Biofoundationalism IV: Masculine Because You Have To, Feminine Because You Get To

Moral foundations utility theory

This essay can be read on a standalone basis, though I recommend reading Biofoundationalism Part II: The Moral Genotype to fully internalize it. If my comments on genetic morality are new to you, the elaboration for those statements are found in Part II. All Biofoundationalism essays are linked at the end.

Part IV covers the nature of moral foundations and a deconstruction of their relevance and evolution within environments. I intentionally do not reference political parties because while conservative/liberal values are static, Republican/Democrat values clearly are not. Political platforms change over time, and this reality is entirely consistent with Biofoundationalism. Part V will address how the parties shift consistent with the morality-based analysis of Part IV.

Please note: there is optional research included at the end that makes this essay appear about 40% longer than it is.

I listened to this melodic song on loop while writing this.

The disposition, values, and moral expressions of a nation flow downstream of the comfort, prosperity, and safety it enjoys. We possess agency shaping our environments, but lack it regarding what we can sustainably do while inhabiting them.

We can re‑arrange furniture in a house, however the architecture limits what can be placed inside and how it can be organized. At a certain point, the answer to fitting more in is not “design better furniture”, it’s “you need to modify the house”.

If you're in a dark room, your ability to act is severely constrained. In this room, it’s futile to tell people to squint or prescribe them glasses. Bold speeches will not illuminate your surroundings; you can try to inspire action, but ultimately the motivation to act is because the room is dark. Necessity is a tough master as well as the mother of all inventions. Even a depressed person who has no will to get out of bed will do so when the fire alarm goes off.

Environments are deterministic in this way. We have agency cultivating our habitats, finding and building lightbulbs, but we cannot veto what those surroundings impose upon us while within them.

---

Bottom-Up, Not Top-Down

A nation's political and moral beliefs must be understood bottom up: settings shape circumstances, which inform values, and sculpt behaviors. The same man will espouse dramatically different principles and priorities if he’s broke in a barrio or wealthy behind a gate; this economic reality scales.

Societal priorities are not top-down phenomena; yet essentially all political analysis approaches them as such, implicitly attributing causality to sovereign individuals making a series of sovereign decisions as Blank Slates who just need the right facts (their facts) to see the light. Pundits endlessly pontificate "we must respect XYZ" or "people just need to embrace ABC," as if human wants and desires transform through persuasive essay. The environment dictates the expression; to change habits, you must change the habitat.

Biofoundationalism does not claim humans are marionettes lacking any free will, but rather our will operates within ecological and material bounds. The atmosphere informs political trends and which moral foundations are culturally dominant.

A sunflower grows in a warm climate, and in winter the same seed withers. Similarly, moral convictions and political norms develop in the soils that sustain them. Adopting conservatism in decadence is like trying to grow sunflowers in the winter; promoting liberalism in destitution is like trying to grow sunflowers without any seeds.

These principles are self-evident when applied to the wolf and his hunt or the flower and its garden. What blinds man from understanding it’s also relevant to him is a subconscious refusal to accept that nature’s rules govern all her creatures. Hubris disallows man from observing he’s not immune to the living-system tenets of gene-environment interaction.

The moral foundations that lift a country out of poverty are not equally potent in wealth. Wartime virtues lack the same utility when the homeland is secure. The weather determines if you can wear shorts; the economic climate determines how liberal you get to be. Can you wear shorts in a snowstorm? I mean, sure I guess, how long can you keep that up? Will you convince everyone else to be uncomfortable with principled political debate when there’s a pair of pants and coat available? Maybe for a week or so, not for a season.

Socialism has little use in indigence, just as rugged individualism is slowly forgotten in a country drowning in extravagance. Belt-tightening austerity doesn’t sell to a polity swimming in pleasures. A budget deficit is an academic abstraction for a population where no one is hungry and the proles are all housed with iPhones, Netflix, and two-day Amazon delivery. Collectively, they’ll only care once they’re made to care, and that day will come when luxuries and safeties that were taken for granted, cease to be. People disregard order when surrounded by excess; they care about order when the excess starts to fade.

