The thing about a free or progressive society is that it tends to send everything back to its primal roots. Traditional societies had rigid structures and moral codes to maintain harmony. But when people are free to do whatever they want and have endless options, they naturally drift toward what they desire — not necessarily what sustains order.

Take free markets and capitalism. Wealth inevitably consolidates into the hands of a few, and that’s not a flaw — it’s by design. Most democratic economic policies exist to counteract what nature intended in order to maintain some sense of equality.

Now apply that same logic to relationships. The modern world has become a free market of mating and relationships. Women have rights, people have choices — a 70-year-old man can marry a 20-year-old, a woman can stay single for life, couples can divorce after a year. There’s no longer social stigma or shame for either men or women.

Studies show that throughout human history, most men never passed on their genes; only a small percentage contributed to the majority of male lineage. Combine that with modern hypergamy — the tendency to seek higher-value partners — and it seems inevitable that society may trend toward a structure where many women prefer sharing a few “high-value” men rather than settling for one average partner.

As society becomes more free, it’s almost like the conservative side instinctively tries to pull it back — to restore structure and order — just as the liberal side pushes back against wealth inequality. Both are, in their own ways, reactions against nature’s default imbalance.

But what’s wrong with trying to stop nature’s imbalance? In economics, socialism doesn’t work because it removes incentive — without personal reward, there’s no drive for innovation or growth. Similarly, in mating, people don’t want their options restricted. Feminists are right to suspect that the end goal of conservatism is control — particularly of women. Historically, that control came through economic dependency, and with events like the fall of Roe v. Wade, that regression might just be beginning. It’s not inconceivable that future movements could take away women’s right to vote.

Just as the poor vote for socialism, unchecked capitalism risks leading to revolution. Likewise, frustrated men may turn to fascism as inequality in the dating market deepens — a potentially violent outcome. If you support democratic economic policies that limit free markets while also supporting a progressive social order where people are free to make their own choices, you’re being somewhat hypocritical. You either support the natural, winner-take-all order — or you support an artificial model that enforces equality.

In that sense, people’s politics often reflect their personal incentives. Women generally resist conservative ideals because those traditions historically limited their freedom — just as the poor tend to reject capitalism because it doesn’t favor them. The rich rarely complain about free markets, and privileged men seldom criticize traditional hierarchies. In the end, every ideology seems to be an attempt to reshape the world in one’s own favor, cloaked in moral or social justification.