itself or my familiarity with the ideas as someone who was raised in a conservative, white environment.
The aspects of Shearing's research presented here that I found most helpful in engaging with, and hopefully breaking up, the alt-right recruitment ocean:
• an outline of a sort of White Woman Industrial Complex, where people other than those who identify as women or white can still benefit from the power vested in them disproportionately by said system
• the specific reasons women leave radicalised communities—particularly once they've begun to believe a life outside the community is possible
• Shearing's incredibly detailed introduction of the lexicons alt-right and fascist groups use online and off, to look out for as dog-whistles
Most memorable pull quote:
The aspects of Shearing's research presented here that I found most helpful in engaging with, and hopefully breaking up, the alt-right recruitment ocean:
• an outline of a sort of White Woman Industrial Complex, where people other than those who identify as women or white can still benefit from the power vested in them disproportionately by said system
• the specific reasons women leave radicalised communities—particularly once they've begun to believe a life outside the community is possible
• Shearing's incredibly detailed introduction of the lexicons alt-right and fascist groups use online and off, to look out for as dog-whistles
Most memorable pull quote:
The way we teach and talk about digital literacy, and perhaps even the way social media companies approach moderation, needs to be more holistic than reactive. Rather than playing cat and mouse with new technologies, memes, dog whistles and movements, we should instead focus our energy on building resistance to hate taking root in our lives. Because we all have weak spots in our worldviews that could be exploited, cracked open by the right argument and leave us vulnerable to radicalisation.
August 23, 2025
3.5 stars would have loved to see some more in-depth analysis and details about these infiltrated chatrooms etc.
October 14, 2025
4.5 stars
this book is for the people that want to know the nitty gritty of the why. WHY would women join the far right when it in no way serves their interests and wellbeing as a woman? there’s so much underneath this question that I’d never thought of, especially the ways in which women engage with content or beliefs online that pull them further and further in. well researched, intersectional, and eye opening
this book is for the people that want to know the nitty gritty of the why. WHY would women join the far right when it in no way serves their interests and wellbeing as a woman? there’s so much underneath this question that I’d never thought of, especially the ways in which women engage with content or beliefs online that pull them further and further in. well researched, intersectional, and eye opening
March 2, 2025
4.5 so so so good! especially the last line of this book wow i was chuckling. such a concise and digestible exploration of women in the far & alt-right with so many interesting talking points centred around technology. am going to be recommending this to everyone!!!
July 1, 2025
Really informative and thought provoking about women’s involvement in far right movements historically. It made me realize a couple of social media pages and trends that I have come across that seemed innocent, but actually had a darker intention.
December 18, 2025
I did find this book interesting and learnt a lot, however I found it difficult to follow the author's writing style and i felt that they often jumped around different points before fully delving into one specific discussion
August 30, 2025
so so interesting to finally read something discussing how women contribute to right wing propaganda and how they may be victims but are also contributing to the destruction of others
September 9, 2025
Fascinating, very well written. Would benefit from a better conclusion/summary though, I finished it thinking that the answer to all its questions is just "it's complicated", which is true but not very satisfying.
October 10, 2025
Poorly structured/edited and, with maybe one or two exceptions remains completely superficial. No in-depth analysis or discussion whatsoever
September 3, 2025
A well put together book providing a comprehensive overview of familiar concepts, as well as much needed new perspectives on the far-right.
April 26, 2025
It’s rare that a book that promises as little as
Pink-Pilled: Women and the Far Right
doesn’t live up to what’s on the tin. It might just have been that my expectations were wrong, but when the book promised to be about women within the political far-right, I kinda expected an analysis of why women join political movements that is usually framed as an almost exclusively masculine space, if not in gender, then in form. Instead, Pink-Pilled reads more like a summery of the various working of the far-right (or any political movement that matter), with a soft focus on how women have played a role in, for example, propagandizing for the far-right.
The most space women take up in Lois Shearing’s analysis is in the beginning of the book, where Shearing looks at how women are framed in the far-right discourse. But even that analysis seems kinda lacking. Various female figures from all over the far-right spectrum is touched upon, from the identarian Lauren Southern to the Christian traditionalism of Bethany Beal and Kristen Clark, but at no point are any of the female influencers and personality spoken to. Doing a media analysis of their output is all well and good, but that only seems to be part of the equation. Throughout the book I kept asking where the voice of these far-right women was.
I know Shearing is probably trying to balance between analyzing the far-right, while not giving a voice to the far-right. But Shearing didn’t have to ask any women about how they’re securing a future for white children. All Shearing would have to ask why any given female influencer decided to work as a mouthpiece for a political cause that’s hostile to feminism’s idea of women’s place in society. Shearing speculates on a lot of reasons. From ressentiment over coercion to love, Shearing talks a lot about why women would, for example, chose to submit to a husband, God or both rather than have the same agency as a man.
My own expertise in this area is limited, as I’m neither the gender nor of the political affiliation that the content is aimed at, but from what little I know it seems that Shearing’s reasoning is trying to either attribute reasons to the women’s choice or remove agency from the women engaging in far-right politics. Let’s take the trend of tradwives as an example, women who chose to be homemakers, raise their children and prepare meals while their significant other earns the money to support them and their children. One could, as Shearing does, argue that this choice is one of unremitting subservience, rather than the material expression of biological essentialism as the far-right argues. But why would it be one or the other?
The tradwife voices I’ve heard have framed their choice as an almost existential choice. As Jean-Paul Sartre famously put it, we are condemned to be free. And that freedom, in the tradition of Søren Kierkegaard, is fucking terrifying and bound to carry with it some kind of anxiety. With that framing I would consider the choice of the tradwife life as a choice of freedom from choices. You pick a role that limits the amount of choice you have and as such free yourself. It’s like the people that chose to have a collection of vinyl records rather than Spotify, or one who chooses to buy DVD’s rather than suffer choice paralysis on Netflix each and every night. Sartre might have argued that such a choice is made in bad fair, but I would hold that such a choice isn’t strange and is not as irrational as Shearing would have you think.
I think it’s a shame that Shearing never considers this option, as this both affords the women actual agency and makes for a much more open-ended discussion than the one in Pink-Pilled.