You can’t prioritize equality when survival is uncertain: the latter you must do, the former you get to do. The environment establishes which political product has the most utility for a country. The more radical the conditions, the more the environment almost exclusively determines political and moral expressions. Extreme conditions beget extreme beliefs.

When is populism ascendent? During periods of acute distress: surging crime or economic collapse typically trigger it. Why? The political solutions it offers are an immune response for a societal organism. Recall the Behavioral Immune System cited in Part I and II, immune systems are present in all organisms.

The populist politician is a symptom that springs forth to fulfill demand from a polity that wants to release its white blood cells; if there was no demand, he’d have no political product to sell. A top-down storyteller ascribes all the autonomy and impetus to the politician and his sales pitch; a bottom-up biofoundationalist lens understands that the environment made such a figure inevitable.

Biofoundationalism rests on two axioms: the genetic nature of morality, and the utility of different moral foundations within different environments. To think morality is absolute is to basically believe half of your country is evil. Which half? The other half, of course.

One side is not “right”, the other is not “wrong”. One side doesn’t read the “right” books while the other consumes the “wrong” books. You are drawn to the texts and ideals that speak to you; what speaks to you is a lens into your cognitive architecture, your genetic temperamental soul.

Childish insult matches reduce complex adaptations to cartoon villainy, and it dominates political discourse. Good vs evil. Retard vs regal. Someone get this guy the quality facts so he has better opinions. Stop being mean and dumb! Be right and smart! Ok.

The correct (and healthy) way to comprehend it is neither is inherently superior, rather one side is sometimes more useful than the other. What decides the usefulness? The environment.

Masculine because you have to, feminine because you get to.

---

Amass-and-Order vs Distribute-and-Care

Nature doesn’t do coincidences at scale. The 50:50 conservative-liberal split is so persistent because it’s a natural dyad, as fundamental as male and female. An even distribution of genetically determined moral codes resulting in an even distribution of temperaments, creating a form of parity for the political.

Contrasting moral frameworks are evolved characteristics in service of human coordination. Societies have gestated two mutualistic components with competing, complementary, moral imperatives. Their benefits are not absolute nor static, but found in how they help the species exist and coordinate, contingent on our surroundings.

Man and woman are genetically distinct and irreconcilably disagree on many things, but they need each other; they are complements not enemies. The same is the case for the conservative and liberal. Rather than observe these natural dyads and conclude “this is wrong, I know better”, ask “what purpose does this serve that I don’t see”. To not think this way is to implicitly believe a society of all women or all men is preferrable, or a country of only conservatives or solely liberals is optimal. Nature disagrees.

A society is a collective organism composed of two macro-level moral lineages: amass‑and‑order versus distribute‑and‑care.

The six moral foundations above are macro‑categorized into these twin forces:

• A masculine moral genotype emphasizes: order, hierarchy, resource acquisition, threat‑monitoring, liberty.

  • This produces a conservative political phenotype

• A feminine moral genotype emphasizes: empathy/sympathy, equality, resource disbursement, harm‑avoidance, oppression reduction.

  • This produces a liberal political phenotype

Antagonistic-yet-symbiotic masculine and feminine moral priorities maintain an adaptive civilizational compass we colloquially refer to as “politics”.

A masculine moral genotype does not mean only men exhibit these values, but it does mean males tend to prioritize them. However women regularly display masculine moral genotypes and conservative political phenotypes. It is not solely determined by sex, though it is a predictor of it.

Conversely, a feminine moral genotype is not to say only women value this morality, plenty of men do, and liberal political phenotypes are commonly found in men and women alike. Interestingly, the feminine moral genotype does seem to be more a product of sex than the masculine, particularly as it relates to care/harm emphasis. Women are well-known for having an “ethic of care”, consistently favoring harm-reducing policies, sometimes independent of consequence.

