The question has been asked many times: why are there so few female libertarians? Just to put a number on it up front, Cato’s David Boaz pegged the demography of libertarians at 59% male and 41% female, contrary to the near even split among liberals and conservatives (with slightly more women being liberal and slightly more men being conservative).
Why then? The American Conservative’s Michael Brendan Dougherty tweeted, flippantly, “a look at libertarian men answers this. No?” suggesting something I don’t think he’d stand by if confronted by his enlightened peers: that women go to whichever watering hole draws the most attractive men.
Dougherty was on a roll tweeting about the surplus of attractive women compared to “good men” saying that the world is imbalanced as a result. Typical ‘muscular’ conservative Man-Up White Knighting. Par for the course. But Dougherty’s tweets led to an article by Julie Borowski who made a plausible argument that men are more likely to embrace marginal movements:
Compared to men, women tend to be more social and care more about what people think about them. They are usually very concerned about being socially accepted and fitting in with their peers. Most women do not want to be associated with something that is considered “weird.” And let’s face it: libertarianism is still considered “weird” to mainstream society (though that has started to change.)
(Also see Bernard Chapin’s videolog)
Caitlyn Bates believes that libertarians aren’t glossy enough to capture the female vote. She believes that the biggest turn-off is the failure of libertarians to embrace gay rights. Which doesn’t explain why there are quite a few more female conservatives than female libertarians – with conservatism being less approving of gay rights than libertarianism. Bates is then looking to bring liberals under the libertarian umbrella.
Kevin Boyd pins it on “creepertarians”:
Finally, Rachel does not address what I think is the biggest obstacle to getting women involved in the liberty movement, “creepitarians”. These are socially inept libertarian guys who treat women horribly. I can only recommend this piece by Mikayla Hall on the subject.
The piece by Mikayla Hall is a typical testimony. We see it being made by a feminist contingent at atheist conferences, video game conferences, and other nerdy affairs. Hall went to a conference and was hit on by guys she didn’t want hitting on her. Sadness. But all of this is nonsense because it doesn’t explain the fact that most libertarians form their political ideologies without first attending a conference of like-minded individuals. This would be a chicken and egg argument – why would there have been more men at the libertarian conference in the first place? Women aren’t even entertaining the idea of libertarianism itself, much less libertarian conferences at which they get creeped on.
And James Padilioni Jr. believes that the reason for the discrepancy is that libertarianism lacks empathy and needs to make both intellectual and aesthetic arguments to attract women into the fold.
***
This all misses the most obvious explanation: libertarianism is hard. It is hard for a couple of reasons, and it’s difficulty is not generally attractive to women.
First, libertarianism generally requires a bit more than rudimentary knowledge of the way the economy works. Few people who don’t know anything about economics would call themselves libertarians, not just because they wouldn’t know what the term means. Many scholars have documented the existence of an econ knowledge gender gap. This doesn’t mean that libertarianism is the only correct ideology just that it’s arguments are more sophisticated than baseline liberalism and conservatism. Vast economics knowledge can still be applied incorrectly. But for as yet unknown reasons, women are less likely to be interested in economics and less likely to have a strong understanding of economic theory and policy. The table below shows the differences in scores on an economics concepts test. As an example, women are less likely to support free trade policies though most economists (and more men) believe that such policies trump protectionism. Libertarianism, perhaps like Marxism, atheism, and anarchism, are self-styled intellectual pursuits. Right or wrong, libertarianism is an ideology for people who seek to find alternatives to the two party system or to generic conservatism/liberalism. This implies a certain amount of selection bias. Libertarianism is also the most econ-centric of the Big Three. Liberalism is about social justice; conservatism is about God/family/order/tradition. Libertarianism is about liberty with a focus on economic freedom.
Second, libertarianism is hard because it offers few explicit promises and very little authority. It generally trusts that proper order will arise from laissez-faire economic policies and the respect for personal property. Libertarianism’s God is Spontaneous Order which sounds kind of shaky. Liberalism’s God is the State complete with it’s safety hammock, a strong appeal to women. Conservatism is more closely aligned with God, the absolute of all absolutes. But it is also heavily focused on the family which also appeals to women. This is not to say that libertarians are less supportive of families – just that the family is not their ideological starting point.
I came to libertarianism (it’s still a struggle) after I learned of new ways to think of economic issues. I didn’t even know that the arguments for libertarianism existed, but they fit my belief system which was more anti-authoritarian than my chosen liberalism. When those ideas were opened up to me, they seemed a natural fit. A bit of conservatism has bled through as well. But libertarianism has been a struggle to come to and grapple with. It is a harder row to hoe and therefore is probably not something that people who aren’t going to put much effort into their political ideology are going to gravitate towards.