With the lack of interviews with female far-right influencers, a complete lack of focus on far-right women in particular and the lack of proper analysis, forcing Pink-Pilled into a strictly feminist framing, the book never really delivers what was promised. What Shearing set out to do is very interesting and arguably important, but the goal was just never reached.
The most space women take up in Lois Shearing’s analysis is in the beginning of the book, where Shearing looks at how women are framed in the far-right discourse. But even that analysis seems kinda lacking. Various female figures from all over the far-right spectrum is touched upon, from the identarian Lauren Southern to the Christian traditionalism of Bethany Beal and Kristen Clark, but at no point are any of the female influencers and personality spoken to. Doing a media analysis of their output is all well and good, but that only seems to be part of the equation. Throughout the book I kept asking where the voice of these far-right women was.
I know Shearing is probably trying to balance between analyzing the far-right, while not giving a voice to the far-right. But Shearing didn’t have to ask any women about how they’re securing a future for white children. All Shearing would have to ask why any given female influencer decided to work as a mouthpiece for a political cause that’s hostile to feminism’s idea of women’s place in society. Shearing speculates on a lot of reasons. From ressentiment over coercion to love, Shearing talks a lot about why women would, for example, chose to submit to a husband, God or both rather than have the same agency as a man.
My own expertise in this area is limited, as I’m neither the gender nor of the political affiliation that the content is aimed at, but from what little I know it seems that Shearing’s reasoning is trying to either attribute reasons to the women’s choice or remove agency from the women engaging in far-right politics. Let’s take the trend of tradwives as an example, women who chose to be homemakers, raise their children and prepare meals while their significant other earns the money to support them and their children. One could, as Shearing does, argue that this choice is one of unremitting subservience, rather than the material expression of biological essentialism as the far-right argues. But why would it be one or the other?
The tradwife voices I’ve heard have framed their choice as an almost existential choice. As Jean-Paul Sartre famously put it, we are condemned to be free. And that freedom, in the tradition of Søren Kierkegaard, is fucking terrifying and bound to carry with it some kind of anxiety. With that framing I would consider the choice of the tradwife life as a choice of freedom from choices. You pick a role that limits the amount of choice you have and as such free yourself. It’s like the people that chose to have a collection of vinyl records rather than Spotify, or one who chooses to buy DVD’s rather than suffer choice paralysis on Netflix each and every night. Sartre might have argued that such a choice is made in bad fair, but I would hold that such a choice isn’t strange and is not as irrational as Shearing would have you think.
I think it’s a shame that Shearing never considers this option, as this both affords the women actual agency and makes for a much more open-ended discussion than the one in Pink-Pilled.
With the lack of interviews with female far-right influencers, a complete lack of focus on far-right women in particular and the lack of proper analysis, forcing Pink-Pilled into a strictly feminist framing, the book never really delivers what was promised. What Shearing set out to do is very interesting and arguably important, but the goal was just never reached.
October 14, 2025
fascinating look at women on the far-right, very up to date with the rise of trad wives and the ways online radicalization targets women and the paradoxical utility of women to these misogynistic movements. a few too many typos and grammar issues, and a few too many citations of the ADL as a reliable source… but apart from that i enjoyed it and learned a lot
August 31, 2025
an interesting and easy read but felt a bit surface level/didn’t learn as much as i’d have liked to. particularly enjoyed chapters 4-6 - so interesting to hear more about how women become radicalised online in chapter 4 - enjoyed the case studies and interviews - but wish we’d gotten a lot more of this/their undercover work - and the ways in which the movement intersects with different forms of oppression/discrimination
intersections of race, class, gender etc.
- really interesting looking at all the intersections - how alt-right intersects with sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc.
- alt-right inherently involves beliefs about the superiority of white people and inferiority of women; white identity, white solidarity, white victimisation
- interesting to read more about the ways in which white women uphold/maintain white supremacy, particularly in the context of why they are involved in the alt-right: “In a political system where racism and sexism are both so deeply ingrained, white women must choose to be loyal to either the more powerful aspect of their identity, their race, or to the less powerful, their sex. Some Republican white women might lean into racism not only for racism’s sake, but also as a means of avoiding or denying the realities of how sexist oppression makes them vulnerable.”
- “This image of idealised postwar womanhood and nuclear family life arose in part due to the Cold War. It served to link ‘traditional’ (although at the time fairly novel) gender roles to national security and in opposition to the threat of Communism… [which was] viewed by the far right as being inherently Jewish”
- fear that poc will take over white people - thus rely on women to have white babies
- “This type of anti-feminism has at its heart promises that have never been extended to women of colour: that you will not have to work, that you will be protected and praised simply by virtue of your femininity, that you are a divine being and a saviour of the nation by way of giving birth…. inherently white, as it rewards choices made by white women that would result in punishment for Black women….Beneath racialised accusation of laziness, moral corruption and regressive behaviours is the understanding that Black women will be punished if they try to step outside their ‘place’ in our racist society.”
- intersections with class: “Like other Marxist feminists before her, in her essay ‘The Wife Glitch’, feminist writer Jennifer Schaffer posits that being a wife, and by extension a woman, is not a function of gender but a class of labourer. A wife is not just a woman who is married but, in the heterosexual context and particularly in the fascist imagination, an unpaid reproductive labourer.“
- “In the contemporary far right, the role of the wife as a ‘support structure’ for the male worker”
why might women align with the alt-right? what are their roles within the movement?
- “In part, the lure of this brand of anti-feminism is the promise of being able to retreat into the safety of white womanhood; to be infantilised and therefore placed beyond the reach of responsibility or reproach; to be cared for economically; to be led mentally and spiritually”
- white women are drawn to the movement as are given value and purpose/meaning, sense of power, community, feel disillusioned by the ways they still struggle in the current system - but also some simply because they genuinely believe women should obey men, a desire for fame/power/money, to “reclaim the power they feel is their birthright as white yet denied to them as women”
- role of women in the movement: “in order to not be replaced [by poc], white supremacist movements need white babies” - this pro-natalism can give women a sense of purpose or feeling of power; makes the movements more respectable, approachable
- “Here again, we can see some of the frustration at liberal feminism, where women are still responsible for repro- ductive labour, yet the criticism places the blame on the desire for women’s liberation itself, as opposed to the failings of capitalist feminism. This argument creates a false dichotomy wherein women’s only options are working outside the home while also shouldering the majority of domestic and reproductive labour, or giving up waged work in favour of being a stay-at-home wife/girlfriend/mother.”