I find these statements regarding masculine and feminine morality self-evident and empirically apparent. If this moral divergence between the sexes is not intuitive to you, there is research at the end of this essay that corroborates it (scroll past my closing comments to the bottom to see it). And keep in mind my defense and articulation for genetic morality and political biology are found in Part II.

I will use masculine/conservative and feminine/liberal interchangeably in the following analysis.

Visit Salutary.io

---

Moral Foundations Utility Theory

A population dominated by one moral polarity is either under duress, or decay.

A country’s morals and politics (these are synonyms) clearly shift over time, what is that creep rooted in? We don’t want a top-down story, but rather a bottom-up description.

The most successful governance systems are borne when high-agency people with similar temperaments (morality) unite and establish an order-instilling framework for society to coalesce around. The moral foundations of these societies at their genesis are inherently masculine (conservative) because structure, order, and competence hierarchies aren't luxuries for nascent or poor nations, they're necessities. Masculine because you have to.

During frontier adversity and developmental phases, advocating equality or redistributive fairness makes as much sense as installing irrigation systems in a waterless desert. The evolutionary worth of conservative morality is found in the existential utility of order, in-group loyalty, and competitive coordination: procure resources, obey commands, secure the perimeter. An ethic of care does not live here, an ethic of authority does.

Thus conservative moral foundations dominate in hardship, as this is when conservative morals have the most utility. In times of war, toil, or strife, you prioritize strength, loyalty, hierarchy, and purity. A nation’s morality masculinizes in these environments, as this is the only viable path to survive and pull yourself out of such situations.

Masculine values facilitate the politics of structure. An unalloyed conservative framework is monomaniacally dedicated to order through threat elimination and hierarchy. Punishments are swift and severe. There is little concern for fairness, as this the territory of survival of the fittest. It’s not fun, it’s necessary.

Conservative moral foundations pragmatically reign when conditions make its implementation non‑negotiable. Liberal moral foundations flourish when comfort permits the ethic of care; this is when reducing harm and promoting fairness have their say. Feminine because you get to.

Proficient masculine roots let feminine flowers bloom. Imagine how gray and prosaic life would be if this weren’t the case.

As comfort proliferates, conservative moral foundations slowly lose their usefulness: when a nation is strong, has order, and resources to spare, it can incorporate more liberal (feminine) morality, as these now have increasing utility.

Capital accumulates, the survival imperative relaxes, deprivation declines, the political dynamic organically, incrementally transitions. Political priorities begin to emphasize the circulation of those resources. The preeminent morality drifts from veneration of the strong to protection of the vulnerable; hierarchies are softened, safety nets woven. Abundance slowly feminizes, difficulty forcefully masculinizes.

Morality centered around authority and predator detection diminishes in wealth and peace; not due to anything nefarious, but because these values are simply less beneficial in such a backdrop. A morality that exalts supplementing the weak, reducing harm, and nurture becomes prevalent on account of its function. All these moral foundations endure for a reason; the reason is found in suitability to circumstances.

Competent, effective masculine morality should yield resources and safety, and this necessarily facilitates the rise of the feminine. It is a poetic sign of accomplishment that you earn the privilege of liberalizing. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

These conservative and liberal moral utility statements are further elucidated as a kind of natural law when you consider how counterproductive an inverse application, or their absence, would be. For example:

• Imagine a poor nation that immediately defaulted to dividing up scant resources and equality emphasis and ended up wealthy that way. Envision adopting egalitarian fairness politics while at war; you will perish under the weight of your own delusions.

• Picture a country that became wealthy and never feminized at all. What would that look like? Well, are corporate monopolies inherently deleterious? A monopoly is an inexorable result of unchecked masculine competition. You know what antitrust laws are? They are inherently feminine, designed to promote competitive fairness and consumer protection (harm reduction) via disallowing capital power laws from getting too excessive. A bunch of ruling monopolies is what “toxic masculinity” actually looks like! If you never incorporate feminine values, you get hyper-concentration of resources and undermine your own success. To be balanced is to act in your self-interest.