Like this:
Like Loading...
there are few female libertardians because women are smarter than men
libertardianism ignores the necessity of community and cooperation
it is also inherently divisive exclusive and bigoted
Well said Anti-Racist. We cooperate by delivering Justice to lone racists on the street. Your comments inspire us to Action.
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/12/11/where-are-the-female-libertarians/
People would still cooperate a lot under a libertarian system of government. It’s in our nature. I like the idea of a small, weak government, but I’m also a team player. I think you can be both.
It’s helpful to understand if by “libertarian” a writer refers to a worldview in which individual human autonomy is assumed (scenario 1), or a worldview that assumes strong organic bonds at the social level and merely asks that the government be scaled back to minimalistic functions (scenario 2).
The former never existed but is a favorite dream of a certain type of young rationalist. The latter is essentially America before the 1960s or 1930s, dpoending on your point of view. Here is where that which you call “conservatism” is an inextricable part of the libertarian reality. As to women, you will never get them interested in sceanrio 1, for reasons you alluded to. Scenario 2 can be very appealing to women.
Because real libertarianism requires smarts, strength and independence, even when things get a little bit difficult? http://bestdemotivationalposters.com/feminism/
a. Pic of dougherty: http://thesantosrepublic.com/multimedia/photogallery/2012/05/michael-brendan-dougherty.jpg — Michael Brendan Dougherty looks like a grade a herby beta faggot whose never been in a fight in his life. He’s in the closet for sure and probably molests little boys any chance he gets. He wouldn’t stand by that comment or stand by anything, ever, for that matter. Send some traffic to his really hipster website: http://www.mbdougherty.com/bio.html (who are you trying to fool by the way?) in the hopes that he finds this site and reads this comment and kills himself.
pic of kevin boyd: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/600576_318954648189630_2124308691_n.jpg– Definitely the exact kind of guy a girl would call a “creeper”. Obese too.
b. i hope these demographers remembered to count will wilkinson as a woman.
c. you said it yourself, “I didn’t even know that the arguments for libertarianism existed”. You have to -want- to be a libertarian. Women don’t want to be anything, at best they want to show up and be told what to do by a man or a woman who outranks them. Basically the reason so few women are libertarians is because people very hostile to libertarianism run everything important, and as a result there’s a continuous academic/media operation to prevent people from being libertarian and women are very impressionable and easily swayed
Libertarians are generally nerdy white dudes, usually in STEM white collar professions. They are not attractive or connected enough to gain from government largess (like investment bankers) and not poor enough to get welfare. Unlike blue collar workers they can’t do their work off the books because as white collar employees everything gets tracked. They tend to earn low six figures and pay high taxes relative to their income which then gets funneled to social competitors on the top (bankers) and the bottom (artists, permanent students). Also a major recipient of their tax money is women, and since they are unattractive its usually above average earnings that is their selling point in the mating market so that undercuts them if women can simply take it while returning nothing.
So your average libertarian is a dorky white guy who complains a lot. How can that no appeal to women?
Women receive a lot of protection and positive rights from government. Libertarianism focuses on private contracts between individuals and responsibility being located at the individual level. Losses and negative consequences are not socialized. In the grand scheme of modern society, I don’t see how many women will sign up for that. The US has had a national conversation in 2012 about paying for the entire cost of birth control that a woman can buy at Target for $9/month.
anti-racist doesn’t know what libertarianism is.
Big-L Libertarianism is a hard ideology to remain committed to as well. There are some things the market could support, but that would detract from civil society. To go with an extreme hypothetical — porn on public television at any time of day. That might attract viewers, but it wouldn’t be a shining example of market performance.
That’s why you see people move away from libertarianism once they have kids.
Went to Las Vegas a few months ago and finally caught a Penn & Teller show at the Rio. They are both HUGE libertarians and they work their political views into the show. (well, that’s mostly Penn Gillette since Teller doesn’t talk)
The did a 10-minute bit lambasting the TSA while doing a magic trick. It was great.
¨This all misses the most obvious explanation: libertarianism is hard. It is hard for a couple of reasons, and it’s difficulty is not generally attractive to women.¨
The fruits of libertarianism are not so readily visible. Certain women can see the benefits of ¨daddy government¨ while others can still see the benefits of ¨patriarchal daddy¨, but even fewer can see the benefits of liberties. This would mean no daddy figure being promoted; no ¨sugar daddy¨ policies from government; be that from the right or left. So it is hard for them to see the benefits, though some do.