- “Women’s role as ‘reproductive’ labour isn’t restricted to their wombs or their own homes. Having a class of subservient labourers is also important for the repro- duction of the movement itself. ‘Women are always vital to right-wing movements because they provide a labour and organising apparatus. In patriarchal move- ments, in which women are not expected to work outside of the home, they have a huge population of volunteer labour [from women]’”
- women in the movement as gives them more control over them, and can’t get rid of them as are needed: “Far-right communities can purge themselves of ethnic minorities, queer people and anyone else they see as undesirable but, despite their violent hatred of them, they cannot purge themselves of women if they wish to sustain their community and achieve their ethnonationalist ends. The domination of ‘good’ women, even within these communities, through sexualised violence is central to the movement.“
- “This current wave of reactionary anti-feminism can also be read as a revolt against the failings of liberal, mainstream white feminism, which conflates empowerment with wealth and power accumulation, as well as against the failings of neoliberalism and late stage capitalism, which promises an endless upwards trajectory of profit, expansion and quality of life. Despite being the most educated generation of women in history, young women today are facing fewer employment prospects, more debt than ever before, political instability and climate breakdown. Is it any wonder some are willing to trade in their liberty for the veneer of protection and domestic bliss? “
not ignoring women’s contributions/impacts
- important to recognise women’s involvement in alt-right - unhelpful to think of women as being naturally more progressive/kind etc
- “It’s important not to dismiss MFL as just a group of concerned housewives and mothers turning up at meetings. First, that diminishes the importance of feminised labour. Second, MFL is an organised and dedicated fascist group; they may not be stockpiling arms, but they are still causing harm and spreading bigotry, and they are hiding behind our own, internalised misogyny – that women’s work is less important and that mothers are an apolitical force for good – to do so.”
- “However, we must be careful not to deny the autonomy of these women. Although they are victims of misogyny (and often violence) within these communities, women in the far right must still be held accountable for the harm they do through furthering bigoted beliefs, fighting for state intervention that will limit the freedoms and dignity of marginalised people, and inciting stochastic and scripted violence. “
- “This is because of the ambivalent and benevolent sexism that erases women from political narratives, devalues the roles of women in social movements and presumes that women are more prone to acceptance and progressiveness, and in turn less prone to bigotry and violence. It is also because of the ways in which white supremacy benefits white women, painting them as kind, docile and innocent, whereas women of colour are more likely to be seen as aggressive and deviant.”
- the “reframing women’s journey into the far right as trafficking” was interesting - idk if i really agree with it/felt it was the opposite of what the above quotes were saying???? by dismissing women’s autonomy/intelligence in joining these movements as if they don’t know what they’re doing? idk - did find this extra point interesting though: “allows us to consider female far-right influencers and propagandists,,,, as traffickers: women who bring other women into the fold despite being aware of the harm that will come of it’
other interesting things/key ideas
- insane statistics on amounts of women who voted for trump - particularly white women - “in 2016, 47 per cent of white women voted for donald trump, compared to 45 per cent who voted for hilary clinton….in 2020, 52 per cent of white women voted for him”.
- “Tudor frames TERFism as a ‘white distraction’, one which allows white cis women to focus not only their activism but also large amounts of attention and column inches to defending and enforcing a type of womanhood and gender binary that benefits only themselves and white cis men (and oppresses all women and gender minorities). In doing so, not only do they centre themselves in feminist thought, they also centre themselves in conversations about queer rights and bodily autonomy. (Often I have wondered what progress I and my feminist and queer siblings could be fighting for, if we weren’t so preoccupied with defending rights won by our foremothers and predecessors.) “
- “Extremist circles, instead of being at odds with dominant culture – as suggested by the frequent claim that extremists are a ‘threat to our way of life’ – are magnifying glasses of it.”
- “The view that circulates in popular understandings of the alt-right and of tech culture by mostly White liberal writers, scholars, and journalists is one in which racism is a ‘bug’ rather than a ‘feature’ of the system. They report with alarm that there’s racism on the Internet (or, in the last election), as if this is a revelation, or they ‘journey’ into the heart of the racist right, as if it isn’t everywhere in plain sight.”
- guessing that “the next big far-right leader… is going to be somebody who is really the opposite of Trump”… and then we literally just got trump again soft
- “It follows that we cannot fight back in just one way. There are numerous ways to resist, and we must use as many as possible.”
- “We need to move past the misconception of far-right communities as ‘dark, murky’ parts of the internet. They are a feature of its landscape; one that is not only easy to walk into but often barges into our path even if we try to avoid it.“
- the subtle insidious ways women promote alt-right ideologies on social media - prettied up etc, less obvious
anti-fatness and health and wellness
- how anti-semitism and anti-fatness both link back to christianity etc ick - i stg oppression always comes back to christianity lol: “To them, it rep- resents slovenliness, greed and hedonism. Fitness and thinness (to the right, these are one and the same; they cannot conceive of a fat body being fit and healthy), on the other hand, represent attributes valued by the Christian work ethic, namely dedication and self- denial.”