---

The Domestication Paradox and Feminism

Feminism is frequently misdiagnosed as a cause, when in reality it’s both symptom and barometer.

Consider the landscape where feminism can manifest. What setting allows it to even exist? Avoid top-down explanations that cherry-picks factoids to construct tidy narratives, approach it bottom up. Think of the saying “no atheists in foxholes” and what it means. Why does a belief sometimes vanish in particular settings and emerge in others?

No equality in war, no feminism in famine: however in peace and prosperity, the opposite is true.

Feminism is simply a gynocentric manifestation of the care/harm and liberty/oppression (emphasis: oppression) moral foundations. Women championing women using feminine morality when they’re able to do so. When women can dress provocatively and not be assaulted, it’s indicative of a high-trust society; when women can advance their own interests, it’s indicative of a prosperous society.

Feminism gains ground in settings that are stable, somewhat affluent, safe, in other words... it blossoms in domesticated scenery. Effective conservate values create rules and standards and then force everyone to abide by them, meaning it civilizes people when competently executed. A successful society requires that men domesticate themselves after domesticating their environment. Feminism is a symptom of, and dependent upon, adept masculinity.

When masculine values and action have successfully tamed both society and surroundings, the byproduct is female influence. It doesn’t happen all at once, the path is circuitous and contentious, there are occasional rightward crosscurrents, but give him long enough and Cthulhu floats one way when he’s comfy.

Productive application of masculine morality should produce the kind of achievements that permit feminist ideals; if this doesn’t happen, you are almost certainly in some form of violent conflict, prolonged instability, or poverty. Meaning your civilization is probably failing in some way if women are completely marginalized.

On an aside, there are also some eugenic benefits to female autonomy and I touch on them in here.

However, there is always too much of a good thing. Moderate feminism is an indicator of economic affluence; militant feminism… a harbinger of decadent entropy.

Prolonged abundance breeds feminine political dominance, fostering pathological egalitarianism via the weaponization of the care/harm and equality (fairness) moral foundations. A nation with a dearth of masculine morality carries little regard for order and structure; this is synonymous with entropy.

Feminism is an indicator of sustained prosperity and stability; the existence of it is desirable by virtue of stability and prosperity also being desirable. However the degree of feminism is a barometer for decadence. What was initially a prosperous positive rapidly becomes toxic when the dose is too high for too long. Please note the name of this blog.

When there’s political dialogue around topics like “should women be in combat roles?”, it means your country is so indulgently safe its creating luxury controversies for the fun of it. Radical feminism exists in a fairytale world that’s been disconnected from the harsh empirics of the masculine for too long. The pathological feminine erodes borders, vitiates standards, and tears down boundaries to the point it adopts the deception that men and women are the same, equally suited to every task. There is probably no greater demonstration of “societal extravagance playground theater-kid pretend time” than the prevalence of this lie.

Moderate 1st and 2nd-wave feminism degenerates into a malignant 3rd wave in indulgent nations filled with lavish vanity beliefs. When all things female are chauvinistically promoted as superior, it pathologizes the masculine’s very essence and results in a country of men who resemble effeminate sitcom dads.

To demonize the masculine is to malign standards, because standards are necessarily exclusionary (note how much the West loves the word “inclusion”). Radical egalitarianism only emerges in a setting devoid of hierarchies of competence. You can only manufacture equality by lying about the nature of merit; DEI is a shining example of this mendacious pathology.

Declining standards and eschewing accountability reduce order, which is definitionally entropic. This is when the nurturing feminine devolves into the chaotic feminine.

• In hardship, the tyrannical masculine imposes draconian rule and suffocating structure that crushes creativity and color. Upheaval and poverty signal its ineptitude. There are plenty of examples of incompetent hypermasculine societies in the Middle East.