It really isn´t a question of male attractiveness physical or otherwise. There are repulsive specimens in all of the political philosophies. I just don´t see libertarians being any more or less so.
I think you have to focus on the reasons in your analysis not some highly debatable red herring.
The American Conservative’s Michael Brendan Dougherty tweeted, flippantly, “a look at libertarian men answers this. No?” suggesting something I don’t think he’d stand by if confronted by his enlightened peers: that women go to whichever watering hole draws the most attractive men.
No doubt he wouldn’t stand by it if confronted — not everyone has the integrity of John Derbyshire. But does that make it untrue?
ASDF nails it. Low-status white male nerds are the demographic backbone of libertarianism, and although this doesn’t tell us anything about whether libertarianism is true, it’s the Occam’s Razor explanation for why women tend to avoid it.
@PA, very useful distinction. I’m not a libertarian, but I could get behind Scenario 2.
The short answer is that :
1) Women, by and large, want to be taken care of.
2) The role that traditionally belonged to the husband is slowly being usurped by the state.
3) Libertarianism runs counter to this philosophy.
4) Ergo, few female libertarians.
¨Low-status white male nerds are the demographic backbone of libertarianism…¨
One of your low-status white male nerds:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Koch
Single women are especially prone to voting the “security hamster” ticket, which includes a healthy safety net in case things go badly for them. Married women tend to vote for whichever side pays their bills. That’s security hamster again, if you think about it.
The libertarian vote says, “I vote to fend for myself, as I can accomplish more without paying for all you leeches out there.” While we may have some female “little red hen” voters out there, I’m betting they are outliers, and lack sufficient numbers to get a herd mentality started in that direction.
It is instructive to breakdown Libertarians into subgroups; the two main ones being Economic and Social. The problem is that when taken to extremes, these two values are directly opposed to one another. For instance, people who are sexual libertarians quite often will then foist the consequences of their personal lifestyle choices on the rest of us by demanding we pay for the bastard children or the financial wreckage caused by the inability to successfully form a family. This is why Economic Libertarians are considered the master group of the bunch. When you get down to it, you cannot really be both.
Libertarianism is also an ideology of a mercantile-minded type for whom localism and particularism (aka conservatism) is an obstacle to expanding his resource-extraction ambitions.
-PA
@Senior Manchild:
Don’t forget Peter Thiel. And Penn & Teller.
In other news, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele exist, so I guess I don’t have to worry about flash mobs any more.
I guess that I am not as enthralled by Democrats and Republicans as you all are.
An inconvenient truth:
http://cheezburger.com/2082282240
Another inconvenient truth:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/18/1111283/-Chris-Christie-skips-chance-to-rile-up-House-Republicans
I think it’s largely due to the fact that women tend to respond well to emotional arguments, but poorly to logical ones. Libertarians excel at the latter but really suck at the former (being mostly STEM nerds who think in terms of facts, figures and processes).
Plus, women are drawn to power, and especially powerful men and… well, libertarians just don’t have that much power, not when compared to liberals or conservatives. How many libertarians are there in top-level government positions? How many times have they triumphed in head-to-head matches with liberals or conservatives?
A list of libertarians:
http://mypeoplepc.com/members/fab4/davidsonlp/id10.html
must be some stem nerds represented,
another longer list,
http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-libertarians/mrporcupine
I don´t have the time to count up stem nerds for you.
“I think it’s largely due to the fact that women tend to respond well to emotional arguments, but poorly to logical ones.”
I think this is close, but I’d replace “emotional arguments” (though those play a part – empathizing with putative victims especially) with group-held social beliefs. Women are better at perceiving the emotions and beliefs of others and (hence) more likely than men to take seriously ridiculous group beliefs like religion (especially deistic religion, which requires modeling the mental state of a deity). They’re more hypnotizable and more likely to experience glossolalia. They’re way less likely to be autistic. And the increased social/religiosity is ON AVERAGE (unlike overall IQ differences, which only appear at the high and low ends of the distribution) – and it gets way MORE pronounced at the extremes.
Libertarian beliefs generally require people to think beyond accepted social/group consensus, which would be easier for people who aren’t particularly moved by the group consensus to begin with. Since libertarianism is still a bit of a fringe belief, it’s not selecting average members of the community, but rather unusual people who are especially high in insight-seeking and logic and low on social perception and belief. Liberalism and (especially religious) conservatism each provide a more social, less logical alternative to libertarianism. The sex divide gets more extreme the more the view requires one to see through (rather than empathize with) social consensus reality – i.e. virtually no female reactionaries, tons of female Bible thumpers. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/08/who-rejects-right-to-abortion-in-cases-of-rape/
The “creeper” factor probably plays into it anyway – I became much more of a libertarian in college, formed by discussions with some pretty hardcore libertarians, who were mostly not terribly socially ept, and one or two might have scared me off if I were female.