- discussions about anti-fatness felt a bit off-topic for the book but were really interesting: “the end-result is that food becomes an almost literal way to control your child’s body and fill it with your beliefs”; fat phobia being rooted in racism/white supremacy: “fatness became linked to the racial group adjudged to lack the capacity for self-government: Black people’
- didnt love the linking of Eds to being at increased risk of radicalisation? people with EDs are not stupid??? *maybe* it makes some more vulnerable but its not going to make us start believing racist/sexist etc. things if we didn’t already think them?? idk . an interesting link ig re. how “bodybuilding and fitness communities have been used to recruit men into the far right” but i dont think thats comparable
- example of teenage girls talking about issues with the pill - and how this isn’t incorrect info necessarily but they don’t realise they’re saying things from alt-right sources etc
- “when it comes to healthcare… women are second-class citizens. writes journalist Anna Byrne, ‘women are second-class citizens. They have poorer access to healthcare, and receive incorrect or delayed diagnoses and less effective treatments than men. Despite living longer, the average woman spends nearly a quarter of her life in poor health compared with a fifth for men”
- “wellness has become a way to shift responsibility back on to the individual…As healthcare continues to fail women, and in some cases be completely inaccessible, wellness and conspirituality offer a way to feel in control of your health and welfare outcomes. “
balancing blame and compassion
- risks of ostractising/judging women for their opions -> this feeling of being an outsider/lonely can drive women further into these movements/feel they can’t leave, makes them unable to imagine a life outside of the movement
- how supportive and not judgemental women here are. It’s sad to say but I feel more understood and accepted here than I feel at my females girlfriends [sic] circle.’ Seeking community is one of the most prominent rea- sons why people will join extremist movements, often placing it above actual belief in the ideology
- women who do leave often do only when violence becomes directed to their children, not because they stop believing their racist/sexist views etc
- power of blue bill moments - the little things; the importance of community etc - “Women left after they met someone on the out- side who became a friend. Or when they took a social science course at a local college that opened their eyes to a different interpretation of society. Or when they got to know someone who was Jewish, gay, or African American.’17 In a way, these experiences function as a ‘blue pill’ moment, a catalyst event destabilising their radicalised worldview and leading them to seek out more information that challenges the narrative of their community group.”
- how to balance being supportive, compassionate, recognising some of the reasons women are drawn to these movements is because of failures/problems with the current systems etc with recognising the harm and autonomy of these women?
- “This is not to excuse or even sympathise with those who push anti-vaccine and other harmful rhetoric via wellness communities, but if we are serious about addressing women’s radicalisation, we must look at the systems at play in women’s lives.”
- “Ultimately, female formers pose tough questions for us as a society. Some will be fleeing domestic violence, but how can we ask other vulnerable women, particularly disabled, non-white, refugee and trans women, all of whom face disproportionate rates of sexualised violence, to share a space with women who could pose a threat to them? And is this question purely hypothetical, given the number of shelters that have closed in recent years? Who would fund a shelter for former neo-Nazis? Being asked to recognise that women can both be oppressed on the basis of their gender and oppressors on other axes such as race, settler status or cisness is something that acted as a catalyst event for many of the women we have met in this book, particularly gender critical and white nationalist women. So, if we are serious about addressing women’s radicalisation, it is a topic we cannot shy away from.“
- book club raised an interesting point though about how this is a mute point - these sort of women are already in shelters, lots of shelters are run by right-wing women, lots of woc struggling in shelters for various reasons…
the alt-right and the state
- why might others be seen as a threat? the need for workers and babies: “For the far-right to control the state through authoritarianism, it must control the bodies of its men: they must be fit, strong and healthy for the (unending) war against invaders. They must be able, willing and keen to reproduce in state-sanctioned, white, heterosexual family units. And their bodies must exist in a strict hierarchy, white over non-white, male over female, adult over children, ‘abled’ (if such a thing exists) over disabled, and on and on. Anyone whose body falls too far outside the safety of whiteness, heterosexuality, cisness and naturalised identities is a danger"
- “The state and the far right are symbiotic: ‘the state requires the far-right to support electorally its expansion of control over heavily policed communities, and the far right needs the state as a foil for its anger and campaigns’.”
- “Instead, despite often considering themselves anti-government, the far right’s main complaint is that the state is not going far enough with its promises of power: promises of policing and control, of closed borders, of deportation and other forms of necropolitics, of entrenching the supremacy of men and the heterosexual family through state-based education.”
role of technology
- important to recognise the origins of the internet (a military tool) and how this impacts how it is used
- briefly discussed the impact of AI on alt-right, spread of misinformation etc which was v interesting
- “The far right has always been ahead of the curve in terms of adopting new technology for spreading its rhetoric. Nazis uploaded entire manuscripts and data- bases of their propaganda to dial-up bulletin systems (DBS), precursors to the modern World Wide Web.”
- “Visual mediums may give FFIs even more power to spread their message than their male counterparts. Studies have shown that conventionally attractive, thin, cis, white content creators are less likely to have their content struck down for breaching community guidelines and more likely to rise up the recommendation ladder. This is because of the way human biases have seeped into the algorithms that silently dictate our social media experiences.”
intersections of race, class, gender etc.
- really interesting looking at all the intersections - how alt-right intersects with sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc.
- alt-right inherently involves beliefs about the superiority of white people and inferiority of women; white identity, white solidarity, white victimisation
- interesting to read more about the ways in which white women uphold/maintain white supremacy, particularly in the context of why they are involved in the alt-right: “In a political system where racism and sexism are both so deeply ingrained, white women must choose to be loyal to either the more powerful aspect of their identity, their race, or to the less powerful, their sex. Some Republican white women might lean into racism not only for racism’s sake, but also as a means of avoiding or denying the realities of how sexist oppression makes them vulnerable.”
- “This image of idealised postwar womanhood and nuclear family life arose in part due to the Cold War. It served to link ‘traditional’ (although at the time fairly novel) gender roles to national security and in opposition to the threat of Communism… [which was] viewed by the far right as being inherently Jewish”
- fear that poc will take over white people - thus rely on women to have white babies
- “This type of anti-feminism has at its heart promises that have never been extended to women of colour: that you will not have to work, that you will be protected and praised simply by virtue of your femininity, that you are a divine being and a saviour of the nation by way of giving birth…. inherently white, as it rewards choices made by white women that would result in punishment for Black women….Beneath racialised accusation of laziness, moral corruption and regressive behaviours is the understanding that Black women will be punished if they try to step outside their ‘place’ in our racist society.”
- intersections with class: “Like other Marxist feminists before her, in her essay ‘The Wife Glitch’, feminist writer Jennifer Schaffer posits that being a wife, and by extension a woman, is not a function of gender but a class of labourer. A wife is not just a woman who is married but, in the heterosexual context and particularly in the fascist imagination, an unpaid reproductive labourer.“
- “In the contemporary far right, the role of the wife as a ‘support structure’ for the male worker”
why might women align with the alt-right? what are their roles within the movement?
