>Of course the REAL empowered and commanding woman, the “kween” who quite literally “Slays”, the cruel, ruthless, prideful, commanding blonde who recognizes her true enemies not in “oppressor” high status white males, but in lesser women and men, who according to the sagas at several points rose to be leaders and sole queens of tribes?

>These figures terrify them. Their smiles provoke in lesser hindbrains a jolt of adrenaline at how close the sacrificial knife might be. These are the villains of their stories whether they be set in a fantastical alternate middle ages or the modern American high school.

>Now we do not know the intricacies of North European and viking sexual politics before the Christian conversion. It almost certainly varied significantly tribe to tribe and region to region… But the fact they were so violently selecting for women who’d refuse any sexual submission to a lesser man, and the recurring lionization of women who’d die rather than so submit through to the 18th, 19th, and 20th century; seems to tell a lot about exactly who western woman is supposed to be, and how incompatible that is with the second and third wave feminist conception of “empowerment”.

>Which the cleverer or more intuitive amongst young women are figuring out quite quickly in the ruin of their peers.

>But this is who western woman is, or at least who she is supposed to be: Proud, noble, dignified, competent, austere, frigid, cruel, shockingly violent, and foremostly beautiful and free. And this is who they were bred to be across thousands of years, before Abrahamism and then Egalitarianism tried to equate submission with liberty.

>But if you stare closely enough at the edges of Western culture, you can see her creeping back into the world.