While the Koch brothers, and T. J. Rodgers, are very rich libertarians, libertarianism is underrepresented among the very rich.
PA 10/22/2012 at 7:45 am
It’s helpful to understand if by “libertarian” a writer refers to a worldview in which individual human autonomy is assumed (scenario 1), or a worldview that assumes strong organic bonds at the social level and merely asks that the government be scaled back to minimalistic functions (scenario 2).
So true: type 1 Libertarians spend far too much time thinking about hypotheticals that only exist in their minds. No wonder people with a more practical approach to politics and life in general are not attracted.
One of the biggest problems for libertarianism is that lots of people are too stupid to function well in a libertarian society – they *will* get scammed, they *will* get duped into making bad choices whose consequences will be worse than they are in our society. Many college-age libertarians don’t have enough empathy or exposure to actual dumb people to really understand that. Women are more likely to have enough empathy to realize that some people *will* be worse off under libertarianism, even if they haven’t had the exposure to dumb people, either.
The one thing that unites all libertarians is abstract thinking, almost by definition.
Abstract thought is not very natural to women, so they can’t relate.
Of the 8-10 hardcore libertarian friends that I have, each of them was a STEM major and several of them have started their own business ventures. Two of my libertarian friends (former engineers) just recently got $5 million in venture capital from a major retailer for their healthcare technology product.
I can’t see any reason to take a person named “Mikayla” seriously. I’ve known enough females with trashy phoneticizations of actual names (“Britney,” coughcough) to know there’s never much intellectual wherewithal there, especially along the “Kayla-Kaylee-Kyleigh-McKaila” spectrum.
Seems boorish to judge someone based on a name they had no input in selecting, but parents who would concoct and apply such tacky names to an infant are clearly idiots, and apples don’t fall far from trees.
self-professed libertardians divide neatly into two groups: zealot aspies and pussyboy dissimulators. the former are your open borders nutjobs, like alex tabarrok and bryan caplan. the latter are your hipster white dudes who are too cowardly to say they’re cons or nationalists for fear of alienating the white single chicks they want to bang, so they stake out a cool-sounding social prog middle ground that they think appeals to women and men and lets them retain a vestige of their balls.
Re: the absence of women in libertardianism — first, most women have no idea what libertarianism is supposed to be. go ahead, say the word to your average state college educated girl: you’ll get blank stares in return. second, women who are familiar with the ideology in more than a passing way aren’t so much turned off by its media face (which is ugly white neckbeard nerd, for the most part), but by its message. women, in general, are constitutionally gibsmedat. libertarianism, at least in concept, is the opposite of gibsmedat. the ugly mug of libertardianism — no more or less ugly than the face of the democrat party, truth be told — certainly doesn’t help its appeal with women, but the spokesmen for it are not really very much in the public eye, so even among women familiar with it, the amount of facetime exposure they get to the pundit nerds penning the articles they read is practically nil.
Have you seen your average libertarian? They’re male neckbeards with cheetos encrusted fingers mashing on their keyboards about Ron Paul online all day long. What woman wants to be associated with that?
I’m surprised Heartiste didn’t pick up on the answer to this because it’s on his blog today. Women side with winners. When a country is invaded, they side with the invaders. It’s biology: their focus is to procreate and they want to do it with whomever is strongest. Libertarians are the perennial underdogs and women will only flock to them when they look like they’ll be winners.
Also, did anyone else pick up the irony in “anti-racist” commenting that women are smarter on technology and networks entirely devised by men?
Bruce Charlton does a very good take down of libertarianism on his blog. He points out, quite accurately IMO, why libertarianism will never gain power.
i think you guys are wrong on the “have you seen male libertarians” argument. most women don’t even know what a libertarian looks like. perhaps if libertarianism was an ideology which advertised a certain type of freedom and attracted a certain type of ideologue, much as a fancy night club might try to put up a nice facade to attract clientele, it might be attractive for reasons other than its ideological principles. but as it stands, it is the ideas and the effort to learn about those ideas that is the first roadblock.
as for what your stereotypical libertarian looks like…a political ideology is usually something that people keeps to themselves. granted, libertarians are more obnoxious and more likely to wear their ideology on their sleeve (or on their wrist; I wear a Ron Paul bracelet). but individual libertarians are just regular people being all libertarian to themselves. they do their independent research and thinking and come to that ideology for whatever reason. the cohort effects aren’t as strong as you all seem to be implying. it’s not about who else is a libertarian that prevents women from becoming libertarians; it’s about what is required to become a libertarian or to identify oneself as a libertarian.
the latter are your hipster white dudes who are too cowardly to say they’re cons or nationalists
They have a mirror image in the hard leftist who hates whites but claims to be a libertarian because he is too circumspect to say it openly. Many the professional open-borders economists we dismiss as aspie are really just leftists. When they advocate open borders, they say “comparative advantage” and “pareto optimization” but they think “extermination.”