- “In part, the lure of this brand of anti-feminism is the promise of being able to retreat into the safety of white womanhood; to be infantilised and therefore placed beyond the reach of responsibility or reproach; to be cared for economically; to be led mentally and spiritually”
- white women are drawn to the movement as are given value and purpose/meaning, sense of power, community, feel disillusioned by the ways they still struggle in the current system - but also some simply because they genuinely believe women should obey men, a desire for fame/power/money, to “reclaim the power they feel is their birthright as white yet denied to them as women”
- role of women in the movement: “in order to not be replaced [by poc], white supremacist movements need white babies” - this pro-natalism can give women a sense of purpose or feeling of power; makes the movements more respectable, approachable
- “Here again, we can see some of the frustration at liberal feminism, where women are still responsible for repro- ductive labour, yet the criticism places the blame on the desire for women’s liberation itself, as opposed to the failings of capitalist feminism. This argument creates a false dichotomy wherein women’s only options are working outside the home while also shouldering the majority of domestic and reproductive labour, or giving up waged work in favour of being a stay-at-home wife/girlfriend/mother.”
- “Women’s role as ‘reproductive’ labour isn’t restricted to their wombs or their own homes. Having a class of subservient labourers is also important for the repro- duction of the movement itself. ‘Women are always vital to right-wing movements because they provide a labour and organising apparatus. In patriarchal move- ments, in which women are not expected to work outside of the home, they have a huge population of volunteer labour [from women]’”
- women in the movement as gives them more control over them, and can’t get rid of them as are needed: “Far-right communities can purge themselves of ethnic minorities, queer people and anyone else they see as undesirable but, despite their violent hatred of them, they cannot purge themselves of women if they wish to sustain their community and achieve their ethnonationalist ends. The domination of ‘good’ women, even within these communities, through sexualised violence is central to the movement.“
- “This current wave of reactionary anti-feminism can also be read as a revolt against the failings of liberal, mainstream white feminism, which conflates empowerment with wealth and power accumulation, as well as against the failings of neoliberalism and late stage capitalism, which promises an endless upwards trajectory of profit, expansion and quality of life. Despite being the most educated generation of women in history, young women today are facing fewer employment prospects, more debt than ever before, political instability and climate breakdown. Is it any wonder some are willing to trade in their liberty for the veneer of protection and domestic bliss? “
not ignoring women’s contributions/impacts
- important to recognise women’s involvement in alt-right - unhelpful to think of women as being naturally more progressive/kind etc
- “It’s important not to dismiss MFL as just a group of concerned housewives and mothers turning up at meetings. First, that diminishes the importance of feminised labour. Second, MFL is an organised and dedicated fascist group; they may not be stockpiling arms, but they are still causing harm and spreading bigotry, and they are hiding behind our own, internalised misogyny – that women’s work is less important and that mothers are an apolitical force for good – to do so.”
- “However, we must be careful not to deny the autonomy of these women. Although they are victims of misogyny (and often violence) within these communities, women in the far right must still be held accountable for the harm they do through furthering bigoted beliefs, fighting for state intervention that will limit the freedoms and dignity of marginalised people, and inciting stochastic and scripted violence. “
- “This is because of the ambivalent and benevolent sexism that erases women from political narratives, devalues the roles of women in social movements and presumes that women are more prone to acceptance and progressiveness, and in turn less prone to bigotry and violence. It is also because of the ways in which white supremacy benefits white women, painting them as kind, docile and innocent, whereas women of colour are more likely to be seen as aggressive and deviant.”
- the “reframing women’s journey into the far right as trafficking” was interesting - idk if i really agree with it/felt it was the opposite of what the above quotes were saying???? by dismissing women’s autonomy/intelligence in joining these movements as if they don’t know what they’re doing? idk - did find this extra point interesting though: “allows us to consider female far-right influencers and propagandists,,,, as traffickers: women who bring other women into the fold despite being aware of the harm that will come of it’
other interesting things/key ideas
- insane statistics on amounts of women who voted for trump - particularly white women - “in 2016, 47 per cent of white women voted for donald trump, compared to 45 per cent who voted for hilary clinton….in 2020, 52 per cent of white women voted for him”.
- “Tudor frames TERFism as a ‘white distraction’, one which allows white cis women to focus not only their activism but also large amounts of attention and column inches to defending and enforcing a type of womanhood and gender binary that benefits only themselves and white cis men (and oppresses all women and gender minorities). In doing so, not only do they centre themselves in feminist thought, they also centre themselves in conversations about queer rights and bodily autonomy. (Often I have wondered what progress I and my feminist and queer siblings could be fighting for, if we weren’t so preoccupied with defending rights won by our foremothers and predecessors.) “
- “Extremist circles, instead of being at odds with dominant culture – as suggested by the frequent claim that extremists are a ‘threat to our way of life’ – are magnifying glasses of it.”
- “The view that circulates in popular understandings of the alt-right and of tech culture by mostly White liberal writers, scholars, and journalists is one in which racism is a ‘bug’ rather than a ‘feature’ of the system. They report with alarm that there’s racism on the Internet (or, in the last election), as if this is a revelation, or they ‘journey’ into the heart of the racist right, as if it isn’t everywhere in plain sight.”
- guessing that “the next big far-right leader… is going to be somebody who is really the opposite of Trump”… and then we literally just got trump again soft
- “It follows that we cannot fight back in just one way. There are numerous ways to resist, and we must use as many as possible.”
- “We need to move past the misconception of far-right communities as ‘dark, murky’ parts of the internet. They are a feature of its landscape; one that is not only easy to walk into but often barges into our path even if we try to avoid it.“
- the subtle insidious ways women promote alt-right ideologies on social media - prettied up etc, less obvious
anti-fatness and health and wellness
- how anti-semitism and anti-fatness both link back to christianity etc ick - i stg oppression always comes back to christianity lol: “To them, it rep- resents slovenliness, greed and hedonism. Fitness and thinness (to the right, these are one and the same; they cannot conceive of a fat body being fit and healthy), on the other hand, represent attributes valued by the Christian work ethic, namely dedication and self- denial.”