• In decadence, the entropic feminine vilifies order and merit. It weaponizes an ethic of care into a disease of chaos with its nonsensical egalitarianism. There are examples of feminine entropy all over the West, and it’s precisely why rightwing immune responses are occurring.

Both are signs of ecological imbalance and are a manifestation of what I call hypermoralization.

Domestication delivers a civilized society. When a population becomes too domesticated, it grows supine and feckless. It stops being able to stand up for itself. It’s consumed by care/harm morality to the point all that matters is the harm reduction of those besides itself. It sanctimoniously lectures you while it decays from within. Some refer to this as the Longhouse.

Masculine/Feminine dyad balance is salutary, when she overwhelms it becomes corrosive and slowly undoes the very domestication and safety that allowed feminism to exist in the first place; she ends up marginalizing herself through excess and the results of her own chaos. When volatility and conflict reemerge — and they will reemerge — the masculine becomes ascendent again. The masculine baselayer is always there; it’s less visible when times are good, it’s revealed when times grow tough. “Hard times, strong men, good times, weak men…”

As with all things, balance is good. A natural dyad is in an unhealthy dislocation when one element consumes the other.

---

Concluding

Luxury beliefs propagate in a backdrop of luxury conditions. And let’s not deceive ourselves, it’s a blessing to have some luxuries! To avoid this progression towards the feminine is to implicitly be under some form of distress. You can't disentangle only getting the physical luxuries without the intellectual ones; both will be in approximate proportion to each other.

Within affluent countries, conservatism represents the speed limit of liberalism. In opulence, the Right can only provide reactions to lurking disorder. Over extended timelines, it cannot compete on utility grounds with the Left for the same reason there aren’t winter sunflowers. So long as pampered provisions keep flowing and the population has a say in how it’s governed, leftwing morality will advance until the resources run dry, or the entropy is too great. Then… a behavioral immune response occurs.

An ethic of care takes hold in a state of comfort. Hard times forge hardened minds. There’s no hedonism in poverty, and no discipline in decadence. You cannot escape your environment.

Cthulhu doesn’t swim left in any teleological sense, rather he floats leftward as he’s able, taking breaks here and there, atop a lazy river of riches.

Wealthy nations drift towards the feminine because they can, poor nations adhere to the masculine because they must.

Research is included below that speaks to temperamental morality differences between the sexes.

Subscribes and shares are very much appreciated. If you enjoyed the essay, give it a like.

You can show your appreciation by becoming a paid subscriber, or donating here: 0x9C828E8EeCe7a339bBe90A44bB096b20a4F1BE2B

I’m building something interesting, visit Salutary.io

Related essays:

Biofoundationalism I: Moral Foundations Utility Theory & Hypermoralization

Biofoundationalism III: Verbal Intelligence and Factual Sediment

Gain Dependents, Gain Power

---

Research Footnotes

Moral, Political, and Biological Differences Between Men and Women

Differences in Moral Foundations and Ethics

Care/Harm:

This foundation, which prioritizes compassion and aversion to suffering and harm, consistently ranks higher in importance for women. Across cultures, women show stronger care-based morality: they report greater empathetic concern for others’ welfare and a stronger moral imperative to prevent harm​.

A large international study of 330,000 people (67 countries) found women scored higher than men on Care universally (​scimex.org). Similarly, data from the YourMorals dataset (over 100k respondents) showed women scoring significantly higher on Harm/Care concerns (with a medium effect size d ≈ 0.58) ​(pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

In practical terms, women more strongly endorse statements like “compassion for those who are suffering is crucial” and are more likely to consider hurting someone (even for a greater good) as morally wrong.

By contrast, men are comparatively more willing to countenance harm in service of other principles (e.g. sacrificing one to save many in a utilitarian dilemma). Studies on moral dilemmas find men are more utilitarian (willing to harm one person to achieve a larger benefit) whereas women are more averse to causing direct harm, reflecting a care-oriented ethic​ (researchgate.net).