It’s interesting that they will put on the aspie act to say “open borders” every time, but never “restrictive covenant,” isn’t it?
PA,
I don’t think you have any evidence for that. Tyler Cowen and Bryan Caplan, to name the two biggest open border libertarians, just believe strongly in personal liberty which transcends national borders. I think it’s that simple and not about them favoring an outcome where white populations are diluted. They also just really believe that personal freedom is “pareto maximizing”. I don’t see many libertarians being strongly racial either way; they would score relatively low in terms of tribalism or group loyalty.
Women aren’t into libertarianism because women aren’t into freedom. End of story.
Chuck, an open borders position is an extreme one by any civilized standards, we’re just desensitized to it because we’re bathed in its rhetoric. So if someone advocates for open borders as part of some “personal fredom” platform, they woudl be expected to also advocate for restrictive covenants — a much less unreasonable a position by historic standards; a simple property rights idea reeally. Maybe I am more cynical of the “aspie” economists. But if their enthusiasm for open borders is equaled by their enthusiasm for restricitve covenants, then I woudl give them more credit as genuine libertarians.
Speaking of, Ron Paul ets mentioned in this context. I see him not so much a doctrinnaire “aspie.” He seems more of a traditional American small-gov, states rights, personal liberties type who assumes a continuity of the population whose cuture sustains those personal liberty values.
I think extermination of the white race is too strong of a statement. Bryan Caplan wrote a book encouraging people to have more children.
However, there is something a little off about open border advocates. It’s a little like when you go out with a man and he keeps wanting you to invite your girlfriends. It’s a mentality that the person or people you are already with are not good enough. I like foreign people, I think most Americans do. There is nothing unusual about that. I also recognize that inviting new people into my country isn’t solely my decision.
Also, no one is stopping businessmen from opening factories in foreign countries, if they don’t want to use American workers.
I just got told by a moderate open borders advocate that the United States can’t expect to be like a European country, with a national identity. We’re supposed to be different.
In the end though, I’m not holding my breath for the open-borders crowd to be consistent and also endorse restrictive covenants. They advocate for things that promote your and my disposition, and for that they can go the fuck to hell. I don’t buy their aspie act.
PA: “I don’t buy their aspie act.”
perhaps they are just anti-white bigots. i suppose one could determine that by taking a head count of the open borders nutjob contingent to see how many are… ahem… chosen to be naturally antagonistic toward a white euro majority.
but the writing style of some of these libertardian fanatics/fantasists smacks of myopic spergitude. they really do strike me as having the same personality as that autistic kid from the show parenthood. stubborn as mules, unwilling to deviate from the script or tolerate dissension, unable to grasp a corrective view grounded in a realistic appraisal of immutable human nature, and peculiarly unemotional and distant when discussing the fate of their co-citizens, let alone their co-ethnics. caplan is extremely noxious on that last characteristic, and i will laugh in his purpling face if the day of the rope comes and he is the first swinging from the post.
now maybe the spock schtick is all an act to cover for their hatred of euro-ancestry whites, or maybe it’s a cognitive deficit that renders them more borg than human, but you do tend to find the aspie profile prominent in zealots of many stripes, not just libertardians. some hardcore leftists seem to be missing normal emotional processing as well.
@anti-racist
“libertardianism ignores the necessity of community and cooperation”
Fool. Community and co-operation depend on voluntary submission to a higher authority, which is the ideological backbone of Libertarianism.
“there are few female libertardians because women are smarter than men”
“it is also inherently divisive exclusive and bigoted”
It never ceases to amaze how fastidiously the fool advertises their foolishness.
white boy jacob ian stalk you are racist for disresrespecting Anti-Racist. Anti-Racist made the most intelligent comment here because he is the most intelligent commenter. Reexamine Anti-Racist comments in archives and feel your inferiority. Or wait for Five Pairs of Boots Of Justice to teach you the lesson.
