Life Under Conservative Feminism

Warning: This post discusses non-PC topics related to human biology.  The most controversial sections have been separated out into an attachment for readers who are interested in learning more:


This file has been scanned and guaranteed free of viruses using Kaspersky Internet Security 2016.


American travelers, many of them from liberal cultural backgrounds, have often been shocked to observe that just about every society on the planet practices a conservative mating culture. After all, scholarship of the 1960s counterculture has created a dichotomy whereby Western civilization is viewed as oppressive and patriarchal and non-Western cultures are viewed as open and liberal. However, the near-ubiqitousness of conservative feminism becomes easier to accept if one understands the process of otherization.

Because conservative values are an effective means for creating out-groups, ruling elites in most human societies view them as a useful tool for consolidating ethnic and tribal identities. For this reason, social conservatism has been observed in just about every society, from prehistoric hunter-gatherers to white-collar office workers in Manhattan. However, there are two cultures that are particularly well-known for practicing conservative feminism: Confucian societies in East Asia and Judaeo-Christian societies in North America, Europe, and Oceania.

Political Systems

Politics in conservative feminist societies can be characterized by two loosely-defined movements: conservatism and liberalism. The primary factor differentiating the two is their views on the economy. Whereas liberals believe in redistributing some of the society’s wealth to those who are less fortunate, conservatives either want to leave the economy alone or ease restrictions on the rich. Both movements have conservative views on social issues, and social conservatism is almost a prerequisite for political participation, as evidenced by the controversy surrounding Barrack Obama’s religious beliefs in the 2008 presidential election:

A picture of the items in US President Barack Obama’s pockets. One of them is a statue of the Hindu deity Hanuman, reflecting his diverse multireligious upbringing in Indonesia.

A political cartoon describing UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s role in the 1982 Falklands War.

Conservative feminist societies are notorious for the belief in their own inherent superiority, as evidenced by the creation of out-groups. Typically, members of the in-group tend to avoid members of the out-group and associate almost exclusively with each other. Occasionally, when the difference in power between the in-group and out-groups becomes more pronounced, the result is often political domination of the out-groups by the in-group, resulting in the creation of an empire.

Economic Systems

As mentioned previously, the direct economic impact of conservative feminism is a society with a broad middle class, since it gives its practitioners slightly more opportunities to reproduce than natural law. Common misconceptions regarding conservative feminism state that it results in societies organized around small-scale manufacturing, as was the case in Europe, Japan, and North America during the late 19th century. However, industrial growth does not always have to be the outcome, and the actual results vary depending on the society’s religious beliefs.

Judeo-Christian belief systems (or in the case of Japan, Confucian values) played a crucial role in industrial growth in North America and Europe by promoting a belief in a universe governed by natural laws that humans could manipulate for their own personal well-being. Polytheistic cultures, such as those of the native peoples of the Americas, tend to become agricultural, because of the belief in a universe governed by living deities who control the forces of nature.

Because these societies believe in strict gender roles, the males are expected to earn money for their families once they complete the process of socioeconomic maturation. Female workforce participation may be allowed, but the aforementioned gender roles will restrict it to occupations that are specifically set aside for women. Additionally, it tends to decrease as families achieve middle-class status, because the male partner assumes the role of primary breadwinner.

A by-product of broady-shared prosperity is a consumer class that can use its disposable income to purchase goods and services other than those that are immediately necessary for survival. This surplus wealth allows for the development of artistic forms and cultural expressions, in addition to scientific study and technological innovation. Under this economic system, environmental health and sustainability are not considered pressing issues, and are sidelined in favor of economic development.

Social Beliefs

Children in these societies are taught from a young age what role they will play in the society. An individual’s role in their society is dictated both by their gender– male children are taught to play the roles of protector and breadwinner for their families, and female children learn to play the role of caretaker– and also by the society’s economic system. Education is seen as the primary means for acquiring economic skills, whether it is achieved formally by sending the children to schools or informally through apprenticeships.

Although deviation from the society’s gender roles may be tolerated before the children reach biological maturity, conformance is expected by the time the maturation process is complete. A common insecurity among the society’s women is the belief that they will be perceived as radical feminists, paralleling the insecurity among the society’s men that they do not conform with established notions of masculinity. The society’s views of gender roles tend to have widespread acceptance from both genders, due to their association with economic stability. However, as the society’s females age, their support for this system decreases, due to the expectation that they must satisfy the demands of their male partners.


