I think the anonymous conservative provides us with a clue as to why feminism can’t succeed in the third world. Feminism has infested the West because western societies are abundant in resources and have strong states to allocate those resources to those that feel entitled to them for taking the trouble of being born with a vagina.

As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, feminism has merely shifted women’s need to be provided for away from the family and onto the state. The nanny state provides women with resources that enable them to rise in society without merit. Some of these resources are (but not limited to): affirmative action, preferential treatment in education (Universities), and various non profit initiatives like “Women Entrepreneurs of—(whatever).

Feminism fails in the third world precisely because third world nations are lacking in resources and effective governments.

In India for example, the state lacks the resources to arrest and prosecute rapists, let alone spare any officers to respond to domestic disturbance calls made by women who wish to eject their husbands from their property following a minor domestic spat. For rural women, divorce is an omen of doom as the state has no means of enforcing alimony and child support on non compliant husbands. The infamous Shah Bano case illustrates a scenario where an effete state backed down under societal pressure. Many third world nations lack the resources to protect their women from physical harm, let alone consider and debate the gender bending lunacy of Western gender feminism.

Western feminists tend to gloat female encroachment into men’s space and often bemoan any instance where female entry into male domains is barred. Yet this is precisely the case in India where women are still underrepresented in elite schools like the Indian Institute of technology (IIT). In the absence of abundant resources, women will generally fail to break through the glass ceiling. Naturally, this doesn’t apply to ALL women as some are exceptional but we are discussing general principles here.

Schopenhauer referred to female Independence as an “unnatural state” and perhaps now we may begin to appreciate why. In our species, women were never meant to be the independent sex. Note that by “independent” I am not referring to a woman’s ability to work and earn a living outside the home, but rather, the erroneous feminist belief that women MUST pursue work outside the home to truly self actualize. Female independence comes at a cost which must ultimately be borne by society. When women outsource motherhood to daycares while they chase their corporate fantasies, their offspring develop lower IQs and emotional stability as demonstrated by studies. The cost of lower IQ citizens is borne by society. Similarly, children raised in single mother households are statistically more likely to take to crime than those raised in traditional households. Who bears the cost for bad decisions made by “strong and independent” single moms? Society does.

The feminist enterprise has a massive financial upkeep that third world nations are clearly unable to bear. If feminist “equality” were truly natural to our species there would be no need for an upkeep. Some would blame entrenched patriarchy and culture but lets not forget that these are shaped by environment. When resources grow scarce, women lose their petulant rebelliousness and support patriarchy, not out of selfless love for men, but out of self interest as the mechanism of patriarchy deems them a protected class entitled to sustenance and protection.

During the roaring 1920s, the thriving Flapper subculture of women flouted societal conventions pertaining to modesty and propriety as they pursued a lifestyle of hedonism. There is a great volume of online feminist literature that glorifies these rebellious heroines as models to be emulated but little is said about their downfall. How did the Flapper subculture fall? It declined with the onset of the Great Depression when resources became scarce and female survival instincts jettisoned “independence” in favour of patriarchy’s protective embrace.