PA,
Not that I’ve read everything that every libertarian has written on freedom of association, but they don’t seem argue that people cannot form restrictive covenants if they want. Most of them would say that if a business doesn’t want to sell to a certain group or if a set of homeowners doesn’t want to allow a certain race of people, the government can’t force them to do otherwise. But most of them would probably agree that this isn’t a societal ideal – a blanket ‘restrictive covenant’ was never even something that was codified before the civil rights movement and desegregation (don’t hold me to that as a blanket statement; I mean that restrictive covenants were never really needed until there was a collective push to integrate). It was always just understood as an organic piece of society that people lived among their own groups. Whites, for instance, went one way and blacks went another. They didn’t live among each other. And actually, at one point it wasn’t so much a restrictive covenant as much as it was just the tacit threat of violence if a person of an outside group moved into the neighborhood.
It’s amazing how so many of these answers/theories center around sex and dating. It would be hard to have a high opinion of women if they really did predicate their political philosophy on “hooklng up.”
“Why are there so few female libertarians?”
Here is why:
“Sisters love the state.
Andrew Kohut, head of the Pew Research Center, dates the statism of American women to the 1980s, a function of “Ronald Reagan’s assertive foreign policy,” but also of the female affinity for bigger government. Kohut confirms that, “Then, as now, women [have] tended to favor a larger role for government programs than do men.”
John Derbyshire traces remarks about the ladies’ lack of proclivity for liberty to 391 B.C. “That was the year Aristophanes staged his play ‘The Assemblywomen,’” Derbyshire documents in “We are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism.” “In the play, the women of Athens, disguised as men, take over the assembly and vote themselves into power. Once in charge, they institute a program of pure socialism.”
“George Orwell, whose insights into these matters were very deep, also noticed this. He has Winston Smith, the protagonist of ’1984,’ observe: ‘It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of orthodoxy’” (p. 88).
Having lived in communist China “in the years just after Mao,” Derbyshire seconds Orwell. “If you wanted to hear… utterly unreflective parroting of the Party line, a woman was always your best bet.”
(ILANA MERCER, “Flule’s no Fluke – Sisters Love Uncle Sam,” World Net Daily, March 8, 2012).
More details here:
1. JOHN R LOTT Jr and LAWRENCE W KENNY: “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. CVII, N°. 6, 1999.
2. TIAGO DE CAVALCANTI and JOSÉ TAVARES: “Women Prefer Larger Governments – Growth, Structural Transformation and Government Size,” Economic Inquiry, Vol. XLIX, N°. 1, January 2011.
3. JOHN R LOTT Jr: “Women’s Suffrage Over Time,” Washington Times, November 27, 2007.
Fewer women are autistic.
The issue is always that women seek to be supported, and seek mutual aid, above any type of personal responsibility; indeed, personal responsibility is seen as “cruel” and “inhuman” – unless the individuals in question are not providing resources to them, in which case maximum cruelty and inhumanity are almost required.
The libertarian simply substitutes “white man’s government” for the radical liberal’s “white man” and then hates away.
Libertarians are just another type of radical liberationist whose object of hate is a white collective as opposed to the white individual.
Females hate much better at the local level and so libertarianism only offers the opportunity to hate in a distant abstract manner that is not emotionally alluring to said females.
Matt Ridley, in a WS op-ed, notes the following:
“”"Perhaps more intriguingly, when libertarians reacted to moral dilemmas and in other tests, they displayed less emotion, less empathy and less disgust than either conservatives or liberals. They appeared to use “cold” calculation to reach utilitarian conclusions about whether (for instance) to save lives by sacrificing fewer lives. They reached correct, rather than intuitive, answers to math and logic problems, and they enjoyed “effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks” more than others do.
The researchers found that libertarians had the most “masculine” psychological profile, while liberals had the most feminine, and these results held up even when they examined each gender separately, which “may explain why libertarianism appeals to men more than women.”"”"
Via http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358804578016291138331904.html
thordaddy,
i’d be interested to see where any prominent libertarian has said anything about dismantling the “white” collective. perhaps they want to dismantle collectivism which happens to be made up of whites, but the racial aspect is not essential to libertarianism. it’s more a matter of favoring liberty above everything else and then reaching these conclusions which challenge the collectivism in its various forms.
for instance, i’m somewhat libertarian but i certainly don’t hate white people. but i’m somewhat anti-authoritarian and i don’t really play well with others. so i resist groupification to a degree. makes it hard for me to fall in line with conservatives, and i also don’t get behind the collectivism behind liberal-progressive multiculturalism. but none of this has to do with race or seeking to usurp anything about my own race.
some of you are going too far without any proof or sound argument that libertarianism is inherently anti-white.
…it’s more a matter of favoring liberty above everything else…
Mr. Rudd,
This is radical liberation, by definition. So you are conceding that “libertarianism” is just a PARTICULAR variant of radical liberation.