Items in Barack Obama’s pockets,

lock, Herbert, Artist. “That Falklands fighting didn’t exactly do Thatcher any harm”. 6/10, 1983. Image. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, (Accessed September 24, 2016.)


The New Holocaust Denial

Climate change denial is the Holocaust denial of the 21st century. From the WTO:

Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress.

Real-Life Human Societies

Warning: This post discusses non-PC topics related to human biology.  Do not read if you prefer to avoid controversy.


Now, it is time to examine the practices of real-life human societies. The question may arise that if they are not practicing radical feminism, then what exactly are they practicing? The answer is that they are practicing conservative feminism Conservative feminism is a social system under which humans restrict their sexuality to only those situations that are considered acceptable by society. Most societies practice some form of marriage, in which a man and a woman are allowed to have intercourse for the purpose of having children and forming a family. Other societies may even permit pre-marital relations if there is an understanding that the couple eventually will settle down. Like radical feminism, conservative feminism has very well-defined social impacts, which can be determined by using concepts from the social sciences.

Analyzing Conservative Feminist Societies

From a natural law perspective, the ideal mating strategy would be to avoid sexual relations outside of marriage to prevent unhealthy relationships from forming. Furthermore, since women benefit slightly more from the act of intercourse than men do, marital relations should be restricted to the sole purpose of having children. If implemented correctly and completely, this will allow its practitioners to achieve middle-class status. In other words, they will break even, earning just enough to support themselves and no more.

However, since conservative feminism eases the restrictions imposed by natural law slightly, anyone who practices it will get slightly more opportunities to reproduce than someone who strictly practices natural law. As established previously, social behaviors have a direct economic impact, which means that anyone who practices conservative feminism will achieve upper-middle-class prosperity, at least in the short term. In other words, they will be getting everything necessary to support themselves, and will still have a little bit left over as surplus. Furthermore, since conservative feminism works by slightly bending the rules set by natural law, another result will be a society that has a flexible interpretation of its own rules.

The Expected Outcome

Based on the description of conservative feminism outlined above, it is possible to draw a rough picture of societies that practice it:

  • Broadly-shared prosperity– unlike the sharp income inequality that characterizes societies practicing radical feminism, conservative feminism can provide middle-class prosperity to a much broader segment of the society’s population. As a result, it becomes quite popular among segments of the society that are aspiring for wealth, such as young people.
  • Strict developmental deadlines– in order to achieve the prosperity outlined above, children living in conservative feminist societies go through a developmental process that includes both social and economic milestones. Children are not simply going to school and then returning home to do homework; they are also learning the societal roles they will play as adults. Sociological maturation occurs at approximately the same time that the children are maturing biologically, and is typically complete by the time the children reach their late teens and early twenties.
  • Egalitarianism– in order to meet the strict developmental deadlines outlined above, a conservative feminist society needs to at least create the illusion of a level playing field for all of its members. Conservative feminists like to distance themselves from explicit displays of prejudice, because that has associations with radical feminism. However, prejudice may still exist in this society, albeit in a more subtle form.
  • Ethics of consequentialism– this derives from the fact that conservative feminism works by slightly bending the rules defined by natural law. Whereas the predominant ethos of radical feminist societies appears to be “might makes right”, the predominant ethos of conservative feminist societies appears to be “the ends justify the means”. Under consequential ethics, actions can only be judged as morally right if they produce a positive outcome. Naturally, this ethical system rewards those who achieve positive outcomes even if their techniques are not quite ethical, and punishes those who are otherwise well-intentioned but whose actions do not produce tangible results.
  • Social conservatism– political conservatives in the United States have argued for a long time that poor and working-class people have always had sufficient opportunities for advancement, and therefore do not deserve the sympathy they receive from society. However, consequentialist ethics and the resulting social conservatism can also be found among those who self-identify as liberals. The real reason must therefore be rooted in the society’s social beliefs: they cannot consider people’s individual situations because that would threaten the existing patriarchy.
  • Cultural conformity– whereas radical feminism is believed to benefit the rich, conservative feminism is geared towards the average Joe and Jane. Practices that are widespread among the 99% are believed to be the correct way of doing things, and this becomes especially true if those practices can be proven to have some functional value.
  • Strict gender roles– according to natural law, sexual relations that are outside of wedlock and are not for the purpose of having children are considered harmful to society. Societies practicing conservative feminism do not prohibit these relations completely, and one of the reasons for that is to enforce traditional gender roles. Here, it is not considered sufficient to just follow the society’s rules and avoid taboo behaviors; one can be branded a deviant just for not having demonstrated a sufficient level of conformance.

