The question of women’s roles in these systems has become prevalent due to U.S. Scholars stress their influence on the domestic and familial order. As you can see, influential thinkers like Theodor Adorno and George Lakoff have helped shape this discourse. They have speculated on the paternalistic personality traits of authoritarian leaders. Far-right regimes tend to impose male rule through a patriarchal chain of command. This internal structure is a perfect reflection of the external national patterns that have supported their philosophies to continue reign.
The idea of the “strict father” becomes a central thread in conservative ideology. In addition to reinforcing our conventional ideas about masculinity, this archetype emphasizes the way authority is enforced at home. If we examine historical precedents, we can draw alarming parallels in the actions and rhetoric of key decision makers. One extraordinary case is Gertrud Scholtz-Klink, who led the Nazi women’s office from 1934 to 1945. Scholtz-Klink’s efforts to “influence women in their daily lives” reveal how authoritarian regimes actively sought to shape gender roles and expectations.
Theoretical Foundations of Authoritarian Family Structures
Even deeper, both Adorno and Lakoff’s theories explore the psychological roots of the authoritarian personality. It is then, they argue, that these figures reveal their proclivity for the traits of a paternalistic mode of governance and social structuration. These qualities play out in the enforcement of militarized family units based on punishment and the intolerance of difference.
Lakoff shows how the strict father is deeply connected to the heart of conservatism. This father-figure is not just the arbiter of domestic affairs but is typical of the larger political power. This model does harm beyond one family. It perpetuates harmful stereotypes, particularly in how we view and behave towards women and men, reinforcing traditional gender roles.
Analyzing the historical context of regimes such as Nazi Germany brings to light a sobering reality. Women were both passively influenced and actively mobilized to advance these anti-democratic frameworks. Claudia Koonz, a historian specializing in fascism, points to a “whole array of women’s magazines that glorified housewives,” which served to reinforce traditional gender roles. These publications served as vehicles for disseminating the regime’s ideals on motherhood and domesticity, vital to maintaining the regime’s dream.
Modern Echoes of Authoritarian Ideologies
The Trump administration’s policies are a decidedly modern reflection of this long-standing authoritarian trend, especially when it comes to women and family life. One such initiative stands out, however—pronatalist rewards, including a government-funded investment account of $1,000 for each newborn. This policy is reminiscent of old-school fascist pronatalist policies designed to boost births to white women in traditional, two-parent households.
The administration continues to define a dangerous and narrow picture of womanhood. This picture is largely informed by a toxic cocktail of anti-queerness, white supremacy, fundamentalist Christianity and maternalism. This combination creates fertile ground for conservative values to prevail, sometimes even against the best interests of progressive values. Dr. Jilly Boyce Kay labels this backlash “reactionary feminism.” She contends that what women’s interests really are is inextricably linked to commitment, affection, and protection.
As today’s movements such as the “womanosphere” or “femosphere” become powerful forces, these movements do even more to uphold conservative, patriarchal, and traditional values in society. This connected environment gives women an unprecedented space to publicly claim and share their identities, but it reinforces long-standing patriarchal hierarchies. These movements advance right individualistic entrepreneurial strategies to smash the often imaginary liberal establishment status quo. They mirror historical, authoritarian strategies meant to police women’s bodies and duties.
The Implications of Gender Hierarchies in Authoritarianism
The interaction of gendered expectations and authoritarian statecraft highlights an important dimension to social order. Authoritarian regimes need very strong women’s movements, often to maintain order within the home. This playbook has proven effective for making sure that traditional values are always on offense, even during dark times. Koonz underscores this sentiment by stating, “There’s chaos out there, but my family is going to have traditional values.” Unfortunately, this mindset is repeated across the nation and shines through how families turn into microcosms of vastly larger political ideologies.
Figures like Gertrud Scholtz-Klink have set that historical precedent. More than that, they illustrate how far authoritarian regimes will stop at nothing to pervert truths about women to serve their own nefarious interests. Scholtz-Klink’s leadership and her goal of impacting women is a prime example of how these types of movements can change cultural norms by gendering expectations.
The ideal of “Kinder, Küche, Kirche” (“children, kitchen, church”) represents the authoritarian, fascist ideology to return to patriarchal nuclear family units. These policies value keeping children over protecting them from progressive policy changes. These ideologies marginalize different ways of life. Beyond those issues, they reinforce the oppressive patterns of history and current society.