- discussions about anti-fatness felt a bit off-topic for the book but were really interesting: “the end-result is that food becomes an almost literal way to control your child’s body and fill it with your beliefs”; fat phobia being rooted in racism/white supremacy: “fatness became linked to the racial group adjudged to lack the capacity for self-government: Black people’
- didnt love the linking of Eds to being at increased risk of radicalisation? people with EDs are not stupid??? *maybe* it makes some more vulnerable but its not going to make us start believing racist/sexist etc. things if we didn’t already think them?? idk . an interesting link ig re. how “bodybuilding and fitness communities have been used to recruit men into the far right” but i dont think thats comparable
- example of teenage girls talking about issues with the pill - and how this isn’t incorrect info necessarily but they don’t realise they’re saying things from alt-right sources etc
- “when it comes to healthcare… women are second-class citizens. writes journalist Anna Byrne, ‘women are second-class citizens. They have poorer access to healthcare, and receive incorrect or delayed diagnoses and less effective treatments than men. Despite living longer, the average woman spends nearly a quarter of her life in poor health compared with a fifth for men”
- “wellness has become a way to shift responsibility back on to the individual…As healthcare continues to fail women, and in some cases be completely inaccessible, wellness and conspirituality offer a way to feel in control of your health and welfare outcomes. “
balancing blame and compassion
- risks of ostractising/judging women for their opions -> this feeling of being an outsider/lonely can drive women further into these movements/feel they can’t leave, makes them unable to imagine a life outside of the movement
- how supportive and not judgemental women here are. It’s sad to say but I feel more understood and accepted here than I feel at my females girlfriends [sic] circle.’ Seeking community is one of the most prominent rea- sons why people will join extremist movements, often placing it above actual belief in the ideology
- women who do leave often do only when violence becomes directed to their children, not because they stop believing their racist/sexist views etc
- power of blue bill moments - the little things; the importance of community etc - “Women left after they met someone on the out- side who became a friend. Or when they took a social science course at a local college that opened their eyes to a different interpretation of society. Or when they got to know someone who was Jewish, gay, or African American.’17 In a way, these experiences function as a ‘blue pill’ moment, a catalyst event destabilising their radicalised worldview and leading them to seek out more information that challenges the narrative of their community group.”
- how to balance being supportive, compassionate, recognising some of the reasons women are drawn to these movements is because of failures/problems with the current systems etc with recognising the harm and autonomy of these women?
- “This is not to excuse or even sympathise with those who push anti-vaccine and other harmful rhetoric via wellness communities, but if we are serious about addressing women’s radicalisation, we must look at the systems at play in women’s lives.”
- “Ultimately, female formers pose tough questions for us as a society. Some will be fleeing domestic violence, but how can we ask other vulnerable women, particularly disabled, non-white, refugee and trans women, all of whom face disproportionate rates of sexualised violence, to share a space with women who could pose a threat to them? And is this question purely hypothetical, given the number of shelters that have closed in recent years? Who would fund a shelter for former neo-Nazis? Being asked to recognise that women can both be oppressed on the basis of their gender and oppressors on other axes such as race, settler status or cisness is something that acted as a catalyst event for many of the women we have met in this book, particularly gender critical and white nationalist women. So, if we are serious about addressing women’s radicalisation, it is a topic we cannot shy away from.“
- book club raised an interesting point though about how this is a mute point - these sort of women are already in shelters, lots of shelters are run by right-wing women, lots of woc struggling in shelters for various reasons…
the alt-right and the state
- why might others be seen as a threat? the need for workers and babies: “For the far-right to control the state through authoritarianism, it must control the bodies of its men: they must be fit, strong and healthy for the (unending) war against invaders. They must be able, willing and keen to reproduce in state-sanctioned, white, heterosexual family units. And their bodies must exist in a strict hierarchy, white over non-white, male over female, adult over children, ‘abled’ (if such a thing exists) over disabled, and on and on. Anyone whose body falls too far outside the safety of whiteness, heterosexuality, cisness and naturalised identities is a danger"
- “The state and the far right are symbiotic: ‘the state requires the far-right to support electorally its expansion of control over heavily policed communities, and the far right needs the state as a foil for its anger and campaigns’.”
- “Instead, despite often considering themselves anti-government, the far right’s main complaint is that the state is not going far enough with its promises of power: promises of policing and control, of closed borders, of deportation and other forms of necropolitics, of entrenching the supremacy of men and the heterosexual family through state-based education.”
role of technology
- important to recognise the origins of the internet (a military tool) and how this impacts how it is used
- briefly discussed the impact of AI on alt-right, spread of misinformation etc which was v interesting
- “The far right has always been ahead of the curve in terms of adopting new technology for spreading its rhetoric. Nazis uploaded entire manuscripts and data- bases of their propaganda to dial-up bulletin systems (DBS), precursors to the modern World Wide Web.”
- “Visual mediums may give FFIs even more power to spread their message than their male counterparts. Studies have shown that conventionally attractive, thin, cis, white content creators are less likely to have their content struck down for breaching community guidelines and more likely to rise up the recommendation ladder. This is because of the way human biases have seeped into the algorithms that silently dictate our social media experiences.”
June 23, 2025
Wow oh wow.
This is genuinely one of the most interesting books I’ve read in a long time.
Just read it- you won’t be disappointed
This is genuinely one of the most interesting books I’ve read in a long time.
Just read it- you won’t be disappointed
September 18, 2025
I was debating between rating this book 2 or 3 stars. I really really didn't want to give it 2 stars because I definitely AGREE with 99% of the stuff in the book. I particularly agree with one of Shearing's main points - that these extremist women are fully conscious and responsible for their decision to join and participate in far-right/hate movements, and are benefitting from certain types of oppression (whether that be racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, classism, etc.) when they join them and use their ideologies. I did not want to give 2 star ranking because I definitely do not disagree with the premise of the book and the lines Shearing is arguing on.