But what makes “libertarianism” particular is the question? Its radicalness is already snuggled nicely inside your above statement.
What makes “libertarianism” particular as contrasted against PURE radical liberation, i.e., SELF-annihilation, is the target of hate. Libertarians don’t just hate government as the radical liberal hates “white man,” the libertarian hates OUR government as the radical liberal hates OUR “white man.” Ron Paul spoke to this reality.
Females hate locally. White libertarian males (doubly redundant I declare) hate more abstractly. Our females hate OUR “white man” most and your average white libertarian male hates OUR “white government” the most. That’s the particular characteristic of “libertarianism” that defines it from just pure radical liberationism. It also explains why females aren’t drawn to libertarianism and white males are.
Remember, white female liberals and white male liberals have no real fundamental alliance even as they share a fundamental nature.
CR:
“perhaps they want to dismantle collectivism which happens to be made up of whites, but the racial aspect is not essential to libertarianism”
giving some of them the benefit of the doubt, i’ll agree that they can be motivated by a pure philosophy of anti-collectivism, but in a diverse and rapidly diversifying society, anti-collectivism amounts in practice to anti-whiteism. and at least a few of them know it.
and i don’t give the majority of libertardians the benefit of the doubt, not when you have prominent mouthpieces like caplan and wilkinson so brazenly flashing their anti-white cred and ready to jump down the throats of whites who dare question the cathedral narrative, all while giving pro-collectivist minorities a plenary indulgence.
and i say this as someone who is also reflexively anti-authoritarian. modern libertarianism of the kind preached by popular pundits (ron paul aside) is an amalgam of the worst of both social atomization and anti-white multicult. it is the death harbinger of nations. in a homogeneous culture, a diluted version of libertarianism can work. in a stew of competing races and sub-races, pure libertarianism, if it were able to overcome its inherent oddity impression with voters (and Ls should ask themselves why that is), is a recipe for runaway externalities of the sort that would make mad max seem like a vacation getaway.
Mr. Rudd,
In the radically liberated society, “libertarianism” will be defined by those who choose to define it relentlessly in the manner they see fit. The question then becomes a matter of identifying the ground upon which the relentless definer of “libertarianism” stands. By the mandates of your own confessed paradigm, the ground on which the “libertarian” stands, from where he then defines “libertarianism,” is one of constant flux. Which is to say that his perception of reality is in constant flux unless he has found some mechanism in which he can detach from his fluctuating grounding and “stand still” enough to contemplate his particular nature AS “libertarian.” What he must conclude IS THAT HE CANNOT MAKE SUCH A DETACHMENT and still BE “libertarian.” A fluctuating grounding (perpetual uncertainty about reality) is the ESSENCE of the “libertarian.”
Still…To live, he must manifest concretely even if only for split seconds at a time.
And yet, being a professionally prominent “reflexively anti-authoritarian” blogger is self-refuting.
@Heartiste
“modern libertarianism of the kind preached by popular pundits (ron paul aside) is an amalgam of the worst of both social atomization and anti-white multicult. it is the death harbinger of nations. in a homogeneous culture, a diluted version of libertarianism can work. in a stew of competing races and sub-races, pure libertarianism, if it were able to overcome its inherent oddity impression with voters (and Ls should ask themselves why that is), is a recipe for runaway externalities of the sort that would make mad max seem like a vacation getaway.”
This is a reasonable argument. Ideologically speaking, what’s so bad about the death of nations, or short or even medium-term anarchy? National boundaries are tribal agreements based on exhaustible trading opportunities and the cultures that arise from their exploitation, so they’re temporary propositions at best. In a free market the externalities you mention are dampening oscillations that eventually regress to the mean. The mean is the ideological end point. Some would say it’s a vanishing point but every political position must begin with the assumption that the end can be achieved, and also that the end justifies the means. This changes the debate to one about management capabilities and methods rather than ideological soundness.
Libertarianism, with careful management of the consequences of ideological impurities, is an utterly reasonable political proposition. When one thinks on it deeply, it’s the ideology that sits closest to the heart of Honest Man.
“And yet, being a professionally prominent “reflexively anti-authoritarian” blogger is self-refuting.”
Truth. Here.
“what’s so bad about the death of nations”
Everything.
PS: are you Jewish?
Heartiste speaks to the wisdom that comes from actually knowing real people and how they act. Nerds at computers just never get there. You have to experience it.
“in a homogeneous culture, a diluted version of libertarianism can work.”