A Downside

Now the question may arise that if conservative feminist societies have flexible interpretations of their own rules, how do they judge the behaviors of their citizens? In order to answer this question, one must understand the the nature of conservative feminism. Conservative feminism defines itself primarily in opposition to radical feminism; in a society that practices it, being accused of radical feminism is generally considered an insult. Therefore, although the society’s members are encouraged to bend the laws for their own personal benefit, they are discouraged from going so far as to break the law. Therefore, some members of the society still have to be held accountable for their misdeeds.

Here, it helps to understand sociological concept of an out-group Most human societies differentiate between individuals who are considered members of the society and those who are considered outsiders. Often, the outsiders may live in their own separate societies, as is the case with indigenous peoples living in North America. Alternatively, they may be integrated into the society as members, as is the case with the descendants of enslaved Africans living throughout the Western Hemisphere. In either case, a pattern emerges: the flexible interpretation of the society’s rules leads in their unequal application to members of the out-group and members of the in-group.

A literacy test being administered in the post-Civil War South. Literacy tests created a double standard that prevented eligible black voters from participating in elections.

An Unexpected Outcome

Obviously, the poor and minority groups are at a comparative disadvantage under this system. However, there is one group that is often overlooked, primarily due to its small size and low levels of participation in mainstream society: children of the top 1%. In conservative feminist societies, there are still rich elites as there are in radical feminist societies. These elites are often able to get by without having to subscribe to the ethics of consequentialism that permeate society. Typically, this is because they possess some sort of inherent skill that they can rely on to support themselves, as is the case with new money elites. It is also possible that they occupy a privileged status within society, as is the case with old money elites.

In either case, they occupy a position which allows them to excuse themselves form the values espoused by society. Oft-cited examples of this phenomenon are draft evasion by rich Americans during the Civil War and alcohol consumption by the top 1% during the period of Prohibition. Under radical feminism, the children of these elites would experience downward mobility after entering the free market because they are expected to compete, both socially and economically, with other elites. The situation is not very different in societies practicing conservative feminism. However, there is one key difference: they are often suffering from their problems alone.

Members of the American Federation of Labor holding a Prohibition rally on June 14, 1919.

Whereas poverty and deprivation are widespread in socieities practicing radical feminism, they are relatively rare in societies practicing conservative feminism. Combine this with the socially conservative nature of these societies, and the result is a conformist culture that shuns anyone who appears to be disadvantaged. This results in an interesting dilemma that will be referred to on this blog as the Crown Prince(ss) Paradox: children of the elites have much more difficult problems than the rest of society, but they do not receive any sympathy from the 99% because they are believed to be doing too well to deserve any. This goes back to the concept of First-World problems mentioned earlier. Perhaps the most well-known example of this paradox in American history is US president John Fitzgerald Kennedy:

The Bay of Pigs chicken coming home to roost on the White House.

Image Attribution

“Amer. Fed. Labor, Prohibition Demonstration, June 14, 1919.” photo, print, drawing. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2016.

crockett, gib. “Home to Roost? / Gib Crockett.” photo, print, drawing. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2016.

mauldin, bill. “By Th’ Way, What’s That Big Word?” photo, print, drawing. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2016.

The Claims of Industrial Agriculture

Now you may be wondering why radical feminism was associated with agriculture in the previous post, especially since industrial farming claims to be far more productive. This claim is not necessarily false, but it only gives us a partial view of the big picture. From a monetary perspective, most of our agricultural imports certainly come from countries with high and upper-middle incomes, and this figure has only been increasing during the past couple of decaades:


However, increased agricultural productivity has a downside in the form of a crash in food prices. Since the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, the US government has been paying some farmers to leave their land fallow. The aim here is to raise the prices of crops to increase the profitability of American farms. With fewer crops on the market, the law of supply and demand result in higher prices.


Cooke, B. (n.d.). USDA Economic Research Service – Imports. Retrieved September 4, 2016, from

Our crazy farm subsidies, explained. (2015, April 20). Retrieved from