-

Fairness/Cheating:

This foundation involves justice, equality, and reciprocity. Women also tend to rate Fairness higher than men (​pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), although the sex difference is smaller than for Care/Harm.

Cross-national research found women scored higher on Fairness moral values in most countries (​scimex.org​ pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Women often emphasize equality and feel moral outrage at cheating or exploitation.

For example, women exhibit greater opposition to situations perceived as unjust or unfair, such as cheating in relationships or unequal pay, aligning with an ethic of fair play and protection of the vulnerable.

Men also value fairness, but research suggests men interpret fairness more in terms of proportionality (rewarding effort) whereas women prefer compassion-based fairness, as in ensuring everyone is cared for. (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.)

These nuances echo Carol Gilligan’s classic theory: women’s moral reasoning often reflects an “ethic of care,” prioritizing compassion and interpersonal responsibilities, whereas men’s reasoning more often reflects an “ethic of justice,” emphasizing abstract rights and fairness in terms of rules (theory of moral development).

Contemporary data supports that women’s moral judgments are more rooted in empathy and context, whereas men more readily apply impersonal justice principles, which can reduce emphasis on individual care.

-

Loyalty/Betrayal (Ingroup):

This foundation covers allegiance to one’s group, family, or nation. Large-sample studies show men and women score close on Loyalty-related morals (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Men sometimes score slightly higher on loyalty to groups, but the difference is small (effects d < 0.06)​ (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

Both sexes value loyalty, but it manifests differently.

Men historically form tighter bonds in coalitional contexts (sports teams, military units) and might emphasize group loyalty in terms of “honor” and not betraying comrades.

Women also value loyalty, especially in close interpersonal relationships and family, and may enforce it through social cohesion (e.g. avoiding betrayal of friends).

It’s interesting to note that women consistently score higher on valuing purity in the moral foundations structure.

---

Political and Moral Psychology

Underlying male and female political and moral differences are measurable psychological traits. One key factor is Social Dominance Orientation (SDO): a preference for hierarchy and inequality between groups.

Studies find men reliably score higher on SDO than women, meaning men are more comfortable with group-based dominance and inequality​ (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). This difference is significant because SDO statistically mediates much of the gender gap in political attitudes: men’s higher SDO correlates with more conservative positions on issues like military action, immigration, and opposition to egalitarian policies.

Women’s lower SDO aligns with their preference for egalitarian, inclusive policies. Additionally, women tend to have higher trust in government’s role to solve social problems and higher empathy, whereas men exhibit higher tolerance for risk and conflict.

Women also report greater aversion to political polarization and more desire for consensus-building. Men report more interest in controversial or “power” aspects of politics (which may explain why men dominate in political talk radio or combative debate formats). These dispositions shape how political beliefs are expressed: e.g., men approach politics as a contest of principles or groups, whereas women often frame it as an extension of caregiving (protecting communities, “it takes a village”).

---

Biological & Cognitive Sex Differences

Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen’s Empathizing–Systemizing (E-S) theory posits that, on average, males are more inclined to systemize (analyze and manipulate rule-based systems), whereas females are more inclined to empathize (identify with others’ emotions and perspectives).

Large-scale studies strongly support this pattern. A 2018 sample of over 650,000 individuals confirmed that women, on average, score substantially higher on tests of empathy, while men score higher on systemizing (sciencedaily.com​sciencedaily.com).

For example, women tend to excel in recognizing emotional states, an ability evident from childhood, whereas men show stronger interest in mechanistic thinking and pattern-focused tasks (​nature.com). These differences in cognitive style align with broader traits: females often demonstrate superior social cognition (better emotion recognition), and males show stronger visuospatial skills and interest in object manipulation.

Early Developmental Behaviors:

Evidence for sex differences emerges within the first day of a child’s life, confirming biological influences. A famous Baron-Cohen study found newborn boys (within 24 hours of birth) spent more time looking at a mechanical mobile, while newborn girls spent more time looking at a human face (​docs.autismresearchcentre.com).