So why the debate between ranking from 2 and 3 stars? I have a few points about my issues with the book:
1. Too many quotes from other authors and referencing back to other works. I think it makes it hard to really hone points and explore a new argument when overusing quotes from the existing literature. I actually was comparing my experience a lot to my reading of Doppelganger by Noemi Klein. Klein explores a lot of the same topics - I'm thinking particularly of the wellness and anti-vax communities' roots in Nazism - and the arguments almost took you on a journey. Through the background of all the relevant history, and then when she finally got to her point - I would be like "Oh my god that makes so so so much sense! Crazy revelation!!!!" With Pink-Pilled, all this background to explore the ocean of right-wing and women's relationship to it felt very surface-level, and like we never got into the meat of the argument. I was being told why all these systems of oppression interacted, but not really shown with history or examples. The quotes come into this. Rather then developing their points, I felt like the quotes inhibited a little bit, and lost their importance, because they were drowned out by so many of them. Along with that, it was really hard to keep track of everyone's cited names - that might be on me though. Of course after reading I discovered what's known as an Index (lol).
2. Maybe trying to cover too much? I think there's a big conundrum here. Because when talking about right-wing extremism, and women's participation in it, you really have to cover A LOT of ground. It touches on so many fucking HUGE topics - capitalism, racism, intersectionality, etc. Shearing trying to explore all those and give them their space I think diverted from women in the right-wing a bit. I think it would've been really cool to hear more about Shearing's "boots on the ground" research in right-wing women communities online, rather than the amount written given to the existing literature. A restructuring? I felt like there was so much attention given to the fact that all this research with Ava was done - but then the actual analysis of it was extremely limited. I guess to combine points 1 and 2, focus more on the research done in the online ethnography and less on a review of literature.
3. Time for my annoying very specific bone to pick: I had some disagreement in the Christianity section, actually, where Shearing talks about the "Dimes Square" upsurge in Catholicism. Admittedly, myself taking part in it aesthetic-wise, I disagreed with what was said. I actually felt like a lot of queer people were wearing crosses and embracing the Catholic Church's campiness and gaudiness in a bit of a reclaiming in a "f-you Catholic church" kind of way (but I guess ironically). Idk. That's a very small point they make but I had to make a point on that I guess LOL
I decided to give this book 3 stars because I agree with mostly everything that's said. I think it's really impressive that I feel like Shearing did not leave any stone unturned. It's clearly extremely well researched. I'm not left with any questions after this book, maybe just wishing for a bit more interest.
Finally - there's one point that really really resonated with me. When Shearing discusses all the TERF stuff in the UK and why that's such a big thing here - they touched on the fact that the UK hasn't had like a privilege/racial reckoning like other countries and I thought that really really hit the nail on the head for me. Connecting that back to the TERF movement was a super sound argument and one I didn't expect. But it answered a lot of questions I had before I read the book. I would've loved more arguments like that throughout!!!
So why the debate between ranking from 2 and 3 stars? I have a few points about my issues with the book:
1. Too many quotes from other authors and referencing back to other works. I think it makes it hard to really hone points and explore a new argument when overusing quotes from the existing literature. I actually was comparing my experience a lot to my reading of Doppelganger by Noemi Klein. Klein explores a lot of the same topics - I'm thinking particularly of the wellness and anti-vax communities' roots in Nazism - and the arguments almost took you on a journey. Through the background of all the relevant history, and then when she finally got to her point - I would be like "Oh my god that makes so so so much sense! Crazy revelation!!!!" With Pink-Pilled, all this background to explore the ocean of right-wing and women's relationship to it felt very surface-level, and like we never got into the meat of the argument. I was being told why all these systems of oppression interacted, but not really shown with history or examples. The quotes come into this. Rather then developing their points, I felt like the quotes inhibited a little bit, and lost their importance, because they were drowned out by so many of them. Along with that, it was really hard to keep track of everyone's cited names - that might be on me though. Of course after reading I discovered what's known as an Index (lol).
2. Maybe trying to cover too much? I think there's a big conundrum here. Because when talking about right-wing extremism, and women's participation in it, you really have to cover A LOT of ground. It touches on so many fucking HUGE topics - capitalism, racism, intersectionality, etc. Shearing trying to explore all those and give them their space I think diverted from women in the right-wing a bit. I think it would've been really cool to hear more about Shearing's "boots on the ground" research in right-wing women communities online, rather than the amount written given to the existing literature. A restructuring? I felt like there was so much attention given to the fact that all this research with Ava was done - but then the actual analysis of it was extremely limited. I guess to combine points 1 and 2, focus more on the research done in the online ethnography and less on a review of literature.
3. Time for my annoying very specific bone to pick: I had some disagreement in the Christianity section, actually, where Shearing talks about the "Dimes Square" upsurge in Catholicism. Admittedly, myself taking part in it aesthetic-wise, I disagreed with what was said. I actually felt like a lot of queer people were wearing crosses and embracing the Catholic Church's campiness and gaudiness in a bit of a reclaiming in a "f-you Catholic church" kind of way (but I guess ironically). Idk. That's a very small point they make but I had to make a point on that I guess LOL
I decided to give this book 3 stars because I agree with mostly everything that's said. I think it's really impressive that I feel like Shearing did not leave any stone unturned. It's clearly extremely well researched. I'm not left with any questions after this book, maybe just wishing for a bit more interest.
Finally - there's one point that really really resonated with me. When Shearing discusses all the TERF stuff in the UK and why that's such a big thing here - they touched on the fact that the UK hasn't had like a privilege/racial reckoning like other countries and I thought that really really hit the nail on the head for me. Connecting that back to the TERF movement was a super sound argument and one I didn't expect. But it answered a lot of questions I had before I read the book. I would've loved more arguments like that throughout!!!
October 7, 2025
I was hoping to share my review after book club but alas - I got a cold and could not go. My first impression is that for a very timely book, you can tell that some of the research is already a little dated (written in 2020, published in 2024), so I feel like most of what Shearing discusses has already been covered, but still, it’s affirming to read that trad wife-ism and “feminine/masculine energy” bullshit on social media is directly tied to a rise in conservativism. But I also didn’t need this book to know that.