Libertarianism can only work in white cultures because it requires a certain cognitive profile. You need to have a high average IQ, good conscientiousness, and sufficient generations of out breeding (no cousin fucking) to break down hyper tribal impulses. A unique group of NW Europeans fit that profile and for a brief period in time (a century or two is certainly brief) they formed the closest thing to libertarian societies we’ve ever seen and conquered the globe (and while they did it there was plenty of non libertarianism in the system, hint: racism).
Libertarianism falls apart when you take it too seriously. It falls apart especially fast when you live in a world where there is a first world and third world and civilized and uncivilized races. Because libertarianism, taken to its non-force initiation logical conclusion, collapses in on itself.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/10/24 « Free Northerner
Here is a good article that outlines a study of Libertarian Morality: http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/the-science-of-libertarian. Amongst other things it describes how Libertarians are typically less emotional than the members of the other parties. That adds up for me since I’m a female Libertarian and have always felt like I was missing an emotional element to my personality. It’s a good article.
Ulysses, in the market you describe there wouldn’t be “public television”. I hate to say it but you are a complete moron for letting that slip. If you don’t understand something, don’t comment on it. That’s just one example of the idiocy exhibited in these comments. And Frankly, what would be wrong with porn on tv? Any kid who seriously wants it can get it anyways, unless of course his parents are complete helicopters. If that is the case, they can just as easily not have that piped into their tv, or if they are so damn worried about it, they don’t even have to own a tv. Or by “public television” did you mean every household has a guaranteed right to a tv set?
Holy fuck, kmhd f2f
cc dgjnvddh, don’t be dense. I accidentally wrote public instead of network, but your mighty strawman assault nicely illustrates how socially inept average libertarians are. Go back to planning a floating Galt’s Gulch.
Apparently I mashed out an emoticon while swyping random letters.
It is not a straw man (a floating Galt’s Gulch may be though). You just like saying those words, don’t you? They make you feel smart. How am I dense for taking your words at face value? One would tend to think that someone who uses the wrong word when trying to show everyone else how smart they are by refuting pure free markets with the pornography canard is truly the dense one. Regardless, I was merely using your poor choice of words to suggest that you like to act first and think later. You have yet to prove me wrong in that thought and I remain open minded on that. It is really up to you. The rest of what I said still stands as well. It is in fact the bulk of my argument. Perhaps you chose to ignore it because you can’t argue with it.
Well, I did say that everyone should be guaranteed a television and I didn’t even address that flaw in my argument. But the notion of a pure free market solving ills is an idol (and incidentally the source of my seasteading joke.) The black market in drugs, for example, doesn’t guarantee that cocaine is untouched. Supply and demand produces price equilibrium, but it doesn’t guarantee anything else. Sure, the shitty dealer will be forced out by the market if he causes harm, but only after the harm is done. As cocaine is inherently risky, that doesn’t necessarily translate to normal transactions and it can be argued that the illegality of it serves as a form of regulation. None of that changes the fact that markets alone cannot provide the norms and mores necessary to a healthy society. As Heartiste wrote above, modern libertarians are too hung up on a theory and “unable to grasp a corrective view grounded in a realistic appraisal of immutable human nature.” Markets don’t change people, no matter how much you want it to be true.
So now you are a doctor? Okay, I buy that. Did you really say everyone should have a free tv set or are you being sarcastic? Just one thing: the black market in drugs guarantees not only that cocaine is touched but that bogeyman drugs like methamphetamines, something that would never exist were in not for the prohibition of much less harmful drugs. I agree with you that the free market, at least how you and I have agreed to define it does not solve all of societies ills. But this much is also true: regulation and prohibition don’t either. Not only that but they serve to cause many of them. There is no utopia, not on dry land, not on a seastead. Human nature is what it is and is best left to the individuals involved to pick up the pieces. Some people would say this is part of the free market, but at that point we are getting into semantics. More of my take on this can be found here: http://keimh3regpeh2umeg.wordpress.com/articles/human-action/ and here: http://keimh3regpeh2umeg.wordpress.com/articles/joseph-schumpeters-anti-utopian-quotation/ and I apologize in advance if the second one seems completely whacked out. There was a lot of inside baseball going on with that one. Cheers.
Edit: Just one thing: the black market in drugs guarantees not only that cocaine is touched but that bogeyman drugs like methamphetamines, something that would never exist were in not for the prohibition of much less harmful drugs, are as well.
Pingback: LIGFY: The End Of October And UMan | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
CATO is more conservative then libertarian. Other Libertarian groups say libertarians are mostly women and they’re also stongly represented among minorities in the US and Hi-IQ. See http://www.libertarianinternational.org
Pingback: The Gender Pot Gap « Gucci Little Piggy
I like being agreed with. Especially when my comments had previously fell on deaf ears. Cheers Edward.