By 12 months of age, infant girls make more frequent eye contact with caregivers than boys, and this difference correlates with prenatal testosterone exposure​.

Girls Are Hardwired for Empathy:

Girls tend to develop aspects of social cognition faster: e.g., toddler girls (age ~4) outperform boys on theory-of-mind tasks (understanding others’ thoughts)​(docs.autismresearchcentre.com). In childhood, girls are about 1–2 years ahead in sensitivity to social nuances.

Boys, conversely, exhibit stronger early interest in objects and motion and engage in more rough-and-tumble play. Toy preference research shows that by toddlerhood boys gravitate to trucks and balls, and girls to dolls and pretend-play nurturing, with similar patterns even observed in juvenile primates.

Brain Structure and Function:

On average, male brains have a larger total volume than female brains​(pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). Beyond size, there are region-specific differences: Men tend to have larger amygdalae and hippocampi (amygdala size and activation is a critical indicator for conservative political beliefs) and a larger insula, among other structures​.

Women’s brains, in contrast, show higher grey matter proportion in some areas and greater interhemispheric connectivity, which may underlie differences in information processing style. A meta-analysis confirmed statistically significant sex differences in ~67% of measured neuroanatomical traits (​en.wikipedia.org).

Summary:

Biologically, men and women differ in certain structural brain measures and hormonal profiles, which in turn relate to average differences in behavior and cognition. Men’s higher testosterone and systemizing orientation align with greater physical aggression, spatial navigation, and interest in systems. Women’s neuroendocrine profile (more oxytocin/estrogen) and empathizing bias align with greater social bonding, communication, and caregiving behaviors.

---

Male and Female Ideological and Social Policy Differences

Sex differences in moral emphasis translate into distinct patterns in political ideology and behavior. In broad terms, women tend to lean more liberal/progressive (universalist) in contemporary Western politics, whereas men lean more conservative/order-oriented on average.

Policy Stances:

On specific issues, gender gaps are well documented. Women consistently show greater support for welfare-state programs: policies that help the vulnerable (poverty relief, healthcare, education). They are more likely than men to favor government spending on social services and to endorse robust social safety nets (digitalcommons.gaacademy.org).

Correspondingly, women are more inclined to back policies seen as promoting fairness and care (e.g. universal healthcare, food assistance, paid family leave).

In contrast, men are more wary of expansive welfare policies and more likely to prioritize free-market or fiscally conservative positions, emphasizing personal responsibility over government aid).

When it comes to law and order and use of force, differences are stark: Women are less supportive of the death penalty, militarism, and the use of military force to solve international disputes​ (digitalcommons.gaacademy.org). They have a pronounced tendency toward pacifism: for instance, polls have long found women less willing to support wars or military interventions unless clearly in self-defense.

Men are more supportive of military action and punitive criminal justice. Surveys find men more in favor of increased defense spending and more likely to endorse using force against security threats.

Likewise, men show higher approval of capital punishment and harsh sentencing for criminals, linking to an Authority/Loyalty-based moral outlook (protect the group, punish violators). Women’s reluctance in these areas reflects their higher Care orientation (aversion to harm) and greater empathetic concern even for out-groups or offenders.

-

Social Issues:

Women are often more liberal on issues of gun control, immigration, and multiculturalism. For example, a U.S. study notes women are more likely to support gun control measures and more welcoming of immigrants, whereas men more often oppose gun restrictions and favor stricter immigration policies​ (digitalcommons.gaacademy.org).

Women also shown greater support for civil rights and minority protections (e.g., higher support for racial equality movements and LGBTQ+ movements), consistent with universalist moral values.

Women’s higher support for welfare states is a pan-Western phenomenon: from pension expansions to universal healthcare, women voters have been more in favor, influencing party platforms. Conversely, men’s greater inclination toward laissez-faire economics and strict law enforcement has bolstered conservative parties.