A lot of the analysis and historical lens to this book, however, feels very superficial or anecdotal and I wish that Shearing would’ve gone more in depth into some of the themes she explores. Namely, the relationship between fascism, eugenics and the anti-vaxx movement; fatphobia and wellness culture; and climate denialism. These sections felt almost just glossed over. While she does spend some time discussing terfism, again, I think she could have gone deeper in the analysis in terms of how it’s given fascism more legs and a different role for women in (eg) American right wingism. In terms of the historical lens, she does go into women’s role historically, but more context on the evolution of these movements and how women’s participation had changed would’ve been great — for example, I was quite surprised that at no point she touched in Margaret Thatcher or Thatcherism, right-wingism, and TINA, especially for a book that’s very centered on UK experiences?
I couldn’t help but notice too that there was a huge lack of discussion of women of color — both in the ways that women of color have aided and supported fascist or alt-right movements, but also the way they are portrayed by white radical feminists who view WOC (especially Muslim, veiled women) as oppressed and in need of saving. This lack of discussion is glaringly obvious when Shearing names a chapter “White Sharia”.
Beyond that, the book felt very repetitive, which is not a bad thing, but somewhere halfway through the book I really felt a disconnect. The analysis was not being furthered but rather, information was shared as if it was the first time she was giving it to us.
I was also alarmed by her quoting of the ADL - a very Zionist organization and problematic CSO, to the point where multiple other NGOs have written open letters for others not to work with the ADL. I will give the benefit of the doubt that if the book was really written in 2020, the ADL’s most problematic statements and scandals have been in more recent years.
Despite that, it’s neither good nor bad. Definitely a good introduction to the topic of women in far right spaces and their roles in it, but other scholars and other recent publications seem more promising.
A lot of the analysis and historical lens to this book, however, feels very superficial or anecdotal and I wish that Shearing would’ve gone more in depth into some of the themes she explores. Namely, the relationship between fascism, eugenics and the anti-vaxx movement; fatphobia and wellness culture; and climate denialism. These sections felt almost just glossed over. While she does spend some time discussing terfism, again, I think she could have gone deeper in the analysis in terms of how it’s given fascism more legs and a different role for women in (eg) American right wingism. In terms of the historical lens, she does go into women’s role historically, but more context on the evolution of these movements and how women’s participation had changed would’ve been great — for example, I was quite surprised that at no point she touched in Margaret Thatcher or Thatcherism, right-wingism, and TINA, especially for a book that’s very centered on UK experiences?
I couldn’t help but notice too that there was a huge lack of discussion of women of color — both in the ways that women of color have aided and supported fascist or alt-right movements, but also the way they are portrayed by white radical feminists who view WOC (especially Muslim, veiled women) as oppressed and in need of saving. This lack of discussion is glaringly obvious when Shearing names a chapter “White Sharia”.
Beyond that, the book felt very repetitive, which is not a bad thing, but somewhere halfway through the book I really felt a disconnect. The analysis was not being furthered but rather, information was shared as if it was the first time she was giving it to us.
I was also alarmed by her quoting of the ADL - a very Zionist organization and problematic CSO, to the point where multiple other NGOs have written open letters for others not to work with the ADL. I will give the benefit of the doubt that if the book was really written in 2020, the ADL’s most problematic statements and scandals have been in more recent years.
Despite that, it’s neither good nor bad. Definitely a good introduction to the topic of women in far right spaces and their roles in it, but other scholars and other recent publications seem more promising.
May 31, 2025
Excellent in some parts, okay in others and not so good occasionally.
Shearing writes about various strands of women on the far right, which covers just about anything you could imagine - from tradwives selling an invented lifestyle to a self-insert husband to heavily ironic women who dance around the lines of whats acceptable to say in terms of gender and race.
The best writing lays out clearly the history of organising in the far right, demonstrating how right wing women could support groups like the KKK. It also carefully considers the presence of women in the far right, who are caught between espousing typical right wing talking points while also being attacked by those who they are theoretically on side with. To credit Shearing as well, she makes clear how ideas about race and women combine in the thinking of the far right. White-centric ideas around bodies and reproduction (key in so many far right groups) are explained in detail and provide genuine insight.
At its worst, Shearing comes across as lazy. I don’t think is actually true given the clearly extensive research and referencing but some interesting links between new-age wellness, spirituality, neo-mysticism and the far right are mentioned without being fully explored. The same goes for one or two other groups she brings up.
This later develops into some oversimplification - TERFs are fascists, all the worst aspects of feminism are actually just white feminism, and the best way to catch radicalisation (which she correctly describes as providing simple answers to complex issues just a couple of lines above) are difficult conversations about power and oppression with those close to you, which suggests a slight lack of self-awareness.
I think Shearing was somewhat hindered by the fact that the far right is a collection of various groups. She covers many of these but as mentioned, it’s frustrating when some explanations stop short and don’t deliver the quality of other passages.
Overall though, if you’re interested at all in modern politics this is definitely worth reading.
Shearing writes about various strands of women on the far right, which covers just about anything you could imagine - from tradwives selling an invented lifestyle to a self-insert husband to heavily ironic women who dance around the lines of whats acceptable to say in terms of gender and race.
The best writing lays out clearly the history of organising in the far right, demonstrating how right wing women could support groups like the KKK. It also carefully considers the presence of women in the far right, who are caught between espousing typical right wing talking points while also being attacked by those who they are theoretically on side with. To credit Shearing as well, she makes clear how ideas about race and women combine in the thinking of the far right. White-centric ideas around bodies and reproduction (key in so many far right groups) are explained in detail and provide genuine insight.
At its worst, Shearing comes across as lazy. I don’t think is actually true given the clearly extensive research and referencing but some interesting links between new-age wellness, spirituality, neo-mysticism and the far right are mentioned without being fully explored. The same goes for one or two other groups she brings up.
This later develops into some oversimplification - TERFs are fascists, all the worst aspects of feminism are actually just white feminism, and the best way to catch radicalisation (which she correctly describes as providing simple answers to complex issues just a couple of lines above) are difficult conversations about power and oppression with those close to you, which suggests a slight lack of self-awareness.
I think Shearing was somewhat hindered by the fact that the far right is a collection of various groups. She covers many of these but as mentioned, it’s frustrating when some explanations stop short and don’t deliver the quality of other passages.
Overall though, if you’re interested at all in modern politics this is definitely worth reading.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews