The Independent Women's Forum (IWF) is an American conservative, non-profit, non-partisan research and educational institution focused on domestic and foreign policy issues of concern to women. In 2006, the group whose ideology is economic conservative, had 20,337 members and a budget of $1.05 million. The group advocates "equity feminism," a term first used by IWF author Christina Hoff Sommers to distinguish conservative feminism from what she refers to as "gender feminism," which she claims opposes gender roles as well as patriarchy. According to Sommers, the gender feminist view is "the prevailing ideology among contemporary feminist philosophers and leaders" and "thrives on the myth that American women are the oppressed 'second sex.'" Sommers' equity feminism has been described as anti-feminist by critics. As the organization's slogan—"All Issues are Women's Issues"—suggests, IWF members seek to participate in policy discussions not only about issues commonly referred to as "women's rights," but also about such topics as national defense and foreign policy. According to its mission statement, IWF "builds greater respect for limited government, equality under the law, property rights, free markets, strong families, and a powerful and effective national defense and foreign policy."

Here we get on track of what conservatism is. We must carefully observe the strength of Falkland's language. He does not say that when it is not necessary to change, it is expedient or advisable not to change; he says it is necessary not to change. Very well, then, the differentiation of conservatism rests on the estimate of necessity in any given case. Thus conservatism is purely an ad hoc affair; its findings vary with conditions, and are good for this day and train only. Conservatism is not a body of opinion, it has no set platform or creed, and hence, strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a hundred-per-cent conservative group or party — Mr. Justice McReynolds and Mr. Baker may stand at ease. Nor is conservatism an attitude of sentiment. Dickens's fine old unintelligent characters who "kept up the barrier, sir, against modern innovations" were not conservatives. They were sentimental obstructionists, probably also obscurantists, but not conservatives.

Nor yet is conservatism the antithesis of radicalism; the antithesis of radical is superficial. Falkland was a great radical; he was never for a moment caught by the superficial aspect of things. A person may be as radical as you please, and still may make an extremely conservative estimate of the force of necessity exhibited by a given set of conditions. A radical, for example, may think we should get on a great deal better if we had an entirely different system of government, and yet, at this time and under conditions now existing, he may take a strongly conservative view of the necessity for pitching out our system, neck and crop, and replacing it with another. He may think our fiscal system is iniquitous in theory and monstrous in practice, and be ever so sure he could propose a better one, but if on consideration of all the circumstances he finds that it is not necessary to change that system, he is capable of maintaining stoutly that it is necessary notto change it. The conservative is a person who considers very closely every chance, even the longest, of "throwing out the baby with the bath-water," as the German proverb puts it, and who determines his conduct accordingly.

— Albert Jay Nock, A Little Conserva-tive in The Atlantic Monthly (October 1936)